Protection and Management of Young Trees

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Let me begin by thanking organisations including the Woodland Trust, the Arboricultural Association, the Forestry Commission, Highways England, the Horticultural Trades Association and the National Forest Company, and Ness Champion, founder of the Biophilic Design Conference, for their engagement ahead of the debate.

I think most people like trees. I go around saying they are great—tree-mendous, indeed—so much so that my mum and dad got me an “I Spy Trees” book for Christmas, which I think will become somewhat easier to complete in the spring and summer months. Trees are woven into the very fabric of our nation, our culture and our heritage —the apple tree that sparked Newton’s revolutionary thinking on gravity; the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ tree, a symbol of solidarity and the birth of the trade union movement; Sherwood forest, immortalised by Robin Hood; and the famous 100 acres, home to Winnie-the-Pooh, Tigger and co. Trees are place-makers.

I recently visited a new development called Linmere, where trees are quite literally used to sell the place, with marketing material suggesting that residents

“stroll through tree-lined avenues and take in the nature around you.”

Everyone moving in gets their own new tree in the garden. Trees improve our lives. They improve our health, both physically and mentally. Urban trees, shrubs and hedges reduce exposure to air pollution by dispersing and capturing pollutants such as particulate matter and ozone. Collectively, urban woods in the UK do a brilliant job of removing an estimated 7.5 kilotonnes of pollutants every single year. Trees can also be lifesavers. Research suggests that increasing green space by just 1% in the most deprived urban neighbourhoods in England is linked to 37% fewer preventable deaths.

Trees also reduce flooding. I was struck when I visited a local school on a soggy day last year, when many homes and businesses had experienced flooding, and asked the headteacher whether the school had had any problems, and it had not. She pointed to the trees on the surrounding playing fields, which had intercepted the rainfall and absorbed so much water. Forest Research estimates that trees deliver over £400 million a year in flood protection. In the summer, the same trees offer vital shade. Crucially, our trees lock away carbon for decades or even centuries. UK woodlands store around 1 billion tonnes of carbon.

Despite all those brilliant benefits, as a nation we are under-treed—we are well below the European average. That makes us the second largest importer of timber in the world. I am delighted that the Government have pledged to plant three new national forests. The first, in the west of England, is under way, and next the Ox-Cam growth corridor will see growth of a different kind—from seed to sapling to forest. With £1 billion of investment in tree planting and forestry support over this Parliament, and tree planting at its highest rate in over 20 years, with 10,000 football pitches-worth planted last year, “plant, plant, plant” is a good mantra.

But we also need to think about something rather less catchy: “establish, establish, establish”. The first three to five years of a tree’s life are critical. That is when trees are most vulnerable to drought, damage, disease and death. Of course, tree and woodland creation will always involve some risk. There will be years when the weather means more trees do not make it, even when best practice is followed, but what we are seeing goes far beyond unavoidable loss—to the planet and the public purse.

University of Sheffield research found that only 61% of the trees meant to be present on new developments were there.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

[Alex Mayer]

The research found that 39% of the trees were missing or dead. Along the A14, National Highways planted over 860,000 trees in 2020, but the failure rate was 45%. More detailed evidence comes from the evaluation of urban tree planting across four cities—Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham and Leeds—covering trees planted between 2012 and 2022. The team says that just finding out what was planted and where was far harder than it should have been. Record keeping is not good. Even freedom of information requests did not yield data. “Do the trees exist?” they kept asking. Of the 820 expected trees, they discovered that only 687 were actually planted, so 23% of funded or required trees were never planted at all. Of those that were planted, only 42% were in good condition. Around one in five had died or been removed—we might call that a trage-tree—and nearly a third were in poor condition, showing stress, damage or inadequate growth. Very few were growing as we would want them to.

The National Audit Office reported that £48 million of Government investment went into the urban tree challenge fund. If these outcomes are representative, around £10 million of that investment may already have been lost—literally dead wood. This is not a marginal issue; it is a systemic value-for-money problem.

Why are these young trees dying? The research consistently points to similar causes: the wrong tree in the wrong place. I am struck by how often, especially in new builds, the trees are the responsibility of landscape gardeners. There can be a tendency to over-prioritise aesthetics, or even a rightful desire to create a sense of place, over choosing trees that will survive and thrive.

