Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

The one thing that unites the House is that we all want to see successful conservation, but this Bill has always been about racism and neocolonialism. This Bill is questioned by science and by African countries. If anybody, no matter how much they think they love animals, is thinking about writing to me or contacting me about trophy hunting, I insist that they seriously consider what African representatives have said about both the Bill and the people who support it.

Over the last 22 years, 73 CITES-listed species of animal have been imported as hunting trophies. In the same period, the pet industry has traded in over 560 listed species. If hon. Members care about CITES, then perhaps the Bill should include pets as well.

I do not believe anybody in the House intends to be racist, but this Bill crosses the line. The Namibian Environment Minister, Pohamba Shifeta, has written to our Environment Secretary denouncing the Bill as

“regressive step towards neo-colonialism… Your bill implies that your judgments supersede our insights and expertise… Such unilateral actions, made without consultation and collaboration with us…challenges the sovereignty of nations like Namibia.”

We have talked about Botswana and I will quote what President Masisi says. It is worth remembering that Botswana had 50,000 elephants; it now has 130,000 elephants. The population increases year on year by about 5,000 elephants. Some 400 trophy hunting licences are issued, but those licences have never all been taken up. When President Masisi describes intervention in Africa’s wildlife as “a racist onslaught”—

[Peter Dowd]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am in the middle of a quote, but I think the President will forgive me for allowing the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House is perfectly entitled to make decisions having considered all the facts, not just selective facts? It can then decide that it does not want hunting trophies to be brought into this country, and it is perfectly entitled to make that decision.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

If I did not respect the House, I would not have bothered to turn up today, so I do not think that is a valid point. We must consider how we would feel if Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, South Africa or Zimbabwe were legislating on what we do here. Awkwardly for the hon. Gentleman, we are not banning trophy hunting in the UK. We are targeting CITES-listed species, but we do not seem to care that there are 5,000 such species, of which only a handful are actually relevant.

To continue, the Namibian Environment Minister, Pohamba Shifeta, says this is

“regressive step towards neo-colonialism”—

whether it is meant that way or not. He goes on to say,

“Your bill implies that your judgments supersede our insights”—

those of the people who actually look after these animals. He says:

“Such unilateral actions, made without consultation…challenges the sovereignty”.

President Masisi said that this is “a racist onslaught” from people who

“sit in the comfort of where they are and lecture us about the management of species they don’t have.”

He was not just speaking for himself. Last November, The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail reported that ordinary Africans share the President’s view. The paper quoted from a survey of 4,000 people in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe who said that the UK legislation was “racist” and “neocolonial”. That is what they are saying about us. Although I respect the sovereignty of this House, I would not like it if they said things like that about us, and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does.

[Peter Dowd]

I do not read The Times very often, but the hon. Member said that the African community leaders and conservationists he referred to rightly argue that it is not for us in the west to decide how they should manage their wildlife, and that that is why he cannot endorse the Bill. I am not telling them how to manage their wildlife, or demanding that they do it in a certain way. What I and many Members in this House are saying is that we do not want those disgusting trophies in this country. It is simple.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

The African countries find it appalling that British politicians show no concern for the African lives threatened by these animals. They are furious with the virtue-signalling proposals, which lack scientific credibility. Time and again, they return with the facts and they are completely ignored by hon. Members in this debate.

I will come on to what Oxford University said about the facts and figures given by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). This week, Botswana’s Minister for Environment and Tourism, along with the high commissioners of Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Botswana, came to this House to express their dissatisfaction with the Bill. This is significantly different from when my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) brought forward his Bill. There was no pushback from African countries then. Now we are seeing significant unhappiness from those countries about the Bill. DEFRA Ministers and their Labour shadows know that the high commissioners of the six African nations have jointly condemned the Bill as inexcusable meddling in Africa’s democratic affairs.

There are in the UK tens of thousands of trophy hunting animals that the Bill does not cover. If the UK hates trophy hunting, it should ban it here first. I do not particularly want to see that, but that is what people in Africa feel.

On Second Reading of last year’s Bill that proposed such a ban, the Minister told the Commons that its purpose was to reduce the “impossible pressures” on Africa’s wildlife. Other MPs argued that the measure would save thousands of animals from the barbaric and savage African practice of legal hunting. Indeed, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) used other such adjectives, but this is misleading. In fact, MPs’ statements on Second Reading were analysed in an Oxford University study, and 70% were deemed to be factually incorrect.

The Bill covers 6,000 species and most of those are not threatened by trophy hunting. Since 2000, the UK has imported about 1% of the species in the Bill—that is in 24 years. At least 20 species that the UK imports may be or are benefiting from trophy hunting. Rural Africa welcomes controlled legal hunting, as it helps to manage excessive herds and rogue animals. Furthermore, the fees that hunters pay bring significant amounts of cash into remote areas, where tourists and photo safaris cannot get to. This creates incentives for villagers to refrain from poisoning, snaring or shooting the animals.

Between 20% and 100% of concession fees usually go towards community land. Africans know that legal hunting reduces illegal hunting. It is the poaching, often funded by Chinese criminal gangs, that puts at critical risk the survival of the species that we all treasure. Those brutal gangs are indiscriminate in how many animals they kill. By contrast, legal hunting estates need and want to grow their herds to ensure the future of their businesses, and that is why they invest heavily in anti-poaching patrols. They provide the armed guards that are vital to protect these animals from gruesome deaths. This legal hunting operates under strict quotas, agreed by national Governments and the international regulator. As a result, the herds have flourished. One paper found that in Kenya, where hunting has long been banned, there has been a dramatic fall in wildlife numbers. Another study found that Botswana, which did ban hunting, saw a horrific surge in human-wildlife conflict, with a 593% increase in the discovery of elephant carcases. That disaster led to a quick reversal of the ban.

In 2016, briefings from the International Union for Conservation of Nature stated that

“legal, well regulated trophy hunting programs can, and do, play an important role in delivering benefits for both wildlife conservation and for the livelihoods and wellbeing of indigenous and local communities”.

In a letter to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Namibia’s Minister for Environment and Tourism said:

“We are most concerned about how this proposed law would undermine the finances of our Protected Areas and Conservancies… The lack of dedicated land and the protection which protected hunting pays for would critically undermine the survival of species which we all love.”

He went on to say:

“The implications of this legislation, therefore, extend far beyond what has become known as ‘trophy’ hunting, potentially impacting the livelihoods of rural communities that rely on the revenue it generates.”

A joint statement from southern African Government representatives in the UK opposed the Bill.

[Peter Dowd]

I think the hon. Gentleman indicated that only 1% of trophies have come to this country. If it is only 1%, enacting this piece of legislation will not make that much difference to those countries, will it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

It would make enough difference for the hon. Gentleman to turn up for the debate, and for me to do so. It would also make enough difference for all the representatives of those southern African countries who care about the creatures that we all purport to care about to say that the Bill is wrong. In fact, they said:

“If income streams from trophy hunting were substantially reduced—as would be the outcome of this Bill—land would be abandoned and subject to poaching, or converted to less biodiversity-friendly uses, such as agriculture and livestock production. Local communities who live near and with wildlife would suffer.”

I think it is pretty clear that they do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. The statement ends:

“Southern Africa’s track record on conservation is world-leading, and we use trophy hunting to do it. Let us continue to do so.”

I recognise that that is awkward for Opposition Members who care about animals, but the people who are responsible for those animals are telling us that we are wrong.

Botswana is the top country in the world for large animals, with Namibia second and Tanzania third. All three countries have paid hunting, which finances protected space and armed guards for those animals. The country that is 123rd in the world—that is us—is, in the words of David Attenborough, one of

“the most nature depleted countries in the world”.

We got rid of the last brown bear 1,000 years ago and our last wolves 264 years ago.

Africa’s human population has risen eightfold during our lifetimes, causing immense pressure on the land available for wildlife. That means that Africans increasingly come into conflict with big animals, which may eat their goats, threaten their children or trample their villages. Last year, Botswana’s Minister for Environment and Tourism started an article published in the Daily Mail by saying:

“Last month, I attended the funeral of two villagers in my homeland, Botswana. Both were in their teens, tragically killed by charging wild buffalo as they travelled to school and work. Sadly, this was not an isolated incident.”

She went on to say:

“believe me, I do understand the horror people feel when they see a photograph of a trophy hunting person posing beside a recent kill. Lion killings in particular seem to cause outrage among Britons, especially after the notorious shooting of Cecil the lion by a US trophy hunter in Zimbabwe in 2015. The widely circulated picture of Walter Palmer standing over Cecil’s body became emblematic of man’s destructive relationship with nature. Reasonable though this reaction is, it is a knee-jerk one. It fails to acknowledge that for many Africans, trophy hunting is vital for the local population. It is a wildlife conservation measure that generates income used to combat illegal poaching, support community development and enhance habitat protection. Sadly,”

she says, we

“all too often…focus solely on animal welfare at the expense of human life in Africa.”

I have thought carefully about the amendment that I intend to table. The Bill does not need to keep coming back in the way in which the right hon. Member for Warley has brought it back. My amendment will ensure that the Bill protects certain species, while recognising that other countries may be even better at managing conservation than we are. It will allow the Secretary of State to add or withdraw countries from a list of those that issue hunting licences and show sufficient levels of concern for conservation. Any hunting trophy obtained under licence in a country that was on the list would be exempt from the ban. Kenya would not be on the list, as it does not allow hunting and its wildlife numbers, sadly, have declined; but countries that do allow it and are doing a good job should be allowed to continue.

This Bill is being questioned by science and by African countries, and there is no excuse for blundering into inadvertent racism. If we want Africa’s big animals to survive into the future, I ask the House not to ignore the science and the misinformation that endangers the animals that we care the most about.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), but I cannot say that I agreed with a single word of his speech. He quoted David Attenborough, but David Attenborough has described trophy hunting as “incomprehensible” and certainly does not support it. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for presenting the Bill, to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for his earlier work, and to our departed friend Bob Blizzard, who did an enormous amount of work on this issue when he was a Member.

