Draft Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024
Draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024
Draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024, the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 and the draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Tulip Siddiq
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The regulations that we are introducing today will ensure effective, proportionate regulation for the financial sector by laying the groundwork for wholesale reform of consumer disclosure for financial services, and for effective prudential arrangements.
Let me turn first to the draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024. The packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regulation, or PRIIPs regulation, was designed to standardise disclosure across a wide range of financial instruments and across the EU in an attempt to improve transparency and enable comparison between products for retail investors. However, as many Members will be aware, the regime was overly prescriptive and burdensome with the one-size-fits-all template of the key information document, or KID, resulting in the presentation of misleading information to consumers on potential risks and returns. The previous Government took urgent action to address the most pressing issues with the KID in the Financial Services Act 2021, and the draft statutory instrument will deliver on this Government’s commitment to wholesale reform of these EU-inherited rules, with a new regime tailored to UK markets and firms.
The SI provides the Financial Conduct Authority with tailored rule-making and enforcement powers to deliver this long-called-for reform and to ensure its effective implementation. The new regime for CCIs will have tailored and flexible rules that address the key issues with PRIIPs and will support investors to better understand what they are paying for. The FCA’s consultation later this year will provide an opportunity for a full range of stakeholders to provide feedback on the new regime to ensure that it works as intended.
I return to the draft Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. I have heard concerns from industry about PRIIPs. The current disclosure requirements have had unintended consequences on the investment trust sector specifically. Listed investment trusts are a British invention dating back 150 years, and they are unique to our country. Representing over 30% of the FTSE 250, and predominantly investing in illiquid assets—including infrastructure projects and renewables—they play an active role in supporting the Government’s growth agenda.
Investment trusts are a unique and well established type of closed-ended investment vehicle, and the Government recognise that the prescriptive cost disclosure methodology required by the PRIIPs regulation does not reflect the actual cost of investing in these close-ended funds. The industry has told us again and again that the methodology is negatively impacting its ability to fundraise, and competitiveness. Therefore, this instrument will immediately exempt listed investment trusts from the current PRIIPs regulation and other relevant assimilated law as we finalise the replacement CCI regime, delivering on a key industry ask.
We have worked quickly to deliver these changes and firms are able to take advantage of this provision immediately, before the legislation takes effect, due to the FCA’s regulatory forbearance. This approach is intended as an interim measure, and investment trusts will be included within the scope of the new CCI regime, once it is in place. The FCA, recognising that the pace of legislative reform can be slow, has already implemented regulatory forbearance so that firms can take advantage of the provision immediately, before the instrument takes effect. In the long term, investment trusts will follow bespoke and tailored rules befitting the industry, and I encourage all sides to come together to find a sensible solution under the CCI regime.
Let me now turn to the draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which make two amendments. The first is a technical change supporting the implementation of Basel 3.1, the final round of bank capital reforms following the global financial crisis. Bank capital rules are contained in the capital requirements regulation, part of assimilated law on financial services. This SI will enable revocations of these regulations, allowing the Prudential Regulation Authority to replace those rules in its rulebook, while ensuring that the PRA’s rule making remains subject to appropriate accountability and scrutiny.
The second amendment will expand the definition of a “recognised exchange”, from referring only to domestic investment exchanges to include those from overseas. This will enable stocks and shares from qualifying overseas exchanges to receive preferential prudential treatment when used as collateral to secure financial services, and will broaden our definition, making the UK comparable with international counterparts and ensuring that we are competitive.
Finally, the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 extend a temporary arrangement allowing UK banks to treat EU securitisation products as though they originate from the UK, providing that they meet the standards of the “simple, transparent and standardised” framework. This means that banks and insurance firms holding such products may be able to benefit from preferential capital treatment. The current arrangement is due to expire at the end of December 2024, which would mean that no additional EU STS securitisations would be able to enter the temporary arrangement after that date. As that could impact the range of investment options for UK market participants, the Government are legislating to extend this arrangement to June 2026.