We need better species selection—the right tree in the right place for the right reason—with climate resilience built in. But even if it is in the right place, research shows that young trees are prone to damage from poorly managed stakes and ties, strimmer damage, soil compaction and, sadly, vandalism. Staking in particular is an issue. It should be a temporary support, not a permanent restraint, but there are too many examples of trees literally being strangled by ties that are far too tight and so restrict the natural expansion of the trunk, so as the tree grows, the ties cut into the bark, disrupting the flow of water and nutrients. Sometimes it simply is not anyone’s job to remove the stakes and ties after a year or so. We see on new developments that landscaping and management fees often do not translate into tree care at all and, in some cases, actively contribute to tree loss.

Another cause of early tree death is insufficient water because young trees are thirsty. Newly planted trees need to be watered two to three times a week. They knock back 50 to 100 pints each time. They need deep and regular soaking. Establishing trees need water once a week in dry weather. Watering in the first one to two years is one of the most important factors in whether a tree struggles long term or goes on to thrive.

What needs to change? I know that this Government are committed to early years, so do we perhaps need a best start tree hub as well where everybody learns about watering, mulching and formative pruning?

As I have outlined, the data is patchy. How do we do better as a nation? Does the Minister support mandated record keeping, minimum three-to-five year aftercare plans and reporting requirements tied to planning permission, grants and public contracts? In housing developments, should tree planting and aftercare contracts always be bundled together, so responsibility cannot be passed away? How do we better implement those planning conditions relating to aftercare?

I do not expect the Minister to be able to give me answers to all this; she may direct me to other Departments. That is important, as the issue of trees is not just for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it is also about housing, communities, transport, health and more. However, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently lacks an in-house tree expert. It has been over a decade since the Department had an arboriculturist role, which previously provided expertise on urban trees, including tree planting and tree preservation order regulations. The sector says that it feels that gap keenly. Will the Minister reassure me that the welcome England tree action plan will have cross-departmental buy-in? Will it contain best practice, including clear schedules for watering, mulching, pruning and monitoring?

Of course, much of that already exists, for example in the Arboricultural Association, which I know stands ready to support the Government, and Highways England, which learned from its A14 debacle—the survival rate for trees in its 3 Million Trees project now stands at 85%. Maybe there could also be a section on performance-related tree payments—bonds with sums released only when trees are established so that the reward comes not for trees that are planted, but for trees that thrive, so that aftercare can no longer be treated as an after- thought.

For the Government’s ambitions to flourish, we will need thriving tree nurseries. The excellent “Strong Roots” report has many recommendations to nurture the sector and increase the number of British-grown trees: for example, to better align tree supply with planting grants to give nurseries confidence to invest, so that we avoid situations like the Scottish Government cutting their forestry grant scheme budget by 41% back in 2024, and to boost training, apprenticeships and skills development in tree production. One thing that stood out to me was that the report suggests introducing a British-grown tree certification logo to strengthen market identity. I can very much imagine the Minister launching the “Great British Trees” logo, so I would love to hear her comments on that.

Tree planting without establishment is not climate action; it is waste. However, with simple policy changes, we can ensure that young trees survive, thrive and deliver the economic, environmental, social and economic benefits that we all know they promise.

Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

As I started the debate today I said how magnificent and majestic trees can add to an area. I agree with the hon. Member. We have to look after something that so enhances the beauty of our country.

I spend an increasing amount of my time battling with my local council about the most basic of maintenance work that needs to be done now. Drains being unblocked, roads being repaired and rivers dredged all feed into, when maintenance is not done properly, a bigger and more costly problem. I am sure many Members will share that experience. Maintenance must be a council’s priority, especially when it comes to the danger of trees. Too often local councillors treat maintenance work as a box-ticking exercise—a quick fix to get someone off their case while the future consequences of a bodged repair job or no repair job are not considered. Maintenance work is essential. It is not a “nice to have” or a nice little addition. It is essential. As we have seen, if it is not done, it has tragic consequences.

In the four weeks since Fiona launched the campaign for Chris’s law, 35,000 signatures have been gathered and the campaign has caught the attention of the media, too, from BBC Breakfast to BBC Radio 5 Live, and regional channels such as BBC North West and ITV Granada Reports. There is a mindshare among the public and the media that incidents of collapsing trees should not be occurring. Trees are a vital part of our daily lives, bringing many benefits to the environment and our wellbeing. Governments have spent millions of pounds planting trees, with the current Government pledging £800 million for this. But such an increase must be underpinned by a commitment to maintain the trees properly.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

With so many new-build estates that are home to young trees, where watering and aftercare are so essential, does the right hon. Member agree that any new guidance should have a large section with a focus on early years for trees as well?

