Farmers: Flooding Compensation
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, shall we hear from the Labour Front Bench and then my noble friend?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Baroness will be very well aware that there is a trade here between the environmental gains we are looking to enact and protecting our food production. One of the main aims of ELMS is to improve productivity, and a lot of the funding through ELMS is driving better productivity—higher yields from smaller areas of land—so that we can then allow land to be available for nature and improve our biodiversity.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I am a farmer and luckily my crops are all planted, but many farmers are not so lucky, with fields that have been underwater since October. Even fields that have not flooded are too wet now to plant. Many farmers find it very difficult to get any information on the flood recovery scheme and to know whether they are eligible. What are the Government going to do to help them?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The Rural Payments Agency is contacting all eligible farmers to remove the burden of the farmers themselves having to contact the RPA. The RPA has a range of measures to look at these issues—aerial photography, digital mapping and local knowledge—to assess who is eligible, and it will contact farmers directly. Any farmer who feels that they should be eligible and has not been contacted by the RPA may, of course, contact it directly.
Avian Influenza
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. Further to that, the previous but one Prime Minister made a commitment at UNGA—the United Nations General Assembly—that Britain will be part of an international effort to tackle zoonotic disease. This is a zoonotic disease although the risk to human health is described by experts as very low. Ultimately, it is the sort of thing for our new zoonotic research capabilities, working with other countries. We must be mindful that we are far from alone in this business. It is a very serious situation right across Europe, the United States and elsewhere. It is in the interest of all countries that we develop a response which deals with this in the long term. I am talking mainly today about the short-term issues that we are tackling but he is absolutely right to raise the matter of the funding that we have put in and the other measures that we are doing, working with countries around the world to make sure we are tackling this and other zoonotic diseases.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I have 16,000 birds at my farm and the problem is the compensation. It is being paid only for birds that remain alive at the time of culling. We have heard of delays in culling because of vets et cetera so there could be very few birds still alive when the vet arrives. A producer had 10,000 birds and had lost all but 200 by the time the vets arrived so there was no compensation for him. Will the Minister consider compensation being paid at the date the producer notifies the vets and not at the time when the vets arrive? This applies to the rules for foot and mouth, so why not make it the same time?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I totally take my noble friend’s point. We are talking about taxpayers’ money here and are deeply sympathetic to farmers who have been hit by this but also have responsibility to make sure that compensation is fair. I am sure that my noble friend’s flock is very well protected and that the systems of management there ensure that the chances of infection are very low. But that is not the case everywhere. The taxpayer will be forking out millions of pounds where there have been biosecurity breaches. I have seen some photographs and have had evidence of lamentable biosecurity measures in place in some really quite large poultry establishments, and of course that has had an effect on the outbreak. We have narrowed the time from notification to someone arriving and have changed the way that the compensation is applied. It is never going to be perfect. The problem we have here is that this is so highly pathogenic. The time from the first visual example of a bird having the disease to large numbers dying is very short. We are getting out there within 24 hours in nearly every case. We continue to try to speed that up, but my noble friend’s experience in this matter is invaluable to the House.
Eggs (England) Regulations 2021
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that consultation
“was undertaken as a joint consultation with the Scottish Government and Welsh Government. Northern Ireland is not involved in these amendments, due to the effects of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.”
I declare an interest as a member of the House of Lords sub-committee that is scrutinising the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and I have some questions in this regard. What does that mean in practice? Can eggs from GB be put on the market in Northern Ireland, and vice versa? Do these eggs have to be checked before they can be put on the market in Great Britain or Northern Ireland? That issue was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Living in Northern Ireland, I am very well aware that Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s sell quite a lot of products that come from GB. What will the nature of these checks be? Where will they be carried out?
I support the protocol and believe in its sustainability, but perhaps the Minister can advise on progress in the ongoing negotiations on the protocol between the UK and the EU, with particular reference to the SPS arrangements. That was one of the “non-papers” from the EU in relation to this issue.
As this is a domestic statutory instrument, it falls to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rather than our protocol committee to scrutinise it. What is the interaction between this statutory instrument and the protocol? Perhaps the Minister can give us some detail and clarity on that interaction and on the practical impact on the supply of eggs from GB to Northern Ireland and vice versa. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, eggs that travel from Northern Ireland to Britain enjoy unfettered access, so it would be good to get clarity on that.