I wanted to make this short contribution because I had the privilege of going on safari when my wife and I visited Africa. It was the trip of a lifetime. If I ever have the chance to go back and do it again I do not think it will be the same trip, because the first experience of seeing these magnificent beasts in their own habitat is something you never forget. I want to impress that on the people who seek what I suppose is the “thrill” of murdering these beasts.

Within two hours of arriving at our camp, we were in a truck being taken to look at the wildlife. As we sat in that open-sided truck, a lion walked past the bottom of it; I could look down and see its back as it walked past me. I sat there and thought, “What the hell am I doing here?” There is no cage around the truck, but you trust entirely the stranger you have just met—the guide who takes you around—while a wild beast only a couple of metres away walks calmly past the truck.

The experience of getting close to those animals is something never to be forgotten, but the most memorable experience was seeing, beside the Chobe river in Botswana, a herd of elephants feeding at dusk, talking and grumbling to one another as they ate the reeds on the river bank. We got quite close to these huge beasts, and felt entirely safe. Indeed, we felt that we were privileged to be so close to them in their natural habitat.

The idea that anyone would go into that environment with a gun and slaughter those animals is beyond me. If you want to experience wildlife, don’t go murdering it; get up close to it and experience it in that way. I ask Members to imagine this for a minute. There were probably about a dozen people in our truck. If every one of us had a gun and went out slaughtering these animals, the effect across the species would be enormous, but when large numbers of us go to these countries armed with cameras rather than guns, the effect on their economies is enormous.

We have heard arguments today about being racist towards African countries, but it is not just about African countries. I have not heard anyone say we are being racist to Canadians by not wanting polar bears to be imported. In the words of David Attenborough, this is incomprehensible.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

I am going to give way once, but I do not want to take up too much time.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

The Canadian Government have not written to object—it is the African countries that object to this. I hope that was clear from what I said earlier.

[Clive Efford]

I am sure it was, but the hunting fraternity only contributes to a very tiny bit of those countries’ economies. What we seem to have heard today is an argument that without the enormous wealth of the people who go trophy hunting, conservation cannot be afforded. I just do not accept that that is a reasonable argument. Of course, people can pay; I would pay an enormous fee for the privilege of going to see these animals in their own habitats—and leave behind that fee in order to pay for conservation. There are ways that we can contribute to conservation that way outstrip the money that Members on the Conservative Benches have been talking about.

Let us be honest: the majority of the people who talked the Bill out in the other place were hereditary peers. That is the truth of it. The enormously privileged wealthy, calling this idea, which has enormous support from all the people, socialist—well, because it has the support of the people, it has to be socialist, doesn’t it? It has to be socialist, because commoners want it! How could the Conservative party possibly support a measure that is so socialist in its fundamental objectives? It is complete nonsense, but there is a species that perhaps we should be metaphorically hunting to extinction: the position of the hereditary peers and their ability to vote on laws in our country. That is an outdated anachronism that has to come to an end, and the person who starts that hunt will have my full backing.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pity that in a debate that should be about facts, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has allowed his prejudices to come to the fore. I do not think that helps his cause—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and I agreed that it shows that we are winning the argument, because the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues are having to resort to smearing Members of the other place. Those Members tabled perfectly reasonable amendments; the problem was that they ran out of time for discussion.

The previous Bill was amended in this place. That was only because my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire and I tabled a large number of amendments, which put pressure on the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), and the Government to accept some of those amendments. One of the amendments was to add what is now clause 4 of the Bill, and another was to remove from the Bill a Henry VIII clause allowing the subject matter to which the Bill would apply to be extended by statutory instrument without any proper consultation. This Bill is a better Bill than the one that was first introduced into this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, but it is still very defective. Certainly, I think it would be a much better Bill if the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire in his excellent speech were to be incorporated into its text.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

rose—

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will happily give way, if need be.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am most grateful—sorry, I was a little slow to intervene. As always, my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that we take any risk of racism away from this legislation, because at the end of the day, we are united in wanting better conservation.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That is what unites us. The disagreements across the House are on the means to the end. Everybody wants to have better conservation of endangered species and wildlife in Africa. Like the hon. Member for Eltham, I have had the privilege of going on safari in Africa—indeed, in South Africa—on two separate occasions. One was in about 1984, when it was pretty hard to find the wild animals we were looking for in the game reserves. When I went again, about 18 months ago, there was an abundance of rhinos, giraffes, elephants, lions, leopards and so on. We had the most amazing experience. People used their cameras, and they relied on the protection provided by the excellent team that looks after and conserves that safari park or game reserve.

We could see with our own eyes that people were trying to poach the animals that were being looked after, and the cost of anti-poaching measures is incredibly high. How will that cost be funded unless it is paid for by the people who are engaged in the conservation? One small means by which they raise funds is by allowing the collection of trophies, and almost all the trophies that are not kept in Africa are imported into the United States, Spain or Germany. Very few are brought into this country.

Whatever happens to this Bill, trophy hunting will continue—but it may not include the import of a small number of trophies into this country under a licensing and regulatory regime that has stood the test of time. Instead of regulation, we will have an outright ban. Why are we doing that? The 2021 impact assessment in respect of an earlier Bill said:

“Why is government intervention necessary? Government intervention will address public concerns about imports of hunting trophies from endangered animals.”

Essentially, the Government’s impact assessment admits that this is about presentation, virtue signalling and pandering to public opinion, whether or not that public opinion is sound.

Let us take ourselves back to when the Government and Parliament took the view that we should abolish capital punishment. At that time, a vast majority of the population took the view that we should keep capital punishment. If we had applied the principle that is being applied to this Bill, we would still have capital punishment because it would “address public concerns” about people being murdered. We, in this House, need to rely on science and fact, rather than allowing prejudice and ignorance to prevail, which is one of the reasons why I hope the Bill will be improved, if it receives Second Reading today.

Section 4 of the impact assessment, from paragraph 98 onwards, refers to the costs of this proposed legislation, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire and I are seeking to get across to the Government.

The impact assessment says:

“A 2019 letter from 130 researchers described how in African countries that practice trophy hunting, more land has been conserved under trophy hunting than under National Parks, with hunting areas contributing to landscape connectivity. Some argue that restricting the import/export of trophies from hunting risks land conversion and biodiversity loss, and other alternative area management strategies must be in place to promote conservation, protect endangered species, and support livelihoods. Furthermore, many questions remain on whether alternatives such as wildlife tourism can effectively replace trophy hunting, especially in areas with poor political and economic stability, and areas with less aesthetic appeal.”

That is not what I am saying; it is what the Government said about the costs of this legislation when they did their impact assessment, which goes on to say:

“Wildlife conflict with local people can impose serious costs including causing physical harm and death, damaging crops, predating livestock and competing with livestock for food. Where wildlife provides few benefits to local people and/or imposes substantial costs, animals are often killed for food, trade, or to remove problem animals.”

That is a welcome recognition by the Government of some of the realities surrounding this subject, rather than the prejudices of people who have been ill informed by certain organisations.

In paragraph 100 of the impact assessment, the Government also concede that:

“Evidence suggests that trophy hunting can provide a value for animals which incentivises their protection for the purposes of hunting rather than indiscriminate removal, e.g. land use change to agriculture. Without trophy hunting, an income stream linked to positive conservation outcomes could be lost and other options need to be in place to address this conflict.”

That is what the Government said in their impact assessment, so I hope we are going to hear from the Minister how they will address the concerns that they recognised, if indeed they are still hell-bent on pushing this legislation through to try to get it on to the statute book.

The Government also conceded in their impact assessment—perhaps this is a point that my hon. Friend the Minister could refer to—that:

“A ban in the legal movement of animal trophies could have the unintended consequences, including increasing the illegal trade in wildlife parts which is unregulated. It could also reduce the amount of protein available to local communities as meat is often a by-product of trophy hunts. After a hunting ban in 2014 in Botswana one village lost the provision of 154 tonnes of meat, so less protein was available to the community. This resulted in an increase in illegal poaching and documented declines in wildlife.”

Those are facts. What is the Government’s response to the facts to which they referred in their own impact assessment in 2021?

The issue of costs is discussed in paragraph 102:

“One of the major arguments for hunting for trophies is that it provides financial benefits to local communities, and without trophy hunting these benefits could be lost. However, the extent to which local communities truly benefit is widely debated.”

Of course, that is the debate we are having today. Let us not take a view that all the people who support this Bill are lovers of animals and all the people who are against it despise animals. Nobody could be a stronger supporter of animals than I am. Indeed, my wife and I are proud that we have produced a daughter who is now a veterinary surgeon. Can one adduce any more evidence of the importance of inculcating into one’s children a love of animals that their parents share? Let us have none of this nonsense suggesting that this is not a vile activity and that those who are against this Bill should be subject to some sort of vilification. That is completely ridiculous.

Let me also refer to the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire referred from the Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations. The letter was sent to all British MPs, and I am disappointed that more of my parliamentary colleagues who will have seen that letter are not present. One asks rhetorically, what have they done as a result of the points made in it? Mr Louis says:

“Please do not regard Africans as being incapable of deciding our domestic policies. The reason we have legal hunting is that it pays for protected land for our big animals. As our human population grows, it is crucial for our lions and elephants to have such space.

Our rhinos also require armed guards to safeguard them from ruthless poaching gangs financed by Chinese criminals. When there are no guards, massive numbers of the animals get killed by these brutal gangs. Legal hunting pays for the guards and kills far fewer.”