The EU securitisation regulation was recently incorporated into the European economic area agreement, and the EEA-European Free Trade Association states have indicated their intention to align themselves with the EU securitisation regulations over the course of 2025. The extension granted by this instrument will allow time for the EEA-EFTA states to implement these changes and for UK authorities to make a more informed decision about the non-time limited designation of EU STS securitisation products by June 2026.
These SIs will empower regulators to ensure that our financial services industry is subject to a rulebook that is fit for purpose, more proportionate, and tailored to UK markets. I know that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne is familiar with the regulations, as I have debated with him several times in Committee. I hope that he and the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to them.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to see you in your place and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I also welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her place. I have spent many hours with her in these rooms, and that may or may not continue—we will find out soon.
The UK is one of the world’s leading financial centres and our financial services sector is one of the great engines of our economy. We should never forget that the sector employs some 2.3 million people, two thirds of whom are based outside of London—a slightly underappreciated fact about the sector.
Investment trusts are currently subject to disclosure requirements under the EU-inherited packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regulation—or PRIIPs, which is much easier to say—regulation, alongside other assimilated EU legislation. Ensuring that retail investors can make informed investment decisions is crucial for maintaining healthy capital markets. Industry leaders widely agree that the single aggregated figure currently produced under these EU-inherited rules fails to accurately reflect the true cost of investing in shares of an investment trust. The previous Government recognised those concerns completely and launched a consultation on a proposed alternative framework for retail disclosure in the UK. This consultation was designed to ensure that, following the repeal of the PRIIPs regulation, the new framework would be better aligned with the UK’s dynamic capital markets and foster more informed retail participation.
As the Minister quite rightly set out, the draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024 replaced assimilated law relating to PRIIPs regulation, establishing a new legislative framework for the regulation of consumer composite investments. Replacing those assimilated laws was a crucial part of the previous Government’s plans to develop a smarter regulatory framework.
The draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 extend a temporary arrangement, granting preferential prudential treatment for EU origin STS securitisations, and the draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 make amendments to primary legislation in connection with the revocation by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 of the EU capital requirements regulation, which currently forms part of assimilated law on financial services.
All that is a long way of saying that His Majesty’s Opposition welcome these draft regulations, and hope that they will provide listed investment companies with the long-term regulatory certainty that they need. However, I will end by saying that the financial services sector thrives on stability and predictability, and I am deeply concerned that such certainty will be undermined by the recent Budget of broken promises and betrayal, though I am happy to leave those discussions for another day.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the shadow Minister—or perhaps temporary shadow Minister—for his support and associate myself with his comments about the financial services sector. It is a success story of our country. During the passage of the legislation that is now the Financial Services and Markets Act, he and I talked often about the importance of the financial services sector to the overall economy, but I will not associate myself with his comments on the Budget or rise to anything he says in that regard!
These SIs represents an important step in our approach to regulation for financial services, which we want to be proportionate, effective and tailored to the UK. We want to get the best out of our financial services sector. I encourage all interested parties to engage with the FCA as it consults on the proposed CCI regime later this year, because it is important to hear from the industry and ensure that we make regulation according to what it will thrive on.
I thank the Committee for listening to me speak for quite a long time. If Members have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. I thank the shadow Minister, and I thank the Whips for organising us today.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT CONSUMER COMPOSITE INVESTMENTS (DESIGNATED ACTIVITIES) REGULATIONS 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024.—(Tulip Siddiq.)
DRAFT SECURITISATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.—(Tulip Siddiq.)
DRAFT PRUDENTIAL REGULATION OF CREDIT INSTITUTIONS (MEANING OF CRR RULES AND RECOGNISED EXCHANGE) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Tulip Siddiq.)
Draft Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The draft order is straightforward. It provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole area of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the city of Sheffield, as well as providing for consequential changes to corresponding ward and parish boundaries. The councils concerned both support the boundary change, as do the affected parish councils.