It is important that the Government make a full analysis of the interaction of domestic primary and secondary legislation with the protocol. A lot of these statutory instruments come to us simply for information purposes, but we also get referred legislation from the EU that will affect and impact Northern Ireland on an ongoing basis. The Government have analysed the interaction of domestic primary and secondary legislation with the protocol. What has been done to ensure that that analysis takes place on an ongoing basis? If it is taking place, is it possible to publish the results and for a copy to be placed in the Library of both Houses?
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, we started out as an egg producer on our farm in Norfolk about 10 years ago. For the first few years, it was a reasonably profitable business, but as more farmers have come into the market that profitability has increasingly been reduced. It is all about supply and demand. As the number of producers has increased, margins have been squeezed. In the past few years, we have been seriously considering whether it is worth our while continuing in the business, but as we employ three local people and it is still just profitable, we have continued in the hope that egg prices will go up.
On the surface, these regulations look innocuous enough. They went out to consultation, and of the six respondents, who all look after the interests of UK food and egg producers, only one was prepared to agree with them. The other five argued that the checks should take place at the border. Many emphasised that this change should be reciprocated by the EU to benefit British egg producers and egg exporters. This has not happened—I do not know whether Defra even tried—so exports from the UK to Europe will be subject to the full range of EU checks and bureaucracy, thus raising the costs and reducing the competitiveness of our exports.
As things stand, these regulations will make things lopsided—or rather, one-sided—with EU imports of eggs into this country being exempt from checks, bureaucracy and costs at the border but our exports being fully subject to all the EU rules and costs. So no level playing field there then. To my mind, Defra has scored an own goal here in not supporting its own UK egg producers, who have the highest welfare standards in the world, while helping with the import of cheap, low-welfare eggs. Thanks a bunch. One has to wonder why.
After the initial consultation, Defra held a virtual meeting in September with the consultees, who were told—I find this unbelievable—that the Government want their support to facilitate importing cheap EU eggs to help feed the nation. You could not make it up. Here we have a Defra official asking the very bodies that look after the interests of UK food and egg producers to support flooding the UK market with cheap, low-standard foreign imports. With margins already tight, we egg producers need that like a hole in the head. No doubt the Government were concerned about the supply chain problems, the lack of HGV drivers and the prospect, circulated in the media, that there would be empty shelves in the supermarkets at Christmas, but here we have Defra saying that it wanted cheap imports of eggs and to hell with its own egg producers.
Defra went on to say that it wanted to ease the process, as border inspections would involve more time and costs for egg importers. As an egg producer, am I bothered? All these regulations will do is flood our market with cheap eggs and increase the pressure to reduce the price that we get, thus further squeezing our margins. I am told that, when the consultees explained to Defra that UK producers could easily produce enough eggs to feed the nation—we already produce 90% of our requirements—but that with these regulations they were going to be undercut by lower-standard, lower-cost imports, Defra responded by saying that the consultees were acting only in the interests of protecting UK producer profit margins. As an egg producer, I say, “What profit margins?” They are tight enough already.
Just whose side is Defra on? Quite clearly, it is not its UK food producers. The Government have a cheap food policy priority and an anti-producer, pro-consumer mentality that seems prevalent in Whitehall. Surely the Government, and a Tory one at that, ought to protect and promote their own food producers, which they expect to operate with ever-higher welfare standards, rather than to protect and promote cheap imports? The problem is that although we have a Defra Secretary of State, George Eustice, an Agriculture Minister, Victoria Prentis, and my noble friend Lord Benyon, who all have farming interests and all support British farming, we have a Government who do not.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Earl Cathcart ExcerptsTuesday 11th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh. When I was about nine or 10, my father took me from our home on the River Dart in Devon to Brixham harbour to watch the fishing fleet leaving port on the tide. There were dozens and dozens—it seemed like hundreds to me—of trawlers fanning out to sea to their favourite fishing spots. It is a sight that I have never forgotten. Of course, we will never see the like of that again, because since joining the Common Market, the size of our fishing fleet has reduced to only a fraction of what it was. Indeed, in the last 20 years 750 vessels—about half—have gone out of business. This has had a devastating effect on the way of life and jobs throughout UK harbours.
The common fisheries policy has been called the EU’s most unpopular and discredited policy, leaving the UK with only about 40% of the fish caught in its own waters. The Bill is about recovering the responsibility for the management of our fishing waters, which was lost to Brussels when we joined the Common Market. I support the Bill, which is also supported broadly by all the fishing organisations. Under international law, from 1 January 2021, the UK will become an independent coastal state and, as far as the EU is concerned, a separate country. As such, the UK will determine who may fish in UK waters and under what conditions, just as the EU will determine if UK trawlers may fish in EU waters and under what conditions. It will work both ways.