When we as a family were in South Africa, we saw the consequences of what happens with rhinos. To try to disincentivise the illegal poaching of rhinos, the rhinos are de-horned, but such is the value of rhino horn now, even from dead animals, because of ill-conceived bans on its use, rhinos are now being poached just for that part of the horn that is no longer visible, which is part of an extension of the head. That is a consequence—an unintended consequence, obviously—of the restrictions on countries exporting the rhino horn from dead animals. That is why this is a very nuanced debate, and I am not sure we are getting as close to that today as their lordships were when they were debating the legislation on Report in their House.

This very important letter from Maxi Louis goes on to say:

“The evidence for this is in the peer-reviewed science which shows how successful Africa’s system is at defending our precious animals. People who have read this science—and back legal hunting—include the EU Commission”—

I am not sure that is his strongest argument—

“and George Monbiot”,

which is a stronger argument. He continues:

“So does the global regulator, the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We use legal hunting to manage our big animals because they are a mortal risk to us and our children. African lives are at stake.

You do not have any dangerous wild animals. Britain got rid of its last brown bears 1,000 years ago and its last wolves 264 years ago.”

In his conclusion, he says that

“wildlife in Africa is flourishing. Because of our management. We ask for no more virtue signalling. It is arrogant, ignorant and racist.”

I could not have put it better myself. That is why I am disappointed that the Government continue to pander to those who would fit into the description given by Maxi Louis.

I turn now to the amendment that was made to the Bill introduced in the last Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. In introducing this Bill today, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) did not refer to that, except to say that that amendment was in the proposed legislation, and that it showed how we had passed a Bill to the other place as a result of a consensus. That is one interpretation of what happened on that Friday when we were debating amendments on Report. Essentially what happened, as you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that there were a large number of amendments, and a deal was done whereby two of those amendments were accepted, and all the others were rejected. One new clause about setting up an advisory board on hunting trophies is now in the Bill, and I wish to speak briefly about the importance of that and the background to it.

Who will decide on issues relating to hunting trophies? I think we should have expertise, rather than people who are prejudiced. Clause 4 states:

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Advisory Board on Hunting Trophies

(“the Advisory Board”).

(2) The Advisory Board appointed under subsection (1) may have up to three

members.

(3) The role of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary of State—

(a) on any question relating to this Act which the Secretary of State may

refer to the Committee;

(b) on any matter relating to the import to Great Britain of hunting trophies derived from species of animal which appear to the Secretary of State to be, or to be likely to become, endangered.”

That is an improvement on the original Bill, because it would require the Secretary of State to take advice, instead of just listening to the mob, so to speak, and I am pleased that that measure is in the Bill. Clause 4(4) states:

“In appointing members of the Advisory Board, the Secretary of State must have regard to their expertise in matters relating to the import of hunting trophies.”

One thing we discussed previously, which I do not think we have discussed today, is the extent of the Bill. The Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the prohibition on imports applies only to imports into Great Britain. Why is that, and why does the right hon. Gentleman, in limiting the Bill to imports into Great Britain, think that that will help meet his objective? Does it not show that we are no longer one nation of the United Kingdom, but that there will be a different regime in Northern Ireland, compared with the one that prevails in the rest of our country? I hope the Minister will be able to explain why, if the Government are in favour of the Bill, and if they purport to be a Government for the whole United Kingdom, rather than just Great Britain, they are proposing to restrict the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain and not into Northern Ireland. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and that Ireland is in the European Union, which has a much more benevolent approach to the import of hunting trophies than this Government seem to have. That important issue needs to be addressed in the Bill, and I hope that if it goes into Committee, we can ensure that its provisions apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom.

There is no need to speak at great length on something like this when the arguments against the Bill are so strong, but we should not vilify those people who engage in conservation measures in the way that some have been seeking to do. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If we compare Kenya with other countries in southern Africa, we see that Kenya’s well-intended ban has been totally counterproductive, whereas in southern Africa there has been tremendous progress on the conservation of endangered species.

On a lateral point, is the collection of rare and endangered butterfly species illegal in this country? No, with very few exceptions. If we are free to pin butterflies to the wall or put them in display cabinets, does it suit us to preach to people in Africa about their conservation measures? I think not. We talk about the importance of culling, which is essential to control the numbers of a species in the restricted area of a wildlife park. We cull in this country, particularly deer. That culling can include the use of rifles to shoot the deer that people think have the finest antlers. Those antlers are kept as trophies. That is not my line of business at all, but I respect that other people might like to do that. It is all part of culling to ensure that we do not have too many deer to manage.

This complex Bill is worthy of further detailed consideration, but I am worried that the Government may have a secret agenda: they may try to use the Parliament Acts on this legislation. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that under no circumstances will the Government seek to override the Parliament of this United Kingdom by seeking to use the Parliament Acts on a Bill that was rejected in the other House—not because it was voted down, but because not enough time was given for it. I am not sure that there is any precedent for the Parliament Acts being used when debate in the other place has been curtailed through lack of time, the Bill has been brought back in the next Session, and the Government’s failure to provide time is used as a justification for using the Parliament Acts. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point when she winds up the debate.

Finally, let me put on record that I am against this Bill having a Second Reading in its present form. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to vote that way later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak on this important Bill. The importation to the UK of trophies produced during the barbaric sport of trophy hunting should have ended a long time ago. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for introducing the Bill, following the earlier Bill from the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). We need to get this sorted today, because we have had Warley and Crawley, and I am not sure there is another constituency that rhymes.

I thank animal welfare charities nationwide, including FOUR PAWS, Humane Society International, World Animal Protection and Ban Trophy Hunting. They have worked tirelessly for years to ensure that this legislation is passed, and have produced the most helpful briefing note for this debate. I also pay tribute to the former President of Botswana, Ian Khama, who has been a tireless and passionate campaigner on these issues.

However, for all the praise that our campaigners are due, we should not have needed to be here debating this Bill today. The legislation should have been passed by this Government long ago. We all know that members of the public, including in my constituency, overwhelmingly support the Bill. The wider public support for it is reflected in the fact that banning hunting trophies was both a 2019 Conservative manifesto promise, as the hon. Member for Crawley said, and a Labour manifesto promise. Why is this measure, promised by the Government, not already in law? Why did they fail to bring forward their own Bill banning trophy hunting, as they pledged to voters that they would? Given that an earlier private Member’s Bill seeking to implement a ban progressed through the House last year, why are we here again debating an equivalent Bill? It is because the Bill we debated last year was deliberately and wholly undemocratically derailed by a small number of mostly hereditary Conservative peers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) pointed out, those peers ignored the will of the public, the welfare of animals and their own party’s manifesto commitment, and used the amendment process as a blocking device. Labour Members think that that is unacceptable, and our party wants this long promised and long overdue legislation progressed as soon as possible.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

When that Bill reached the House of Lords, no peer stepped forward to sponsor it. Why did no Labour peer do so?

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Obviously, there were issues going on in the other place that I was not party to at the time, so I am sorry, but I cannot comment on his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With the leave of the House, I call John Spellar to wind up.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

Object!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

In that case, I will put the Question.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Storm Babet: Flooding

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course I send condolences for all three of those deaths—any death is absolutely tragic—and I commend the lifeboat team who did such spectacular work in rescuing the trawler and those who rescued the people on the oil rig. This is a tremendous story and accolade for them. I am not sure that I am the one who can trigger the commendation, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion will be fed in, and I will certainly pass his other comments to the Department for Transport.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

One of the victims was apparently from Far Forest, which used to be in my constituency, and obviously our thoughts and prayers are with the family at this moment. This is going to happen again. On the ground, the Environment Agency workers do a great job. Is it not time to merge the agency with Natural England, so that there are fewer managers and more people to protect us?

[Rebecca Pow]

Again, I send my condolences following that very sad case in Far Forest. I was in the area on Sunday, so I heard a great deal about it from the local people.

My hon. Friend has made an interesting proposal. I think we should deal with the immediate issues first, but on the ground those in the Environment Agency have done a tremendous job in almost every case, particularly those whom I met in Bewdley. I must also give some praise to the community officers who meet so many worried and upset people on the streets, and also meet with some aggression. They have done a tremendous job in all the parts of the country where they were sent out.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I praise the actions of the Secretary of State and support the Government’s record on animal welfare. The measures they have taken demonstrate a genuine commitment to proper animal welfare. I shall continue to be a critic as and when necessary. However, I believe that the Government have struck the right balance between compassion and practicality on welfare. Although the Government have not presented the Bill, I am reassured that the elements that come through in secondary legislation will deliver.

I am going to do something that all Members could have done. I pledge that if I am successful in the private Members’ Bill ballot, I will bring forward a Bill on sheep worrying. That could have been done by anybody. If I am outwitted, outmanoeuvred or beaten to the ballot by somebody else, then I will do zoo regulation. I do not think any of us should dodge that opportunity if we really care about animal welfare.

We should be proud that the UK has the highest welfare standards in the world. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) is not in his place, but I did his job back in 2005-06. We have delivered on an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to which the Labour Government then conceded, to increase the sentence for cruelty to five years. It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) brought forward his Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 that we saw that sentencing go from six months to five years, which is what it should be. There are lots of other minimum standards that are very welcome.

Opposition Members who talked about hunting and religious slaughter are partly responsible for why a wide, broad-brush Bill will never work on animal welfare. We have to be specific. There are too many extremists out there. If this was about Just Stop Oil, we would hear squeals from Opposition Members, but oh no, this is much too difficult because it really matters.

NFU Mutual estimates that dog attacks on farm animals across the UK cost £1.8 million last year. On 30 May and 1 June this year, West Mercia police reported that as many as 28 sheep had been killed at different farms in Herefordshire because of dog attacks. We must have the toughest possible deterrents, and clear rules for dog owners when they are walking among livestock. Farmers are faced with the horrendous consequences of mauling by dogs: sheep with half their faces missing, lambs left without mothers, and pregnant ewes miscarrying —not to mention dogs being shot.