Before I go into the detail of the draft order, and with apologies, I must draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip that has been issued to correct minor drafting and formatting errors. First, it removes the phrase “Ministry for” where the order refers to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in the preamble; in article 2; in the signature box at the end of the order; and in the second and sixth paragraphs of the explanatory note. Secondly, it provides a clearer map of the boundary change for the explanatory note. A formatting issue meant that the map lacked clarity when it was inputted into the draft order. With the help of the statutory instrument registrars, the correction slip now enables the same map to be sufficiently clear and to cover a full page. Those minor errors in the original draft order have now been corrected. The substance of the order is unchanged, and I hope that the reformatted map provides greater clarity for those who read the order.
Few reviews of the external administrative boundaries of local authority areas in England have been carried out since 1992, so from time to time new developments and population changes have caused small-scale boundary anomalies between local authorities. In practice, local government will put in place informal arrangements to deal with such situations, but the very fact that they need to do so is not conducive to effective and convenient local government. Such anomalies can also impact perceptions of community identity: where residents do not feel, for whatever reason, part of a particular area, they may be less likely to take an interest in their council.
On 14 April 2022, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England received a formal request, made jointly by Barnsley council and Sheffield city council, for a review of the boundary in the area. Because the existing boundary runs along the River Don, the Oughtibridge Mill development has been split between the two councils. Both councils told the boundary commission that, because of the geography of the local communities and the existing road layout, the impact on service demand would mostly be felt by Sheffield city council, and that services would be better delivered by that council.
The boundary commission undertook a review of the boundary and consulted those affected, and a majority of the 19 responses supported the boundary change. Following the consultation, the commission’s final recommendation was to transfer to Sheffield the area of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development that is in Barnsley. Doing so would move a section of the councils’ shared boundary at the River Don so as to encapsulate the Oughtibridge Mill development of 12 existing and 284 future dwellings. There was also a recommendation to realign ward and parish boundaries. After receiving the final recommendations, the Secretary of State allowed four weeks for interested parties to make representations. The Department received none in that period.
The draft order provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised, so that the whole area of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the city of Sheffield.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have no objection to these entirely sensible proposals and will not seek to divide the Committee.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
How good it is to have your guidance, Mrs Harris, for our first legislative duty of the day. Today will be a busy one for all of us, with votes on the Budget and the ramifications of the US election competing in our minds for attention. While boundary changes may seem like minor political fare in comparison, it is important that we recognise that we are dealing with the fine grain of politics. People are affected at the most local level by the decisions we make.
I want to express my profound gratitude to our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and Rushden, for thinking of me as someone who just might be interested in the draft Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024. I know that many colleagues would willingly have supplanted me and usurped my duties on this Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee. I can only guess at why she so singularly favoured me with the appointment, but I trust that the length of the speech I am about to make will be sufficient to express to her just how appreciative I am that she allotted me this task.
Inevitably, boundary changes can be controversial. Sometimes we risk separating a region from its history. I do not know whether this is an old saying or just something I have been saying for a very long time, but scratch history and you find geography. Our history is moulded by our natural environment. Each region has its own that depends entirely on the fertility of its land, its proximity to the oceans, and trade routes and its access to fresh water and natural resources such as coal or precious metals. The boundary commission has the serious job of keeping our democracy relevant and connected to people, but sometimes, quite without wishing to, it can end up dividing the community and confusing future residents, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
The Minister made much of the fact that the draft order would affect only 12 households, and the final recommendations of the Barnsley and Sheffield principal area boundary review say:
“Our final recommendation to change the district boundary in this area currently affects 12 households”.
However, the recommendations also say that that figure will rise to 284 households by the time the development has been built. That is about 800 to 1,000 people. The Minister also said that no representations were made. Well, of course they were not; people have not yet moved into those 284 households, so how could they have been? That is why it falls to us here in Parliament to consider what those individuals, when they move in, might wish to know.