It is interesting that in money terms EU catches from UK waters are worth about five times as much as what our fleet catches in EU waters. One can understand why the EU wants a 25-year settlement based on the current quota system—in order, it says, to avoid economic dislocation for its continental fishermen and their communities. What a pity that Brussels was not just as concerned to avoid economic dislocation for our fishermen and their communities when we joined the common market.
I have no doubt that the negotiations will be difficult, but what if no agreement can be reached by January 2021? Under international law, the UK and EU fleets will be able to fish only in their own zones until an agreement is reached. This happens from time to time when there is an impasse in the annual negotiations between the EU and Norway—both fleets are restricted to their respective zones until agreement is reached.
As my noble friend Lord Dunlop said, last week the Prime Minister said that any agreement on fisheries
“must reflect the fact that the UK will be an independent coastal state from the end of this year, controlling our own waters.”
Interestingly, he has proposed annual negotiations, like those between the EU and Norway, to ensure that
“British fishing grounds are first and foremost for British boats.”
That is a good starting point. This Bill is about taking back control of our fishing waters. Quite what will be given away is anyone’s guess, and I am sure that the negotiations will be tricky. Already the EU is trying to link fishing with finance. But there are high expectations, as has been said, from the fishing communities that a deal will be reached which will ensure a reinvigorated and vibrant fishing industry with a sustainable future. By that I mean fish stocks, but I will have to read the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, again. I just trust that the fishing communities will not be too disappointed.
Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill
Earl Cathcart ExcerptsWednesday 29th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 28th January 2020 - (28 Jan 2020)
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I should say that I farm in Norfolk and that I am in receipt of these payments. As my noble friend Lord Gardiner has already so eloquently explained, when we leave the EU on Friday, the EU rules that allow these payments will no longer apply to Britain. Due to a peculiarity of EU basic payment funding, the 2020 payments are funded out of the EU’s 2021 budget year. As Britain will not be contributing to the EU’s 2021 budget, we must fund our 2020 basic payments ourselves, hence this Bill.
Obviously, I support this Bill. It maintains the status quo for British farmers and brings them some certainty, for one year anyway. I also congratulate the Government on accepting the Bew review, whereby the Government will maintain the payment allocations for 2020 to 2022 for farmers in England and Northern Ireland and give an uplift in funding for farmers in Scotland and Wales. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in a minute.
I am sure that noble Lords realise just how important these basic payments are to farmers. They account for about 60% of farm incomes, and more than 40% of farmers would make a loss without their basic payment, so this small Bill should be supported as it gives certainty to farmers, in the short term anyway, until such time as the rules change once the Agriculture Bill is enacted. There has been much criticism, including from farmers, that the EU basic payment scheme rewards farmers according to the size of their holding, rather than for the size of the benefit that farmers bring to the environment. The Agriculture Bill aims to address this.
With the best will in the world, farmers are naturally nervous about what the future will mean to them, as the details are very sketchy, but that debate is for another day.
Ash Dieback
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is why our work with the UK plant biosecurity alliance and the Horticultural Trades Association is so important in forming an assurance scheme that is precisely about growing more in Britain and having heightened biosecurity.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I have a high percentage of ash on my farm, but so far only a small percentage has been affected, which I find puzzling but gratifying. Given that ash dieback has now spread to all counties, what advice is Defra giving to those with ash on their land?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, a range. Obviously, health and safety issues are hugely important—this is why we are also working with local authorities—but in many parts we are encouraging landowners to retain their ash trees on farms, because that is how we will achieve natural regeneration. It will also highlight where we will find tolerance. It is essential to continue the research into finding the most tolerant strains—particularly bearing in mind emerald ash borer, which is also in Moscow.
Agricultural Subsidies
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Cathcart (Con)
Would my noble friend agree that such environmental work has been undertaken by many farmers over many years? Some of the work is paid and some is not—like mine. Would he agree that food production must remain the prime objective for farmers, although not at any cost, obviously?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend outlines the importance of harmony. The economic benefit of pollinators and riparian strips, for example, to UK fruit, vegetable and oilseed rape production is estimated to be between £600 million and £700 million GVA per annum, so he is absolutely right. Yes, there are many examples of farmers, whether paid or unpaid, who have done a lot of environmental work. What we want to do with the environmental land management system is to enhance the environment and work with farmers.