This is a genuine animal welfare issue. It is not notional or theoretical, like the attempts to limit suffering of animals by banning electric dog collars, which are vital tools enabling owners to train their dogs not to chase sheep by causing a small electric shock. In 2010, the Labour-run Welsh Government outlawed the use of electric collars for training dogs; subsequently, North Wales police recorded that between 2013 and 2017, 648 livestock animals had been killed and 376 had been injured. That led to the shooting of 52 dogs, the highest number reported by any of the five forces.

What is worse is that livestock worrying is getting worse. In Wales, the cost of farm animals that were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2022 was 15.5% higher than the number in the previous year. We can see from what has happened in Wales that the ban on electric collars is not working, and I urge the Government to reconsider the ban before we see many more dogs being shot for worrying livestock. The NFU Mutual figures show that in England, the midlands have been worst affected by dog attacks, with claims totalling an estimated £313,000 in 2022. I therefore urge the Government to continue their progress on delivering proper, considered and effective animal welfare.

People watching this debate who are naive like the Zoological Society of London—for which I used to work—do not understand that if we vote to accept this motion, we will bring in a Bill that is not ready for scrutiny and will create problems in all parts of the House, whereas today we are at least united in our desire for better welfare for animals.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we get on to proceedings, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of Report stage debate is the amendments that I have selected. The scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to try to catch my eye.

I would also say that it is in the hands of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to get this Bill through as quickly as possible so that he has no worries.

New Clause 1

Duration of this Act

“(1) Sections 1 to 4 expire at the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, subject to subsections (2) and (3).

(2) Subject to subsection (3), if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so, the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute the date specified in subsection (1) of this section with a later date.

(3) The date specified in regulations under subsection (2) may not be more than 5 years later than the date substituted.”— (Sir Bill Wiggin.)

This new clause would cause the provisions of the Bill to cease to have effect 5 years after the Act is passed. The Secretary of State would have the power to extend the expiration date by up to 5 years.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Implementation and monitoring—

(1) Within three years of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on its implementation and the effectiveness of its provisions.

(2) The report must include an assessment of the impact of the Act on the conservation of animal species to which the import prohibition relates.”

New clause 3—Report on impact on Northern Ireland—

(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, and every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of the provisions of this Act on Northern Ireland, including any significant changes in the number and nature of hunting trophies being brought into Northern Ireland.

(2) Each report laid under subsection (2) must make a recommendation as to whether further legislation should be brought forward in response to the report.”

This reporting requirement would ensure that the Secretary of State has to assess the impact of the provisions of this Act on Northern Ireland and make a recommendation about whether further legislation is needed.

New clause 4—Advisory Board on Hunting Trophies—

(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Advisory Board on Hunting Trophies (“Advisory Board”).

(2) The Advisory Board appointed under subsection (1) may have up to three members.

(3) The role of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary of State—

(a) on any question relating to this Act which the Secretary of State may refer to the Committee,

(b) on any matter relating to the import to Great Britain of hunting trophies derived from species of animal which appear to the Secretary of State to be, or to be likely to become, endangered.

(4) In appointing members of the Advisory Board, the Secretary of State must have regard to their expertise in matters relating to the import of hunting trophies.”

Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after “where”, insert—

“(aa) The hunting trophy has been brought from a country which is a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)—”

(i) without the appropriate documentation in respect of CITES having been presented at the port of exit, or

(ii) in breach of the export licence regulations of that country,”

Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after “where” insert—

“(aa) the hunting trophy is brought from a country other than Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe,”

The six countries specified in this amendment have made representations to the UK Government highlighting inter alia their good record in bio-diversity conservation and that they are home to more than half of the world’s lions, buffalos, elephants, rhinos and many other species.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “hunted” and insert “killed”

Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from “after” to end of line 10 and insert “1 June 2023”

This amendment would ensure that any imported hunting trophy hunted after 1 June 2023 would be covered by the legislation.

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(e) the animal was hunted less than ten years before the day on which it is brought into Great Britain.”

This amendment would allow the import of hunting trophies where the animal was hunted more than ten years before it is imported.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for an exemption from the prohibition under subsection (1) to apply in cases where a hunting trophy can be shown to have been obtained in a way which contributed to the conservation of—

(a) one or more species of flora or fauna, or

(b) one or more natural habitats.

(1B) Regulations under subsection (1A) must provide for a certification system to allow for the identification of hunting trophies to which the regulations apply.

(1C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 27, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for an exemption from the prohibition under subsection (1) to apply in cases where, in respect of a hunting trophy—

(a) an export permit, or

(b) an import and an export permit has been granted in accordance with the requirements of the Principal Wildlife Trade Regulation.

(1B) Regulations under subsection (1A) must provide that no exemption applies to any hunting trophy obtained through the hunting of an animal in an enclosure from which it was unable to escape.

(1C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “hunting” and insert “killing”

Amendment 24, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, after “use”, leave out “(which does not include consumption)” and insert “as an ornament”

This amendment prevents animals hunted for purposes other than as ornaments (for example, educational or scientific purposes) being included in the definition of hunting trophy.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3)

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4)

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish guidance for customs officers on the identification of hunting trophies.”

Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out from “to” to end of line 8 and insert—

“(a) Any animal or species which has been certified by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) as being threatened with extinction or might be threatened with extinction if trade was not regulated, and

(b) any animal or species the commercial trade in which is regulated by CITES and in respect of which there has been a breach or suspected breach of the applicable regulations.”

This amendment would simplify and clarify the animals and species to which the import prohibition relates by making direct reference to criteria certified by CITES and the consequence of non-compliance with CITES regulations. This reflects current law and practice.

Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “Annex A or B of the Principal Wildlife Trade Regulation” and insert—

“Schedule 1 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, as enacted”

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out from “Regulation,” to end of line 20

This amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to vary by statutory instrument the species to which this Act applies.

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (b)

Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

“(c) an animal of any species, where that animal has been hunted in a confined enclosure.”

This amendment would outlaw the import of any hunting trophy obtained through the practice known as ‘canned hunting’ irrespective of the species of that animal.

Amendment 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) This Act does not apply to captive-bred animals.”

Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of this Act, “animal” does not include fish or birds.”

Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (2)

Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out from “instrument” to end of line 17 and insert—

“under sub-section (1)(a) unless a draft of the Instrument has been laid before and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament”

Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (5)

Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out Clause 3

Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 3, line 3, leave out from “force” and insert—

“at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”

Amendment 28, in clause 4, page 3, line 4, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (2) in respect of section 1 until—

(a) an impact assessment of trophy hunting on conservation projects, wildlife management, livelihoods and tourism has been carried out and published in respect of each country to which Section 1 applies, and

(b) a public consultation has been conducted on each impact assessment.”

Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (4)

Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (5)

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Speaker.

New clause 1 concerns duration and would cause the Bill’s provisions to cease to have effect five years after it is passed. In 2019, we stood on a manifesto commitment to ban imports from the trophy hunting of endangered animals. I therefore propose that the sunset clause be added for the simple purpose of ensuring that the Act, should it prove unsuccessful in protecting endangered species, can be withdrawn. If, on the other hand, after five years, the Act does in fact prove successful in achieving the stated aims of our manifesto commitment, the Secretary of State would have the power to extend the expiration date by up to five years.

I have been concerned throughout the progress of the Bill that it is not motivated by a desire to see African wildlife flourish and prosper. If it were, it would have paid heed to the scientific evidence provided by experts in conservation. British conservationists Professor Amy Dickman and Adam Hart have argued that 90% of protected areas with lions are severely underfunded. Removing trophy hunting without providing suitable alternative revenue will expose those underfunded protected areas to further risks, such as poaching. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list, trophy hunting is not considered to be a threat driving any species to extinction. Instead, trophy hunting generates revenue for anti-poaching and habitat conservation. It has been recognised as a positive tool for conservation in multiple species—including black rhino, white rhino, argali, macaw, some populations of lion, and white-tailed deer—and maintains extensive areas of wildlife habitat.

High commissioners from Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe argued in a letter to the Minister of State in the Foreign Office:

“Well-managed trophy hunting—the prevailing model in all our countries—contributes to reductions in habitat loss and poaching. It has proved a demonstrable conservation tool for multiple species, including endangered ones such as black rhinos.”

Maxi Louis, the director of NASCO, the Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations, wrote in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith):

“Take away those employed to protect wildlife in the reserves and poachers move into the vacuum. This quickly leads to huge losses of endangered animals. Yet what really angers us is how these animals die. Snaring leads to appalling injuries and pitifully slow deaths. Poisoning is traumatic, lions vomiting for hours, as they pass away.”

She wrote that

“when Botswana had a temporary ban on paid hunting there was a 593% increase in fresh elephant carcasses being found.”

Professor Amy Dickman, a conservation biologist and director of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at the University of Oxford, has also argued that the Bill will facilitate an increase in poaching. She has described her distress while carrying out fieldwork in Africa, where she witnessed the horrendous aftermath of a lioness trapped in a poacher’s snare, a decapitated hyena and a leopard with its paw mangled in a trap, all of which had suffered more painful and prolonged deaths from poachers than from a hunter’s bullet.

The concern held by both conservationists and African community leaders is that, by enforcing the removal of the vital source of revenue supplied by trophy hunters to these communities, we open the floodgates to poachers, who will cause far more cruelty and pain to the animals and pose a far greater threat to endangered species. The opinions and evidence from these experts do not fill me with a lot of confidence that the Bill will achieve its stated aim, nor does the misinformation that is being touted by the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

I have tabled new clause 1 to ensure that the Bill is not a classic case of virtue signalling at the expense of African wildlife and the conservation efforts of African people. If, five years down the line, the Act proves to be ineffective, as I suspect it will, at conserving endangered species and has led to an increase in poaching, it seems right that provision should be made for the Act to be withdrawn. If the supporters of the Bill are so confident that it will achieve the desired result of protecting endangered species and not encouraging poachers, who I believe are a greater threat to these endangered species than well-regulated hunting, why not include this sunset clause in it?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

How much, in percentage terms, of the budget to protect wildlife comes from trophy hunting?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

All of it. One of the problems I will come to in a moment is that, where we are asking people to stop trophy hunting, we are not necessarily replacing that with funding. In one area, which I look looking forward to telling the House about in a moment, we do provide funding, and we are encouraging local people to protect their wildlife and build businesses, particularly for the women, but they are arguing that, by withdrawing trophy hunting, we are cutting the legs off that effort. There are real contradictions here, which is why it is such a difficult subject.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that Vernon Booth, a conservationist and wildlife consultant in Zimbabwe, writes in today’s Daily Mail that

“Revenue from trophy hunting contributes 25 per cent of the income of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority”?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I have no reason to disagree with that, and it demonstrates what a thorny issue this is.