Let us look carefully at what will be at stake for those 284 families. Of course, we should be just as concerned were the draft order to affect only the current 12 families, but let us consider precisely what will divide those future families from their nearest neighbours in the other part of Oughtibridge Mill. The local authorities’ argument is that it would be more convenient administratively for them if the whole development came under Sheffield, but we ought to be more concerned with the families and what that might mean for them; the decision we take today will have a profound influence on their lives.
Any hon. Member who has looked carefully at the map of the area will have noticed that the part of the Oughtibridge Mill development currently under the jurisdiction of Barnsley council in the Penistone East ward is not only by far the larger part of the site—I would say it is about three to four times the size of the part in the Sheffield area—but actually separated from the residential area of Oughtibridge village by not one, but two major physical barriers.
The first barrier is the River Don, with only one narrow river crossing available to the whole Barnsley side of the estate. Any resident travelling from the eastern part of the development at the far end of Aspen Road who wanted to walk to the post office in Oughtibridge village would face a 1½-mile journey—a 3-mile round trip. But the River Don is not the biggest problem; there is also the A6102. Langsett Road North is a major road—in parts a four-lane highway—and runs parallel to the River Don. It is not a shared artery that binds the people on one side of a community to the people on the other; it is a road that forms a natural boundary and separates people. No doubt that double barrier was what the boundary commission was accounting for when it made its original proposal.
We must not assume that some of the 284 families would not rather enjoy being residents of Barnsley council and appreciate the vision of individuals such Councillor Sir Stephen Houghton CBE, who chairs the Barnsley 2030 strategy board, and Bob Kirton, his vice-chair. Their strategy is about “celebrating and championing” the borough as it progresses to 2030 and sets out some bold ambitions. In developing the Barnsley 2030 strategy, they have worked closely with communities, businesses and organisations across all sectors and with local councillors. In the strategy, it was confidently stated that
“our borough’s vision and ambitions represent everyone who has an interest in the future of Barnsley.”
When it was written, that included the people in the Oughtibridge Mill development. Who are we to deny those residents access to the bold and ambitious plan that these councillors speak of? The strategy concludes:
“We truly believe that together we can tell a better and shared story of our borough and we have a real opportunity to turn Barnsley into the place of possibilities.”
In passing this order, we would deny those possibilities to 284 families.
I live in the London borough of Brent, but I am only too aware of how many families in Brent prefer to say that they have a Harrow address. Indeed, many of them have a Harrow postcode to justify their little white lie. We have seen no impact assessment of what such a boundary change might do to the value of these properties in Barnsley and Sheffield.
Barry Gardiner
Indeed. I am talking about the effect on the future value of these properties. Residents who have moved in under one local authority may find the value of their property affected by its suddenly being designated under another. I must stress that I respect both councils and have no doubt that they look after their populations equally well, but we should have been provided with an impact assessment to show that there are such—
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Mrs Harris. We have heard from the Minister about the strong support of the two local authorities, and that has given us a great deal of detail to reflect on. On that basis, may I move that the Question be now put?
Jim McMahon
Thank you for that, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West for his contribution. Given his diligence in preparing for his speech, I am happy to recommend to the Whip that he joins us for future Delegated Legislation Committees. I thank members of the Committee for—
Barry Gardiner
On a point of order, Mrs Harris. A point of order was made and I believe a motion was made, but I did not hear any vote taken on the motion. I would have thought that that was the function of the Chair.
Jim McMahon
I do not have a great deal to say in rounding up, other than to reflect on the fact that the consultation included the residents who live in the Oughtibridge site at present, the majority of whom were in support of the move. On the 284 properties that will be brought into the wider development, I would say that most normal people—we are not among them, because we are talking about local government boundaries, which we care a lot about—live in places with identities that they feel connected to. I draw Members’ attention to the sales brochure for the site, which describes it as one of the most attractive developments in Sheffield, and to the fact that the development has a Sheffield address and a Sheffield postcode. I think most people moving into the new development will believe they are moving into Sheffield, and the draft order will allow them to enjoy the services of Sheffield city council.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Vaz. This instrument was laid before the House for consideration on 10 October this year. Its purpose is to implement arrangements under the Windsor framework announced in February last year. It provides for the introduction of the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme. The framework significantly improves on the arrangements under the original Northern Ireland protocol and represents an important step forward for the people of Northern Ireland. This Government have been very clear in their intention to secure new, better arrangements for sanitary and phytosanitary matters with the EU. We are clear that we want to continue to simplify that process in order to support those across the United Kingdom while protecting our internal market.