[Esther McVey]

I will be asking the Minister for a meeting. This is specifically about older, ancient, decaying and dangerous trees, but I am quite sure the Minister will be considering all kinds of tree preservation, including during the early years.

When people walk through The Carrs now, they can find a memorial for Chris: a hand-carved wooden sculpture erected by his family in his memory. Visitors can scan a QR code to learn about Chris and the need for improved tree maintenance. It is a reminder of the tragedy that occurred and a testament to Fiona’s and Sam’s determination to use their profound grief to fight for change. We owe it to them to work collaboratively for this cause and push for clear standards for local authorities that cannot be skirted or sidelined. The issue extends far beyond Chris. We know that trees have a lifespan, and when and where they have been planted. Without maintenance work on these trees, there will be other tragic cases like Chris’s.

In closing, I thank the Minister for her time and ask whether she will meet Fiona and me to discuss Chris’s law, the best way forward and steps to resolve this issue, and work with us on a meaningful legislative change to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 706302 relating to the use of cages and crates for farmed animals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The petition is titled:

“End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals”,

and it was created by Dame Joanna Lumley. It has reached over 105,000 signatures, and it states:

“We think the UK Government must ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible. We think it should also ban the use of all cage and crates for all farmed animals including: farrowing crates for sows…individual calf pens…cages for other birds, including partridges, pheasants and quail…Every year in the UK, millions of farmed animals experience huge suffering confined in cages. From millions of laying hens unable to express their natural behaviours to mother pigs nursing their piglets confined in narrow crates, to calves, quail and game birds.”

Surely we cannot allow this to continue.

When polled, most people are against cages for farmed animals, and this debate provides an opportunity to highlight the seriousness of the issue and encourage a more rapid solution and approach to phasing cages out. For example, it must be viewed as positive that we have reached a figure of 80% for free-range chickens, and I will say more about that later.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It does not seem very long since we were last here talking about eggs and chickens, although I imagine it would feel much longer if we were stuck in a cage only the size of an A4 piece of paper. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to learn lessons from other countries, including Austria and Luxembourg, because our hens need as good and better standards?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I will cover that later in the debate. I must declare an interest: I hosted a drop-in event on farrowing crates earlier this month with Humane World for Animals UK. There was great interest in that event, and I am delighted to say that the turnout among Members was high.

The event raised awareness of the conditions in which sows are kept on some British pig farms. We had on display a replica life-size crate with a life-size animated pig to bring that to life, and to let people see how small the farrowing crate and confinement conditions are. These crates are barred, metal and often barren, and their cramped and unhygienic conditions can lead to disease and the overuse of antibiotics. A poll by Humane World for Animals found that about 73% of people in the UK had either never heard of farrowing crates or did not know very much about them. Hopefully, today’s debate will change that.

About 200,000 sows every year spend nearly a quarter of their lives in these farrowing stalls, which are so small that they cannot even turn around, nestle their piglets or express natural behaviours, such as rooting or nest-building. The crates prevent the sow from getting away from the piglets when they start biting her teats, so the piglets’ teeth are often ground down or clipped, which seems a very cruel practice.

The piglets are then removed when they are three to four weeks old, compared with how it would be in the wild, where a sow would feed piglets for up to 11 to 13 weeks. After a couple of weeks, the sow is inseminated again. Sows are likely to have two litters a year of 10 to 12 piglets and a breeding lifespan of three years before they are sold for slaughter, which is really quite miserable.

On a positive note, though, free farrowing systems exist, where sows are not confined during farrowing and lactation. These can allow the expression of nest-building behaviour, as well as free movement. Such systems make up about 40% of the industry. Group systems of zero confinement allow those expressions and free movement, and they can increase sows’ social interactions.

Although it is suggested that zero-confinement systems can increase crushing incidents, research has indicated that there is little difference in piglet mortality between those housed in loose farrowing systems and those in farrowing crates. The number of piglets crushed was higher in loose farrowing, but the number of piglets dying from other causes was higher in crates, so the mortality of piglets is related to other factors, such as size at birth, age of sow and season. One study from Denmark demonstrated that the factors that contributed to pre-weaning death in piglets were: being born into a litter with one or more stillborn litter mates; the number of litters farrowed by the sow; and possibly the time of the year.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this debate.

I last spoke about eggs in a debate just before Easter, but eggs are not just for Easter; they are for all year round. As other hon. Members have already said, we are still in a situation where the space that many hens have to live in is the same size as a piece of A4 paper. That is just not good enough. Such cages are known as “enriched cages”. The marketing people really earned their stripes that day, because I think that if we started calling them “confinement cages” we would go a long way towards stamping out this horrible practice.