Brexit: Food Security
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is absolutely clear that we have been working on this matter of preparedness at the border for nearly two years. We have issued 106 specific technical notices to help businesses, citizens and consumers prepare. They are all available on GOV.UK. It is really important that there is confidence in our food supply—and there is. There always has been, because we have the supply chains. We are working with businesses and it is up to them: it is a matter of commercial decision as to what they do by way of their materials. But we are working extremely strongly with businesses so that there is a strong food supply.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, as a farmer I find the idea of food shortages if there is no deal both scaremongering and proven nonsense. Does my noble friend agree that domestic production plays a crucial role in our food security and that the high standards and quality of our produce is recognised both abroad and at home? Surely we should encourage people to buy British.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and my short reply to my noble friend is—yes to all three. It is very important to recognise that the UK’s current production-to-supply ratio is 60% for all food and 75% for indigenous-type foods. This is why we have a very strong domestic supply and other sources. We have excellent food in this country, which we are exporting to the degree of £22 billion last year—and, yes, we should buy British.
Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has already said why the voluntary take-up of CCTV has been disappointing. I am certain that this regulation will satisfy customers, consumers, retailers, certification/assurance scheme operators, NGOs and animal welfare organisations who have been pressing for CCTV in 100% of slaughterhouses. I should probably declare that I farm in Norfolk and we have livestock. We like to give all the livestock a really good life while they are with us on our farm, and when they go to meet their maker, we want that to be to the best possible standards, stress-free and humane. If that does not happen in slaughterhouses, perhaps CCTV will help.
I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is the cost and the second is the effective viewing or reviewing of the CCTV footage. I know that the Government think that the installation will cost only about £2,500 per slaughterhouse, but I think that is way too low. Even a small slaughterhouse needs about five CCTV cameras to ensure that all areas are covered. At £1,000 per camera, that alone will come to £5,000. I have been told that it will cost between £5,000 and £10,000 per slaughterhouse to install.
In 2012, it was reported in the Scottish Parliament that the cost of installing CCTV in a slaughterhouse in Scotland varied between £6,000 and £25,000. Whatever the cost, it will be considerably more than the Government’s £2,500. For small plants, that cost may be prohibitive, and that is not the only cost. There is also the annual cost of maintenance, which will vary according to the number of CCTV cameras and could be between £500 and £1,000 per annum. Then there is the cost of a secure, locked cabinet to store the 90 days of footage per camera to prevent tampering with the evidence. Then there is the cost of training and employing CCTV monitoring staff.
That brings me neatly to my second point: who, if anyone, will be viewing or reviewing the CCTV footage? Obviously where there is a known incident the relevant footage can be pulled out and looked at, but CCTV is really effective only if it is viewed or reviewed, and here is the rub. One of the limitations of CCTV is that it is rarely viewed or reviewed in a systematic, consistent and effective manner by the slaughterhouse operator, enforcement agencies or the official vet. If it were, considerable costs would be incurred in training the staff required to view the footage in real time—that is, as it is happening—or to review large amounts of footage from multiple cameras. Whether this is done by the slaughterhouse operator or the official vet, ultimately the cost will be borne by the slaughterhouse, which already balks at the hourly rate charged by the official vet—£70 to £80 an hour or around £600 for an eight-hour day.
Twenty years or so ago, there were probably six or eight slaughterhouses near my farm in Norfolk; now there is one large one quite near me. In the past 20 years, about 100 small slaughterhouses have shut down, as have a further 100 medium-sized ones. This does no good at all for the welfare of animals as they must now travel further to their final destination. I can understand the need for this regulation, but I hope that an unintended consequence will not be that more slaughterhouses have to close down.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, first, I will deal with the issue of cost. The costs of the CCTV equipment have dropped dramatically over the past seven or eight years. In many areas, they are a quarter of what they were. So it is quite probable that the estimates that have been given by the Government are not accurate, even though the ones that were given in Scotland will have been accurate at the time.
What drew me to this issue was paragraph 42 of the FAWC report of February 2015, where it says:
“Where examples of animal abuse have been brought to light … FBOs, AWOs and OVs”—
that is, food business operators, animal welfare officers and official veterinarians—
“have consistently asserted that they were unaware of such abusive practices”.
That is a shocking statement. Professionals went into slaughterhouses where the law was being breached, yet they were unaware of what was going on. I congratulate the Government on bringing in this extremely important measure, which I warmly welcome. I also welcome the policy position of my own party on this matter: the document produced by Sue Hayman, our spokesperson in the other place, which has come up with some fairly radical measures to deal with this problem in slaughterhouses.