Turning to the statutory instrument itself, the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme will significantly simplify the requirements associated with moving pet dogs, cats and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It replaces single-use animal health certificates with a lifelong travel document that is free of charge and removes the need for costly pet-health treatments. Pet owners who travel frequently with their pets and those who rely on the service of an assistance dog to travel independently will benefit substantially from this change in approach.
The SI will also benefit the movement of pets for other reasons, such as the movement of young assistance dogs into Northern Ireland for training or of police or military working dogs from GB to Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that that benefit has been recognised by Guide Dogs UK, which has noted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates for assistance dog owners travelling into Northern Ireland. The SI also reaffirms the Government’s commitment to unfettered access: there will be no requirements whatsoever for pets from Northern Ireland beyond the need for a microchip, as is good practice already and in line with the Government’s approach to high animal welfare standards.
Finally, the SI empowers relevant competent authorities to carry out their respective responsibilities as part of the scheme in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That will ensure that the scheme is sufficiently robust and that those travelling with their pets have the best experience possible.
In summary, the instrument is essential in implementing the benefits of the Windsor framework, an international treaty negotiated by the last Government which this Government have committed to delivering in good faith. The Windsor framework is successfully restoring the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the burdens that have disrupted east-west trade, as well as safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. I hope Committee members agree that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme delivers significant benefits for pet owners and assistance dog users across the UK, and I urge all to support its implementation.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I agree that the statutory instrument represents an improvement on what has gone before. Pet-owning families will not be exposed to costly and time-consuming veterinary certification, nor will they have to ensure that animals are rabies-vaccinated or examined for tapeworms. I am glad to see that the regulations apply not only to cats and dogs, but to ferrets. As a former ferret owner, I am reassured that ferrets are being properly represented in this House.
The single document lasts a lifetime. I have personal experience of bringing a couple of dogs across the Irish sea, and being treated as coming from a third country brings significant costs and delays for pet owners. With these improvements, and in the interests of not creating increased uncertainty for pet owners across the country, I support these regulations. However, I am aware that a number of pet owners have some concerns, and I would like to seek reassurance and clarification from the Minister. A number of pet owners are deeply concerned that this change will prevent or hinder them from travelling freely to Northern Ireland, and I fear that has been exacerbated by the lack of a full public consultation. Will the Minister explain why a public consultation was not undertaken and what steps will she and the Department take to reassure pet owners more fully about the impact of these changes on them?
On a much more serious point, the regulatory regime that underpins this legislation is the responsibility of, and open to future amendments by, the European Union. Will the Minister reassure me that the European regulations to which these regulations operate in reference will continue to be monitored closely by His Majesty’s Government? Will the Government give an undertaking that this legislation will be revisited, should the underlying regulations change to the detriment of the UK and its citizens who want to travel to Northern Ireland?
It is also concerning that full EU entry requirements will remain in place for individuals moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, as if they were travelling from a third country. That implies that SPS border checks would be required between the Republic and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister clarify whether that is the case, and whether this statutory instrument introduces any measures to ensure that the Irish border—the land border between the north and south on the island of Ireland—remains without a physical border and without physical checks for pet owners?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I urge the Committee to reject these regulations. I take issue with the Minister saying that this is an improvement. The original propositions of the protocol were never implemented. The grace periods remain the current position, which is that no pet passports, no documentation and no requirement to be part of a pet scheme is needed to bring your pet from GB to the other part of the United Kingdom.