It is worth remembering that this Bill is designed to stop the importing of trophies, rather than prevent the banning of hunting. I have tabled new clause 2 on implementation and monitoring, which is similar to new clause 1 in that its intention is to assess the practicality and effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill. It would require that

“Within three years of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on its implementation and the effectiveness of its provisions”,

with that report including an assessment of the impact the Act has had on the conservation of endangered species.

As the UK is a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, we should follow its recommendations before restricting trophy hunting. Those include sound analysis of the conservation role of trophy hunting, meaningful consultation with affected Governments and communities, steps to address poor practice and implementation of feasible, fully funded alternatives that generate equal or greater conservation benefits. Since I do not believe that those steps have been adequately taken, it is only right that new clause 2 be adopted, to ensure the effectiveness of the Bill in promoting conservation of endangered species, measured three years after its implementation.

If there is such confidence that the Bill will contribute to the conservation of such species, I see no reason for there to be any objection to a post-implementation review being undertaken that examines the impact on species abroad. In order to test the efficacy of the legislation, and whether it has achieved the desired goal of improving the population numbers of endangered species, I hope that the House will consider the new clause, which will ensure we continue to keep the effectiveness of the Bill under review until it is enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

I think some of the statistics that I have been sent around the Bill have been produced, on both sides, from a position of bias. Is it not the case that we should not pander to a table that we have been sent that is obviously from a hunting lobby or animal rights activist? We need to get to somewhere sensible, in the middle, where we can consider the issue. A lot of my hon. Friend’s points are obviously using the statistics from one side, but dismissing those of the other.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

To be fair, I have not used many statistics, because I fully agree with my hon. Friend. This was analysis done on statements made by Members in the debate, myself included. If 70% were factually incorrect or misleading, then who judges that? Obviously, the people to judge it are experts and the experts should be peer reviewed, acknowledged and acceptable to everybody. That is why new clause 4, which I think is important, allows the Government to have access to agreed experts. That will be much more helpful and factually useful, and may take some of the emotion out of what is a very emotional subject.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

We are all united in this House in trying to protect endangered African wildlife. I have seen a lot of it out in the wild and I applaud those efforts. What there is disagreement about is the best way to do that. There are all these statistics that there is debate about. I have lots of statistics that I will not bother quoting because no one will believe them.

If the argument is that trophy hunting needs to continue to provide funding for conservation efforts, and that is the only reason to allow it to continue, should not pressure be put on this Government and internationally to ensure there are other routes of funding conservation efforts? It cannot be right that the main way to fund the conservation of endangered species is to allow the killing of endangered species.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am mindful that new clause 4 should not stray beyond what it does, which is to try to get a team of experts to advise the Government, so that my hon. Friend’s valid point is part of the calculation by the Secretary of State. There is public campaigning and lobbying by high-profile actors and celebrities who have very little experience in these matters, and their voices seem to speak louder due to their fame than those of the African community leaders and scientific experts who have objected to the Bill. We need to take the heat and anger out of this debate and get back to the expertise, the science and the result of protecting species, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the whole House wants.

If this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Government should have to consult with experts in conservation to ensure the aim of the legislation is respected. I would be most grateful if the Minister could provide some assurance to the African community leaders who have objected to this Bill in their letters to the Government that their expertise on this matter is respected and will be incorporated into such an advisory board. That would ensure positive consultation is maintained with the countries most affected by the Bill, mainly in Africa, who have thus far taken offence at MPs telling their democratic countries how to manage their wildlife without listening to what they have to say. I wholeheartedly support the introduction of that new clause to ensure an ongoing and productive consultation between the Government and the people who will be on the receiving end of the effects of the Bill.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I confess that I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman’s argument about us seeking to undermine the role of African leaders, because it is my understanding that the Bill proposes to ban imports here—not a ban on trophy hunting in those countries, but a ban in this country on imports; is that not the case?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s understanding. Unfortunately, it is not quite as straightforward as that. The purpose of the Bill reaches beyond what the UK imports and exports because we already have a permitting system that allows us to manage that, so this is more than that. This is a proper ban. The people who are expected to be on the receiving end are the people who would benefit from new clause 4 being added to the Bill, which would give an opportunity for them to consult.

Amendment 6 aims to limit the ban on trophies that are in breach of the convention on international trade in endangered species permit requirements. Amendment 12 —I am again grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for tabling it—exempts Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe from the ban, based on their conservation records.

I will try to make some progress because I believe the Government have been exceptionally helpful on this and the amendment that most matters is amendment 1. If I can just get to that part of my notes, I will seek to enlighten the House as to why—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I will be delighted to give way while I am shuffling my papers.

[Patrick Grady]

Happy St Patrick’s Day, Mr Speaker. I was reflecting that perhaps the animals hunted as trophies are not the only endangered species around here: there are several of them on the Government Benches as well, in the shape of Conservative Members of Parliament.

I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that many of our constituents feel very passionately about these issues—it would be unfair to suggest otherwise—and that the scope of the Bill is, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) has said, limited to the bringing of these trophies into the United Kingdom. No one is trying to tell sovereign Governments what they should be doing in their own countries, but we should take cognisance of what is being brought into this country, and many constituents in Glasgow North whom I have heard from are extremely concerned about the practice of trophy hunting and the trade in such trophies, and it is important that we recognise that strength of feeling. It is good that the hon. Gentleman is introducing these amendments in a constructive manner because the last thing constituents would want to see is parliamentary game playing and undermining of the private Members’ Bill system.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful intervention, which allowed me to shuffle my papers. I agree with him: the people who are concerned about the topic of this Bill are kind-hearted. They want to make sure that animals are safe and protected, and they have a very good vehicle to express that in the form of the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. The problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and none of us in the whole House wants to see any reduction in the habitat of endangered species, or the success of their recovery. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will not undermine that, as I fear, and that instead we can come together and agree a Bill that will be able to pass through the House.

To that end, amendment 1 is a most important amendment, because it seeks to restrain the Secretary of State’s powers—I know that this Secretary of State is tremendous, but I cannot predict who it might be in the future. Therefore, the amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s actions to the species listed on the face of the Bill—the ones that we are all concerned about. It would remove their power to vary by statutory instrument the species to which the Act applies. It would close the loophole that grants the Secretary of State the power to extend the Act to animals that are not considered endangered. I am concerned that that power could go beyond our 2019 manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals, which our constituents voted for.

I thank the Government for engaging with me so positively on this matter. I believe that we can move forward constructively if we adopt amendment 1, which would keep the scope of the Bill limited to species listed in annexes A or B of the principal wildlife trade regulation. Under that regulation, all CITES species are listed in four annexes, according to their varying levels of protection. Annex A, which includes all CITES appendix 1 species and some CITES appendix 2 species, lists the most endangered species: those that are either threatened with extinction or so rare that any level of trade would imperil the survival of the species. They include the hunting leopard, Indian lion and black and white rhino, apart from those in South Africa where numbers are higher.

Annex B includes all other CITES appendix 2 species, as well as some other species, but predominantly those threatened by commercial trade. For instance, the African elephant, the African lion, some white rhinos, some brown bears, and the American black bear would fall into that classification. Granting the Secretary of State power to vary by statutory instrument the species to which the Bill applies would allow species that are not listed in CITES and are not endangered to fall within the scope of the Bill. That was brought to my attention on Second Reading, when the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), said:

“The Government intend to table an instrument that covers those species of concern”—[Official Report, 25 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 585.]

—an instrument that would cover other animals, which really disturbed me. The British people did not vote for an indiscriminate ban on shooting any animal that the Secretary of State might choose to name. They voted to protect endangered species, and that is what I hope the Bill will do.

I do not think that I need to go on. If the Government are willing to accept amendment 1, I can pause and allow some of my friends and colleagues to contribute. If the Minister would like to intervene, I would be delighted to know whether amendment 1 is acceptable to the Government; otherwise, we can talk about amendment 14, which leaves out the power of the Secretary of State to specify animals or species to which the prohibition applies. Of course, that does a very similar job to amendment 1.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)]

I would like to confirm that the Government are minded to accept both new clause 4 and amendment 1, for reasons I will go into later in the debate. I am pleased to understand that my hon. Friend will not, I think, move the remaining 30 amendments that have been tabled.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. She has been about as helpful as any Minister I have ever had the pleasure of working with, and I am sure the whole House will join me in celebrating my ability to not press my amendments, apart from the two that she has just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I thank all colleagues, both those who have spoken in today’s debate and those who have played their part in making this legislation possible. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who has demonstrated such diligence, professionalism and courage, because there are strong and credible arguments across this debate.

I will be brief, because we have an awful lot to get through. As I said, I support new clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I commend the principle of receiving expert advice on this matter, especially given the credible and variable discussions, and recognising that, in some cases, money from trophy hunting supports conservation. On Third Reading, I will set out what we are currently doing and how we will continue to support countries.

I also support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin). In doing so, I stress my support for the internationally agreed system, under CITES, for identifying, listing and protecting species that are endangered, threatened or potentially at risk from international trade, including the trade in hunting trophies. The reference to annexes A and B covers around 6,000 species, among them iconic species that we know are targeted for trophies. Of course, this ban goes beyond CITES, which is the right thing to do and is why we are here.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Advisory Board on Hunting Trophies

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Advisory Board on Hunting Trophies (“Advisory Board”).