I am very keen to hear from the Minister about the recent EU reset, because some of our European friends and neighbours already have better standards than us; indeed, some of them, for example Germany, are thinking of introducing even higher standards. Does that mean that there is now a real need for us to catch up? I would be keen to hear the Minister’s views.

I am also concerned about the welfare of lobsters—the first time that lobsters have got a mention today. I did a bit of googling last night and found out that it is possible to buy fresh lobsters on the open market. The advertisement that I saw said:

“Upon receipt of delivery, store your live lobsters in the fridge until ready to cook. Lobsters can be boiled, poached, grilled or barbecued.”

Imagine that referred to any other kind of animal. Imagine saying, “A live chicken or lamb will arrive; put it in the garden and then, as an amateur, smash its skull in and boil it alive.” Is that the kind of situation that we want to see, in a country that talks about being a nation of animal lovers? I would be keen to hear from the Minister whether that is something that he wants to get his claws into.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

We are moving ahead with alacrity, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for allowing us to do so. Without more ado, I call Sarah Dyke, the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate, although I fear she is not going to agree with what I am about to say.

Glass is one of the most used materials in the world—we have used it for thousands of years. In ancient times, glassmaking was viewed as mysterious and magical. It is a really special product and we use a lot of it in this country. I think that the extended producer responsibility is the right way to go. We are talking about recycling, reusing and reducing. There is a business in my constituency called ecoSIP, run by a man called Alex Taylor. He is a supporter of the EPR scheme; I suspect that the Minister will be pleased that there is a business that does support it. He wrote to me and said:

“We are supporters of the EPR scheme. We believe it forces companies to take responsibility for the emissions and waste that they create, and provides incentives to decarbonise.”

He is part of a UK-led green packaging revolution. It is happening in Leighton Buzzard, but also across the east of England—in Ipswich, for example—and right across our country. EcoSIP is on a mission to decarbonise the drinks industry with lightweight, low-carbon packaging. I have been to visit and I have seen the little packages used for its wine. Each pouch uses just 2.5 grams of material. Its packaging uses 90% less CO₂ than glass, yet the wine inside tastes just as good. We need to take that on board, not least because we are in the midst of a climate emergency.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Is my hon. Friend aware of Frugalpac, which produces wine containers in Ipswich, and is similarly trying to wean us off our reliance on glass and other unsustainable packaging and to offer green jobs in this country?

[Alex Mayer]

I am absolutely aware of Frugalpac in Ipswich. The east of England, where I am from, is leading the charge.

These modern green manufacturing organisations face certain issues. I urge the Minister to talk to other Departments as well, not least about the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, which I am told makes it illegal to sell 125 ml portions, which is what an average person would normally order as a glass of wine, in this modern packaging. There is stuff to be done, but luckily that is not a DEFRA thing.

There will always be a role for glass. It looks pretty—there is a bottle of it here. I love my Bonne Maman jars. We are never going to be able to turn an ecoSIP container into a candlestick holder. But we have to crack down on waste and boost recycling. The extended producer responsibility is an important first step, not least because it will also create 21,000 jobs and put a £10 billion investment into recycling, which is really welcome. In conclusion, I urge the Minister not to bottle it and to make sure that she goes full steam ahead.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We now move on to Front-Bench spokespeople, starting with Sarah Dyke for the Lib Dems.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The only thing I have anything against is the previous Government, who set up the scheme in the first place. They set it up in a way that meant that SFI ’22 and SFI ’23 were closed in exactly the same way. SFI ’24 is only different in one sense, in that it is now oversubscribed rather than undersubscribed. As a consequence, it would not have been possible to give notice because it would have led to a further spike in applications.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

As the Minister has just alluded to, the scheme is called SFI ’24. Might there be a clue in the title that makes this less surprising than people are saying, given that it is now 2025?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes a sensible point, which is that we saw a succession of schemes announced by the previous Government. I want to get to a scheme that will work for the long term. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the way the scheme was set up by the previous Government meant that it was first come, first served.

Fishing Industry

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed. I am not sure that the two things are directly related, but having spoken to the pollack fisherman I am under no illusion about how difficult the situation they face is. There was a series of reasons why they had particular problems.

We now have the opportunity to set our own objectives for the UK fishing industry. As I have already set out, we want a thriving, sustainable fishing industry in the future.