What these regulations do is impose a pet passport scheme. People must belong to a pet scheme and submit their dog, cat or ferret to documentary and identity checks on getting on the boat and on leaving the boat—all that is within the one country. All that is because, for the first time since Brexit, the EU has legislated for the United Kingdom. I want that to sink in. What these regulations do is impose EU regulation 2023/1231. Let me read the title of that measure, which is a regulation of the European Parliament, not of this Parliament, and of the Council:
“Regulation (EU) 2023/1231 on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland”.
These regulations impose that foreign-made regulation, made not for the EU—it is not applicable to the EU—but for this United Kingdom. How is it that we have got to the point that this Committee is expected merely to nod to legislation made not by this House, for this United Kingdom? It is not that it is imposing obligations unique to Northern Ireland; it is imposing obligations on GB citizens, who want to bring their pet to visit family, the Giant’s Causeway or the many tourist attractions in Northern Ireland. Now, courtesy of the demands of this foreign EU legislation, they must belong to a pet scheme, apply for and obtain a pet passport, subject their pet to document and identity checks, and then—and only then—can they move their pet internally within the United Kingdom. That is an astounding situation, and an astounding imposition on citizens of Great Britain.
As I read the regulations, that imposition extends even to guide dogs. Think about it. If someone who needs a guide dog comes from GB to visit a relative in my constituency or elsewhere, or the Giant’s Causeway in my constituency, they must have a pet passport. Why? Not because of regulations made by this House, but because legislation passed by the EU says that he or she must have one. Many guide dogs are reared in Northern Ireland for GB use. They are trained in Northern Ireland, and every one of them will be subject to this unnecessary regulation.
We are told that it is all to protect the EU market. We are told that we cannot have an SPS border where it should be—where the actual border is—but we must have it in the Irish sea. The farce of these regulations is that if someone brings their dog from GB to Northern Ireland, and wants to visit Donegal or Dublin across the border, then they must subject themselves to a full SPS border where we were told it cannot be—at the actual border. How farcical is that? We cannot have an SPS border where it should be. We must therefore impose restrictions on animals coming from GB to Northern Ireland, but if we take a dog onwards to the Republic, then yes, we are subject to full SPS checks. Where? Where we are told we cannot even have an SPS border.
The other dimension of the regulations, and the subservience that we are invited to submit ourselves to, is that if the EU is dissatisfied with the United Kingdom’s implementation of them, then under EU regulation, it can suspend them or take whatever steps it wishes. What this Parliament has been asked to do, on behalf of its citizens—primarily its GB citizens—is put them at the mercy of the EU’s regulations, not United Kingdom registration, which could allow their animal to be put into quarantine. Indeed, under the regulations, if an animal fails the document or identify check, it has to go into SPS custody. I assume that means it goes into quarantine, in its own country. Little wonder the other place debated these regulations. I have initiated an early-day motion for this House to debate them. I suspect it will not, but it certainly should, because they are a fundamental assault on basic freedoms.
The other point to stress is that most other things governed by the Irish sea border are governed under the pretext that they are commercial. This is the extension of the Irish sea border to the non-commercial movement of pets. Why should that be? We are told that this improves the present situation, but I have already explained why it does not: the present situation is free movement.
At present, cats and ferrets do not need to be microchipped—yes, dogs need to be microchipped, but not cats or ferrets. Under these regulations, cats, ferrets and dogs must all be microchipped to move within this United Kingdom. Frankly, that is a step far too far. The Committee should take a stand and say, “We cannot—we will not—put this upon our citizens.” Why should we, if all someone is doing is bringing their best friend—their dog—with them within the United Kingdom? That is why I invite the Committee not to approve the regulations.
I raise considerable concern that there was no impact assessment on the regulations on the fatuous grounds that they were less severe than they might have been— that is no comfort; there should have been an impact assessment—and because, equally fatuously, there is no impact on business. Of course there is not—the movements are non-commercial. It is all the worse that we have now got to the point where non-commercial movements are being dictated to us under regulations.