(2) The Advisory Board appointed under subsection (1) may have up to three members.

(3) The role of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary of State—

(a) on any question relating to this Act which the Secretary of State may refer to the Committee,

(b) on any matter relating to the import to Great Britain of hunting trophies derived from species of animal which appear to the Secretary of State to be, or to be likely to become, endangered.

(4) In appointing members of the Advisory Board, the Secretary of State must have regard to their expertise in matters relating to the import of hunting trophies.”—(Sir Christopher Chope.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

Animals to which the import prohibition relates

Amendment made: 1, page 2, line 6, leave out from “Regulation,” to end of line 20.—(Sir Bill Wiggin.)

This amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to vary by statutory instrument the species to which this Act applies.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

I sincerely hope that that is the case.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I love the way the House is listening carefully to this debate. I can confirm that there is no need to divide the House. This measure is a manifesto commitment and we are fulfilling it. We have improved the Bill and I am tremendously grateful to the Government for their help.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. He rightly says that this legislation is a manifesto commitment. Indeed, it is one that all major parties in this House have signed up to, and that is an important point to stress. I sincerely hope that the other place will hear what this elected House has said on this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I will keep my comments fairly brief. I was enjoying the debate until the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) “poked the bear”, so to speak. Let me also say how nice it was to hear from the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). We would like to hear more from him, more frequently.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am very sensitive about racism, and I spoke out against the Bill because I fundamentally believed that it was a neo-colonial attempt to control the conservation management programmes of African democratic countries. I know that not one of us here today is a racist or has that really nasty streak of wanting to judge people by the colour of their skin, but we must be desperately careful not to signal to emerging countries that we know best.

Representatives from Angola, Botswana, Namibia and Zambia who are involved with conservation activities in KAZA—the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area—have asked:

“What right do they have to impose restrictions that will damage our wildlife and our people?”

The UK Government support KAZA through funding, yet ethical hunting is part of the ambitious “five African nations conservation endeavour” to provide habitat and connectivity for wildlife across borders in an area measuring more than 110 million acres, which is double the size of the United Kingdom. The Bill will therefore have a contradictory effect on our policy directed at supporting African conservation efforts, which is why I am so grateful to the Government for accepting new clause 4.

On Second Reading, the UK was described as a world leader in nature conservation, but a global league table of efforts to conserve mega-fauna—large animals—puts pro-hunting Botswana, Namibia and Tanzania first, second and third in the world. In contrast, the UK is 123rd, so it is important to get this right. Many hon. Members watch David Attenborough on television. He recently described the UK as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, so perhaps we should adopt a more humble approach to countries with far more impressive conservation records—rather than insulting Africans, we should be consulting them on the issue.

I am grateful to the Government for recognising that. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who passionately cares about animals, as I do. We have to debate our differences of opinion in the Chamber to make sure that everybody comes on that journey to a better future for our children and our planet.

Open Season for Woodcock

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 619615, relating to the open season for woodcock.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. Mark Avery, Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay from Wild Justice want the opening of the woodcock shooting season to be formally pushed back to 1 December each year. The current season is 1 October to 31 January, and the season in Scotland starts on 1 September. Wild Justice wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland authorities in March but is yet to receive a substantive response. The petition has received 107,916 signatures, including 76 from the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, which demonstrates its considerable support across our United Kingdom.

There is no doubt that the resident British woodcock population is not doing well. The Staffordshire Wildlife Trust does great work in my constituency and is dedicated to protecting some of our most beautiful natural wildlife. Woodcock is the only species of wading bird in Britain and Ireland that is adapted to breed in woodland areas. The British Trust for Ornithology, or BTO, describes it as a “superbly camouflaged” bird with a habit of remaining motionless unless approached at very close quarters. There are two distinct populations of woodcocks in the United Kingdom: a smaller breeding population that is resident all year round and a much large overwintering population that arrives in the UK from November onwards.

I have held meetings with those on both sides of this debate to ensure that I make balanced and considered points on the matter. I was glad to meet with Mark, Chris and Ruth from Wild Justice, who started the petition. In addition, I spoke with Jeff Knott from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Both organisations support the measure that the petitioners want the Government to introduce.

I also spoke with Andrew Hoodless and Roger Draycott from the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, or GWCT, who argue that the ban is arbitrary and that the decline in the woodcock population is a result of bad habitats for woodcock and the deer population. Those views are shared by Jak Abrahams from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and by Tim Bonner from the Countryside Alliance. They believe that parliamentary time would be better spent on debating and scrutinising the Government’s approach to resident deer population management or the proper management of the countryside, so that we can best protect British and Irish woodcocks.

In 2015, the native woodcock was put on the Great Britain red list, highlighting its decline. Wild Justice is determined for the Secretary of State to introduce statutory measures to reduce the shooting season specifically for woodcocks. The woodcock is a magnificent species and a true symbol of the Great British countryside. As the Member in charge of the debate, I look forward to setting out the complex and nuanced arguments surrounding the length of the season and how best to protect the woodcock. Let me be clear: there is no doubt that the native British and Irish woodcock is in decline. The first breeding woodcock survey was undertaken in 2003 and estimated a breeding population of 78,000 pairs in Britain. A survey conducted a decade later, in 2013, found that there were only 55,000 pairs in the UK—a significant decline of 29%.

I will press on and highlight the arguments for and against the motion. I will start by setting out the arguments made by Wild Justice and the RSPB. Wild Justice states that it uses the legal system to get a better deal for UK wildlife, challenge Government decisions in the courts, and campaign for better and stronger laws and policies. With the native woodcock breeding population in sharp decline, Wild Justice suggests that the shooting season should be reduced by pushing the start date back. That would not end the shooting season but simply change when it starts. It is vital to stress that Wild Justice is not looking for an outright ban on shooting woodcocks, but is focused on shortening the shooting season to better protect the native woodcock population.

Despite figures that suggest that the native population has declined drastically, the pro-shooting Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust estimates that 160,000 woodcocks are shot in the United Kingdom each year. At present, the shooting season commences on 1 October in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 1 September in Scotland, carrying on until 31 January. Wild Justice’s suggestion to push the start date back to 1 December would reduce the number of native woodcocks being shot and therefore help to reverse the tragic decline in one of Britain’s most recognisable birds. Wild Justice argues that the current shooting season dates compromise the native British and Irish population of woodcocks, because until December there is little to no migration of winter visitors from continental Europe and Asia. There is no difference in appearance between a woodcock from a forest in Britain and a woodcock from a forest in Siberia. As a result, the proportion of British and Irish woodcocks being shot is far more significant until the winter migration takes place later in the season.

Therefore, the petition put forward to us today seeks to get the Secretary of State to exercise their power to vary the close season for the woodcock. Wild Justice and the 107,000 signatories to the petition argue that that would drastically help our native birds. Importantly, it would not require primary legislation. In Great Britain, the Secretary of State has the power to vary the close season for woodcock. Similarly, in Northern Ireland the Minister has the same power to vary the close season for woodcocks there.

While conducting research for this important debate, I met Jeff from the RSPB, as I said. He argued that the concept of voluntary restraint, which the shooting lobby uses as an ostensible rationale for protection of the current season, is highly ineffective. Voluntary restraint is used by some shooting organisations to protect this majestic bird. Rather than requiring statutory measures to protect woodcocks, organisations regulate themselves and either completely prohibit shooting woodcocks or follow the guidance laid out by Wild Justice. Jeff discussed a joint statement from February 2020 in which nine shooting organisations called for a voluntary phase-out of the use of lead in ammunition within five years. Despite there being ostensible support for the statement, the SHOT-SWITCH research project showed that by 2022, 99.5% of pheasants for human consumption that were bought from retailers across the UK and from which shotgun pellets could be recovered had been killed using lead ammunition.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is doing a very good job of being fair and putting the argument across. The first thing to say is that the plural of woodcock is woodcock; there is no s. I am sorry to be pedantic, but I just thought it might be helpful. Secondly, the voluntary ban on using lead shot has not been completed yet, so it is inevitable that some lead will still be used.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting my spelling, punctuation and grammar—it is always good, as a teacher, to be clued up on these things, and I have shown that I need to go back to school quite urgently.

I also want to put across the point made to me: actually, we would have expected a much sharper decline in the use of lead shot. Although the RSPB will accept that, to a certain extent, because of covid and lockdown there will obviously be lead shot that still needs to be got rid of—that process will have slowed down—the reality is that it would still have expected a much more drastic reduction than the 0.5% that we have seen. It would argue that the point proves that voluntary restraint is not actually being taken very seriously by those participating. That is why the concern for the woodcock is shared by Wild Justice, which would argue that despite the informal agreement, it has not been carried forward. In fact, in the Shooting Times there has been open bragging about the shooting of woodcock outside of the agreed season, which would lean into this idea that there is currently mistrust in the system, sadly.

The RSPB argues that the lead ammunition survey makes it clear that voluntary restraint is ineffective on this issue and therefore statutory measures must be enforced to protect the woodcock. In addition to the lead ammunition survey, another indicator of the shooting communities’ reluctance to co-operate in voluntary restraint is the article in the Shooting Times, dated 25 January 2023. It clearly celebrates hunters celebrating the woodcock that they have shot in mid-November. Woodcock shooting days are even now advertised online for dates before December. That suggests that there is compelling evidence that woodcock shooting is not voluntarily withheld until December. For the RSPB, it shows that there is a partial or incomplete understanding of when the appropriate time to shoot is.