In addition to that concern, I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum the following statement, in paragraph 8.1, under the heading “Consultation outcome”:
“The responses from slaughter industry bodies and abattoirs were more balanced”—
when I hear those words, I always think, “Oh yes, here it comes”—
“with a number arguing against the proposal on the basis of proportionality of application of the requirements to all slaughterhouses regardless of size or record of compliance and the length of time records should be retained for”;
in other words, there was opposition. I would like to know what the scale of the opposition was. Perhaps it is reflected in the fact that, as we were told before, only 50% of slaughterhouses have even introduced these cameras. In the case of the ones that have introduced them, we are told, as I think the Minister alluded to, in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“Moreover, those slaughterhouses that have installed CCTV have not generally installed cameras in all areas where live animals are kept and where animal welfare could be compromised”;
in other words, there is a real problem out there and I regard these regulations as a good attempt to deal with it.
However, I have one or two concerns. One is about the retention of documentation. The committee recommended three months. In this measure, is it nine months?
Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018
Earl Cathcart Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome this animal welfare regulation before us. I think that there are two of us here in Grand Committee who took the original Bill through, back in 2006, and I know we spent many hours on the Bill trying to get it right. Clearly, however, times have moved on—there was no such thing as buying and selling animals online in those days, which, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is a challenge.
I want to follow up on the last comment made, about breeding healthy dogs, because that is a huge problem. I do not know if it is so relevant in cats—it could well be—but it is certainly relevant for dogs. Therefore, I am glad to see it mentioned and hope that the Minister will be able to reinforce it. However, I have one question: what about some of the dogs that come in from abroad? Again, that is a question relating to their health and breeding.
In general terms, I welcome this improvement and tightening up of some of the regulations, and I know that a lot of outside bodies were consulted so that they could comment. I have four specific questions that I would like to raise about the document. I turn first to paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3, which states that anybody who wants to buy a cat or dog has to go in person to see it. But I am thinking of those who are housebound: in that situation, those who want a cat may not necessarily be able to go and see it. Has any thought been given to this? Could a carer or somebody else go on their behalf?
My second question relates to paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 4: why do boarded dogs require daily exercise only once but breeding dogs require it twice? It seems to me slightly strange that they are not both under the same regime, because surely they both need good exercise. However, I suspect that the Minister will have an answer.
My third question concerns Schedule 7, which talks about private persons who train or show one or more pets. This may not apply directly to farm animals, but many of us in the Grand Committee go to county shows where animals are shown. They are perhaps not trained in the technical sense, but they are trained to show. Originally, I presumed that they would not be classed as a business, but some of the animals at these shows become very valuable if they manage to win championships. I have not found an answer in what is before us as to whether they would qualify and need a licence, or whether they are not regarded as a business, although they might be a business. It is fairly fine line and I would be grateful for some clarification.
My last question, which has been picked up by other noble Lords, goes back to the responsibilities that have been placed on local authorities. I accept that local authorities are able to claim back and get full costs, but will those local authorities that do not have many demands on them under the regulations have different charging rates? I am sure that that is not the intention, but how will we overcome this? The best way forward is not clear to me. There is a responsibility on local authorities and the move from one year to three years will help to lessen the demands on people’s time and expertise, but I would be glad to hear some clarification from the Minister when he responds.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, when I was looking through the regulations, I was trying to see whether they would stamp out the bad practice of illegal, back-street puppy farming. I welcome the provisions on the eight-week period and viewing with the mother. I was also pleased to see that the regulations require non-commercial breeders to obtain a licence if they breed three or more litters per year, which is down from five or more previously. That will make it more difficult for breeders to claim that they are non-commercial in order to avoid having to have a licence.
Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment. It is not difficult to see that, if a breeder wanted to avoid this restriction, he could say that he owned two bitches, his wife owned another two bitches and each of his children owned two bitches. It would be impossible to prove otherwise. I think that the regulations have missed a trick. If the requirement for a licence for more than two litters per annum was applied not to the breeder but to the premises, it would be much more difficult to circumvent the rules. My question to the Minister is this: is there any way that the Government could add to “breeder” the words “and/or premises”, perhaps in the guidance notes to the local authorities?
Earl Cathcart
I am confused about one thing. It is not to do with the Minister’s response to my questions—for which I thank him—but my noble friend Lady Redfern referred to needing a licence for fewer than two litters and the Minister said that you need a licence if you are selling your puppies. In the Explanatory Notes it states that these regulations remove the existing exemption whereby someone who breeds from their own pet dog does not need a licence to sell puppies. So if one of my dogs has puppies and I want to sell a few, give them away or whatever, do I have to get a licence for that?