As the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham said, there was no public consultation. Why not? These regulations affect every dog, cat and ferret owner in Great Britain. Should there not have been a public consultation, particularly as they affect every guide dog owner? That is where it really cuts to the quick. I say to the Committee that the case is not made for these regulations and they should be taken back, because to go down this road is to take a step far too far in being subservient to a foreign Parliament telling us what people in this country can do with their dogs, cats and ferrets.
Emma Hardy
I am grateful for the contributions in today’s debate. I am confident that the Committee will agree that we could not have a debate about pets without the mention of some of our beloved pets—after all, we are a nation of animal lovers. This allows me to mention for the first time my two new kittens. My beloved cat, Thomas, became quite famous after being mentioned by me, but sadly passed away. We now have the terrible two, Meglatron and Lily, who are enjoying spending time with the family.
I will give Cats Protection a bit of a plug, having got my pets from them. In England, cats need to be microchipped before they are five months old. That has been a requirement since June 2024, so anyone who is seeking to get a cat from Cats Protection or anywhere else will find that it is a legal requirement for the cat to be microchipped.
Now that I have given my animals a shameless plug I will turn to the points made in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for agreeing to support the measure and for the tone of his remarks. I gently point out that, yes, there are not any checks at the moment, but that is because this is a continuation of the situation when we were a member of the European Union. We are no longer a member. Brexit has taken place, and with that came the Windsor framework. The aim of the original Northern Ireland protocol and the framework was to avoid the need for any hard border, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim knows, in the island of Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The scheme safeguards that position. The position that he advocates is one that does not exist—we are not a member of the European Union. We are fulfilling our requirements under the Windsor framework, because the Government believe in our international obligations. We believe in keeping our word and in fulfilling our obligations. When we make an agreement, as with the Windsor framework, we fulfil that agreement, and do everything we can to ensure that that is done in good faith.
As I have said, pets need to be microchipped. That is a legal requirement in England. It is considered good practice, and is part of the Government’s commitment to world-leading standards in companion animal welfare. The measure reflects existing requirements and practice.
On the question of public consultation, the UK Government have engaged comprehensively with interested stakeholders, and we used research from pet owners, ferry and airline companies operating travel routes between GB and Northern Ireland, and commercially owned pet microchip database operators in drafting the regulations. Guide Dogs UK, as I have mentioned, has highlighted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates for assistance dog owners travelling to Northern Ireland, as has the British Veterinary Association, and has outlined the fact that the arrangement will reduce paperwork for vets on pet health treatment. There is no change in the requirements on travel between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I reassure the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim that we will, of course, monitor everything closely. I hope that that offers him some reassurance—any changes will come back to the House.
In response to the suggestion that the scheme will be more burdensome for the public, the new arrangements will create a cheaper and smoother experience for people travelling with their pet from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, because it removes the need for pet health treatments. The scheme does not require pet health treatments that are costly because it recognises the rabies-free status of the UK. In addition, the pet travel document is free, simple and quick to apply for online, and lasts for the lifetime of the pet.
On the question of the checking regime, I must make it clear that Northern Ireland pet owners will not face any checks. There will be no checks for pets travelling from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and there will be no checks when ferries arrive in Northern Ireland. The scheme must ensure that GB pet owners have a valid pet travel document to mitigate abuse of the scheme. The new arrangement creates a smoother experience than the current legal requirements and is a significant improvement—this Government like to fulfil requirements —on those under the old Northern Ireland protocol. Those are the current legal requirements; the instrument improves on them.
The Windsor framework provides capacity for the smooth passage of goods and pets from Northern Ireland to Great Britain while protecting the integrity of the island of Ireland. The instrument implements arrangements agreed under the Windsor framework, significantly improving existing legal arrangements for pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
May I conclude by summarising the benefits of the new Northern Ireland pet travel scheme? It is a sustainable and durable framework for non-commercial pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It secures the smooth movement of pets within the UK and removes costs, pet health treatments and red tape. I thank all Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.