This is an important point of discussion, as we have already seen. One of the key arguments against a ban, made by those who support shooting, is that the principle of voluntary restraint means that any statutory ban is unnecessary. However, as the lead ammunition survey shows, there is little evidence to suggest that shooting organisations keep to their promises and restrain themselves from shooting woodcock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) put the arguments extremely well. He was very fair, honest and open, and I thought that was helpful. I must just draw the attention of Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am very fond of woodcock. They are the only birds with binocular vision, which means that when they fly, they can see where they are going, which is why they have an extraordinary flight pattern, particularly in the evening as the light fades.

I am delighted that Wild Justice is accepting the value of shooting in conservation, but I did think that it was not terribly happy with the law on raptor control. Therefore, I am not sure that bringing in more laws will necessarily make it any happier.

Of the 1.6 million woodcock that arrive in the UK, 10% are shot. Most of those must be migrant woodcock. Why, therefore, is the wild population in the rest of the world not declining? I did a bit of maths, and I hope the House will forgive me if I get it wrong, but according to the statistics for this debate, there are 55,000 male woodcock in the UK in the spring. That means there are probably 55,000 female woodcock in the UK in the spring. Woodcock lay about four eggs, which means about 220,000 eggs, of which two thirds are likely to hatch, which is 145,000 woodcock chicks hatching in the UK every year from the current population. Yet only 18,000 of these get shot.

If people are worried about woodcock—I am sure that many of those listening to this debate are, because they are beautiful birds—then what has happened to the rest of those chicks? The answer must be that the problem is not shooting; the problem is habitat, and it always will be with these particularly wonderful birds. Someone who goes for a walk in the countryside will probably not see one, because their camouflage is fantastic. On the other hand, if they take their dog with them, their chances of seeing woodcock go up dramatically—which is why I suspect that those wandering around the countryside are perhaps unwittingly doing far more damage to the 145,000 woodcock chicks that never make it to adulthood, seemingly.

If both sides of the argument agree that woodcock are special and should not really be shot until mid-November or the beginning of December, why do we need to legislate? We need to legislate when things go wrong, not when things are going right, and I think that—by and large—people have not thought about what punishment they would like to see for somebody who shoots a woodcock at the end of November.

At the moment, someone who shoots a raptor can spend up to five years in prison—the law is extremely tough in that respect. I do not believe for one second that Wild Justice is suggesting the same for woodcock; I think what it wants is to put as much pressure as possible on the shooting community. This is a community that is more regulated than anybody else, and rightly so: those with guns have to fulfil the criteria necessary to be allowed to have those weapons. It is a rare privilege, but it is also heavily licensed; however, what we are seeing here is just another way of attacking it.

I urge the House not to change the law on any of this. However, if the Government are minded to do so, let us have some proper changes. Let us have a longer shooting season for pheasants, which are not endangered at all. Let us have a longer period for catching up after the shooting season. Let us allow shooting on a Sunday. Let us stop people roaming around when there is shooting going on. Most of all, let us have a 10-year shotgun certificate, because now we are looking at people’s medical history and GPs have to check people’s mental health. So much progress has been made on protecting the public. Bringing people back to pay again and again wastes police time, costs a lot and is completely unnecessary. If we are going to change the laws on shooting season, then let us have a proper debate and change all the laws that need altering.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline—for the first time in this Chamber, I think. It has been an incredible pleasure to hear talk about woodcock in such detail; that has certainly never happened to me before, and I have been a Member of Parliament for over six years. I am pleased to say that in the Lake district, where I live, we do have woodcock. Reading the brief this morning as I was travelling down on the train, I had never realised that woodcock were largely nocturnal. We have all learned a tremendous amount about the woodcock; they are a beautiful bird with a particularly distinctive long beak used for foraging—of earthworms, typically.

All Members who have spoken recognised the decline of woodcock, but also of nature more widely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for opening this debate and giving us reason to discuss the subject. I also thank Wild Justice for its campaigning on the matter, and the 108,000 people who have taken time and interest in the conservation of the woodcock—142 of those who signed the petition were my constituents from Copeland.

There are wider issues to consider, and I will talk through some aspects of the need to improve our environment, as set out in the recently published Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. There are 262 pages, across 10 goals, that go into detail to discuss the measures we will be taking to halt the decline of nature by 2030, based on a 2022 baseline, and to increase its abundance. The plan is about things such as increasing the tree canopy cover to 16.5%; improving the quality of water, air and soil; restoring our peatlands; and improving and protecting hedgerows, which are vital. Those are just some of the measures detailed in the plan, which also includes creating 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat and having a much better understanding of the over 4,000 sites of special scientific interest, covering over 1 million hectares of land. Those things are all set out in that document, which also builds on the Environment Act 2021.

In response to this debate, as the Minister I am working very closely with Natural England. It is currently reviewing all of the evidence, and we will make a science-led decision after that. I want to reflect on Member’s contributions today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all talked about the value of game. I eat a predominantly plant-based diet, but I also eat meat. When I am choosing which meat to eat, I much prefer what has come from a locally-reared animal, ideally a Cumbrian one.

I enjoy game meat because I much prefer to eat meat from an animal that has had some time in the wild. One of the real priorities for me in DEFRA is understanding how we can make the supply chain better so that people can purchase game meat, particularly venison, more easily. We have never had as many deer, but it is not particularly easy to buy or sell venison meat. It is certainly not widely available in the canteens of our public services, yet it is a low-fat, high-protein, nutritious meat, available in abundance. There would be multiple sustainability benefits in us making progress on that mission.

In terms of today’s debate, organisations such as the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust are playing an important, much appreciated role, as has been discussed. I read with interest its 35-page “Conserving Our Woodcock” leaflet. I acknowledge the research that has been undertaken and, most crucially, its very clear message: do not shoot woodcock before 1 December. It could not be clearer. The reason for that is that the likelihood will be that native woodcock will be shot because the migratory woodcock starts to head over in perhaps late October or November, but more likely in December, as the temperature drops in other parts of Europe. That is why it set that clear recommendation to its members and others.

The more abundant migratory woodcock population is unlikely to arrive in the UK until early December. Avoiding shooting the UK’s limited native resident breeding birds is really important. That is the clear ask from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and other Members present. I do not think there is any dissent on that matter. The dissent is perhaps on whether to legislate on that. That decision will be made on the basis of science once we have the assessment from Natural England.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend will have noticed the comments on climate change and therefore, before setting anything in legislation, should she not bear in mind the flexibility that we will need as the climate changes?

[Trudy Harrison]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a valid point. All those considerations will be taken into account before any decisions are made. However, as all Members across the House have stated, the more urgent matter is how we improve the habitat, the foraging, and how we really consider the conservation not just of woodcock, but of so many other species. That is also detailed in the environmental improvement plan.

In conclusion, I have already set out that Natural England will be undertaking that study. Our decision on what to take forward will be based on the science but, in addition to the environmental improvement plan, I draw Members’ attention to the huge changes we are making with environmental land management schemes. We are moving away from the common agricultural policy, which did little to incentivise innovation or improve productivity on farms and in food production. Instead, we are moving to countryside stewardship, the sustainable farming incentive and the landscape recovery scheme. Those three measures across 70% of the land in England—that is what is farmed—will have a tremendous impact on the conservation of the woodcock and many other species on the red list, and on conservation and biodiversity more generally in this country. I will end on that note, Dame Caroline, and I thank you for your time in this debate.

Environmental Improvement Plan 2023

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman’s passion on this and know that he has a long-standing interest in air quality, as do I. I seem to recall that, when I was first in the Department, the focus was on NOx, because we were in legal breach, but we are not in any legal breach now. [Interruption.] That is not the case either. It was I who pointed out to the various groups at the time that the thing that we should worry about is PM_2.5 because it affects everybody. I have long been passionate about this matter, which is why, with me in post, we introduced the ban on the sale of smoky coal and we got rid of wet wood as best we could, because that was the principal source of what was happening with PM_2.5.

As I have said publicly, I would have loved for the target to be 2030, but the powers of the Environment Act 2021 require me to believe that it is achievable. I am very sad that, in London in particular, we do not seem to be able to fix the problem. Many issues need to be addressed; we still have a problem in 14 out of 21 London boroughs. That is why I am very keen for the Mayor of London not to be doing all sorts of tokenistic things that make a marginal difference, such as the expansion of the ultra-low emission zone, but to be encouraging the councils to use their powers to inform people of the issues, so that we can really tackle that PM_2.5. If we can go quicker, the next time that we review the targets I will make sure that they are changed.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

May I say a huge thank you to my right hon. Friend and extend a big, grateful Herefordshire hug to her for this excellent plan? Will she meet me to discuss the Environment Agency’s permitting department, which I believe is struggling, the rivers Lugg and Wye, and how we will deliver through the work that farmers do?

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith]

My right hon. Friend raises an important and alarming point; the so-called “canned” shooting of lions and other majestic animals bred solely to be shot by trophy hunters in an enclosure is a particularly sickening aspect of this, which this country should have no part in whatsoever.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend explain to the House why the Government are issuing import licences for those CITES-listed creatures?

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that illustrates the need for the Bill, which would send a clear message that, in this country—a sovereign nation—we should choose not to accept the importation of body parts of endangered species.

The impact of trophy hunting on lions has been well documented. The scientist who led the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list study on lions states that trophy hunting is linked to “declining numbers of lions” throughout its range. An Oxford University team looking at the impact of trophy hunting said that its research found trophy hunting had the “single most significant effect” on lion populations.

The problem of trophy hunting is twofold, both for elephants and lions. As a US congressional report put it,

“Trophy hunting removes a significant number of animals from…rapidly declining populations”,

and also, the best genes are no longer being passed on to future generations at a time when wildlife faces new challenges. That makes the risk of extinction much greater. Trophy animals tend to be the most evolutionarily fit and possess the high-quality genes that a population of animals needs to adapt quickly to a changing environment. Trophy hunting can push otherwise resilient populations to extinction when the environment changes. Scientists say that lions have suffered a loss of 15% in their gene pool over the last century. The killing of just 5% of remaining pride male lions could be enough to push the whole species past the point of no return.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes good points, which I will absolutely take on board.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

But he is wrong. Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Nickie Aiken]

I will.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

Unfortunately for my hon. and right hon. Friends, Save the Rhino International gave the statistic that, after South Africa allowed the hunting of rhinos, the population went from 1,800 in 1968 to 18,000 in 2018, with black rhinos going from 3,500 in 2004 to 5,500 in 2018. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) is absolutely right.