I will turn to our ongoing negotiations with the European Union. Fishing opportunities for 2025 for jointly managed stocks between the UK and EU are under negotiation as we speak. I suspect Members know this well, but it is an important and complex agreement covering 74 quota stocks and arrangements for non-quota stocks, too. In those negotiations, as in others, we balance the objectives of the Fisheries Act 2020 and the joint fisheries statement to achieve outcomes that can support both the environmental and economic sustainability of our fisheries. That has been referenced extensively, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), but we start with the best scientific advice, including advice on maximum sustainable yield where that is available.

Members have also raised the so-called UK-EU-Norway trilateral negotiations, which are also taking place as we speak, in Oslo. We are hoping that they will come to a conclusion before the end of the week. They secure around a third of the UK’s quota opportunities. The UK’s objectives will include following the scientific advice closely in setting those quotas and securing workable arrangements on northern shelf cod.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

In recent years, fish and chip shops have—excuse the pun—taken rather a battering. Will the Minister comment on what he is doing to ensure that my constituents, and indeed those of all Members, will be able to continue tucking into that tasty British staple?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the challenge facing the fish and chip shop sector. They are an iconic part of our national landscape, and they have indeed suffered heavily from rising costs. These negotiations are really important, but let us all send out a clear message of our strong support for the future of the UK fish and chip shop sector.

I will turn to the annual bilateral negotiations with Norway and the Faroes, which are also in progress; it is a busy time of year, as Members probably realise. Those negotiations focus on quota exchanges and access to each other’s waters. I made a point earlier about the Secretary of State wanting to encourage co-design. When he was appointed in July, he made it clear that he wanted to improve the way DEFRA engages with stakeholders, and put more emphasis on co-delivering its policies and programmes in partnership with them. In that spirit, I have asked sectoral groups for this year’s UK-Norway fisheries negotiations to send proposed quota exchanges to the Government, and if deemed viable, they will be presented to Norway. I am determined that we try to do things differently and make the co-delivery model work.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes will be listening closely to this point. I know that UK Fisheries, and Members representing constituencies around Humberside, will be particularly interested in those negotiations to secure distant water fishing opportunities. I value the contribution that UK Fisheries makes to the UK fisheries and seafood sector. It is an important part of the UK fishing industry, but we need to remember that the total allowable catch for Arctic cod—one of the main stocks that the company has historically targeted in the Arctic—has fallen dramatically in recent years. It is down by about 60% since 2021, and the TAC is now at its lowest level since the early ’90s. Securing a large amount of Arctic cod for that sector is extremely challenging against the backdrop of a rapidly declining stock.

There was also a reference, quite rightly, to the fisheries management plan programme; the hon. Member for Epping Forest asked me to say a bit about that. We are grateful for the support of the fishing sector and wider stakeholders in helping shape those plans. We completely support them and think they are the right way forward. They have been developed collaboratively with the industries, and they will play a crucial role in supporting the long-term sustainability of businesses and delivering growth in coastal communities.

It is interesting that the plans are now internationally recognised as a gold standard in managing fisheries; I give credit to the previous Government for their work on that. They protect, and, where necessary, set out to maintain or restore fish stocks to sustainable levels. We are currently consulting on our next batch of fisheries management plans. I acknowledge that it is sometimes a challenge for people in the sector to keep up with all the work, but it is important and we are committed to working closely with people to co-design sustainable fisheries management policies, including implementing the short, medium and long-term actions set out in some of those plans.

We laid our first fisheries management plan-related statutory instrument on 16 October. That implements actions from our first fisheries management plans, many of which included suggestions from the industry. Beyond that, we are also progressing a wider set of other fisheries management reforms that are in line with our own domestic priorities as an independent coastal state. That touches on some of the points that Members have raised: the way we manage discards and the introduction of remote electronic monitoring.

On the powerful points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest around cetacean catches, I absolutely share his concern. We are committed to continuing with remote electronic monitoring. It has started to be introduced. We think it has a real potential to transform how we get the better data that many Members have referred to. In the future it could inform the science, improve traceability and improve fisheries management. We are working to implement remote electronic monitoring in priority fisheries over the next five years. We will start with volunteers to design and test systems. We started work this summer with volunteers in the large pelagic trawl fishery on the Frank Bonefaas, the largest vessel in the fleet, primarily targeting mackerel, herring and blue whiting.

I very much hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about the concern that many of our constituents raise about the Faroe cetacean hunts. I assure him that Ministers continue to make that point strongly to our colleagues in the Faroes.