[Nickie Aiken]

The point I am trying to make is that I abhor hunting for trophies. I see no reason why anyone would want to bring trophies back to this country. In this debate, we have to talk about conservation and what will play well with local communities that rely on trophy hunting, and we have to support them to move away from their reliance on trophy hunting.

In South Africa and Namibia where, according to Save the Rhino International, rhino hunting is legal, there are now strict rotas and less than 1% of rhinos are allowed to be hunted, which ensures the activity does not threaten the longevity of the species. In Namibia, the Government have directed efforts to create a programme of community-focused hunting, which involves local people in protecting and caring for wildlife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Minister. I wish she had explained why, under the current legislation, these animal parts were allowed to be imported in the first place, because a licence is required to bring them in; the legislation is already in place.

I recognise that this is an emotionally weighted subject. I have had plenty of emails from well-meaning people with kind hearts who want to defend and protect animals from being hunted; we have heard that from Members this morning. To them, it seems an unfair and unnecessary contest that we can do without. Sadly, it is not quite as simple as they hope, and that is why this legislation is not as necessary as has been made out.

The fundamental problem for wildlife is people, and as we reach 8 billion people, I hope that is a fact on which we can agree. Keeping wildlife habitats safe and protected from people is far more complicated and more important. We need a pragmatic approach to this divisive issue. We use land ownership and money to manage habitats. We have seen land disputes, and wildlife competing with domestic crops and livestock, sadly, to the detriment of the wildlife.

We need to appreciate what it is like to live with large and dangerous or endangered species. We cannot expect people in rural Africa to have the same views on this subject as the voters in, say, Crawley. That is why telling Africans—however we choose to cushion the message—how to manage their wildlife is fundamentally wrong, post-colonial and possibly racist, and I cannot stand by and allow this to go uncriticised.

In fairness to my hon. Friends, my unhappiness with the racist elements in this message are not a reflection on their views or the views of any colleagues, but we must stand up to racism in whatever form it takes. Before anyone emails me about trophy hunting, they should consider that it is this racist issue that is the real problem for me. Racism is illegal, and I accept that they may disagree with me, but while we are on the subject of legality, we must be clear about the distinction between illegal and legal hunting. There is a great deal of misinformation, but where hunting programmes are well-regulated and legal, only carefully selected animals are hunted. Rather than diminishing endangered species, these programmes instead protect habitat and work to support conservation.

Here in the UK, we do not have to co-exist with big or dangerous animals, such as those that African people have to contend with. Before we condemn other countries for their wildlife management, we ought first to consider what the people who live there actually think. I was sent a survey by the Humane Society that claimed that polling in South Africa showed that people were against hunting, and I have heard colleagues mention that. It did not mention the wording of the questions, but I noticed that there was no data on what people thought about allowing the UK to determine South African wildlife policy. Contrary to what was stated in the email I got from Jane Goodall, I have had no contact with any Americans or Russians. By and large, I have had contact with African community leaders and conservationists who do not support the UK Bill to ban UK imports of hunting trophies.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will my hon. Friend indicate whether he took the trouble to research whether a number of his African contacts had direct contact and relationships with Safari Club International?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I do not really care whether the people who have put their names to the emails have had contact with Safari Club International. They have written to me, and Safari Club International has not. When my constituents write to me, I do not find out who they have been in contact with; I deal with their emails. I will read one to my right hon. Friend in a moment, because I think it will be quite helpful. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend intervened on me, and I am trying to respond to his intervention. If he does not want to know, he probably should not have intervened. When people write to me, I take on board their words, not who they may have been in contact with, and I think it would be peculiar for there to be some sort of sinister agenda behind every email. Let me help my right hon. Friend with this one.

“My name is Maxi Louis, and I’m the Director of the Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations…With the second reading of the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill coming up this Friday, I wanted to reach out to emphasise the importance of what happens with this Bill. People like myself who work on the front lines of this issue in communities that look after wildlife know the importance of licensed and regulated hunting to sustainable conservation.

While the Bill would regulate UK activity in regard to international hunting, African people would be directly impacted. Our voices are loud and clear demanding the UK adopt an evidence-led solution: a ‘smart ban’ on the importation of trophies from unlicensed, unregulated hunting.

There is overwhelming evidence from international academics and conservationists that a smart ban would underpin the funding model for local conservation projects and local economies. A total ban would take away important benefits from communities I work with. Please see below my signature for a graphic with key facts on the issue.”

Here are some of those key facts:

“53,400 jobs in Eastern and Southern Africa are supported by trophy hunting”

—my right hon. Friend may not care whether that is true or not, but I suspect that the 53,400 people concerned do—and

“60% of all cash fees received by Namibian conservancies came from licensed hunting… 100% of game fees go to local communities in Namibia”.

In Tanzania the figure is 55%, and in Zambia it is 50%.

These are the people who are writing to me. Their links to Safari Club International may or may not be there, but those figures are very verifiable, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will check them. I think it is important for us to listen to the people whom we will affect, rather than saying that we do not care about what they say, the reason being that wildlife conservation is vital to their economies. They rightly argue that it is not for us in the west to decide how they should manage their wildlife, and that is why I cannot endorse this Bill. It would remove financial incentives for habitat and wildlife protection in these countries, threaten African people’s livelihoods, and interfere with the decision making of African democratic Governments.

The President of South Africa was here on Tuesday, and I was delighted to hear him speak in the Royal Gallery. He never mentioned that he was hoping that we would remove the licensing regime for South African trophies. He did talk about sustainability and the future of the planet, but I do not think he was aware of this Bill. He is very important, given that he has a game farm and achieved a record price for his buffalo, which were being bred for the size of their horns, as that is what a trophy requires. Yes, this is the President of South Africa, who was here this week—the President of the G20 country responsible for the largest big game and trophy hunting sector. Its President has a game farm called Phala Phala. Members can see why I have real doubts about the validity of the claim that most Africans want us to introduce the Bill. These are supposed to be South Africans with votes, and I am sure that they are more than capable of deciding how they want to manage their wildlife without our intervention.

There is a key distinction between licensed hunting that contributes to conservation initiatives and illegal poaching of wildlife. We have repeatedly seen—and have heard this morning about—the evocative image of Cecil the lion, which is used by those advocating a ban on trophy hunting as a mascot to stir up support for their campaigns. What was not acknowledged today, and what they always fail to acknowledge, is that the hunters involved, Walter Palmer and Theo Bronkhorst, were taken to court for illegally killing Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe in 2015. Campaigns to ban trophy hunting have repeatedly extrapolated from that emotive case to all hunting, in order to fuel emotions.

While a briefing by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) expects that that is something to do with America—from 2016 condones illegal hunting, it maintains that,

“legal, well regulated trophy hunting programmes can—and do—play an important role in delivering benefits for both wildlife conservation and for the livelihoods and wellbeing of indigenous and local communities”.

By introducing the Bill, we would be undermining support for licensed hunters who operate professionally and contribute to conservation efforts in Africa. That would result in a great deal more poachers, who disregard the law and cruelly kill animals for their illegal trade. In its open letter to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009, the World Wildlife Fund recognised the value of limited, managed hunting of black rhinos in Namibia, stating that it can

“strongly contribute to the enhancement of the survival of the species”.

In Namibia, hunting is permitted between February and November, under tight regulation.

While proponents of the ban argue that elephants are endangered—obviously, we all care about that—Namibia alone claimed to have more than 24,000 elephants in March this year. That is the most it has had in over 100 years. According to Africa Geographic, elephant numbers in Namibia

“already exceed what many would consider desirable for the available habitats”.

That is clearly a welcome endorsement of post-colonial wildlife management by Africans, for Africans, in Africa, but it also poses a threat to other rare and vulnerable species, not to mention human lives. In 2013, 5,000 problem- causing animal incidents were reported in Namibia, some of which resulted in the loss of human life. To prevent lethal encounters with humans, the Namibian Government argued for round-ups of elephants to help to control numbers and fund their conservation efforts.

When big game hunting was banned in Botswana, local farmers lived in fear, due to the rapidly increasing population of elephants, for not just their crops and livelihoods but their lives. Prior to the lifting of the ban, elephants were so populous in Botswana that 36 people were killed by them in 2018, with many more suffering injuries. In 2019, Botswana reversed its ban on hunting, recognising its important role for conservation purposes. Botswana is not alone: Pohamba Shifeta, Namibia’s Environment and Tourism Minister, also remarked that foreigners curtailing prize hunting would be “the end of conservation” in Namibia.

South Africa boasts 90% of the world’s population of the southern white rhino, yet it permits hunting, whereas in Kenya, where hunting is banned, white rhino numbers fell significantly due to poaching, to the point that it had to buy its white rhinos from South Africa. That surely demonstrates the necessity of supporting those countries in promoting the conservation of wildlife.

People supporting the ban are rightly concerned about the killing of endangered species. That is why CITES is so important, and why we need to strengthen it, rather than overrule it with the proposed ban. By supporting the wildlife management industry economically, we ensure better regulation of hunting, and more training for professional hunters and trackers to ensure safety. As recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, instead of banning trophy hunting, we should encourage better regulation of hunting—known as a smart ban—and support responsible national agencies to improve on-the-ground management.

Professor Keith Somerville, a fellow of the Zoological Society of London who specialises in conservation in Africa, has highlighted that hunting safari operators police their shooting areas in order to prevent poaching. For example, in Botswana the hunting ban led to an increase in the number of poachers because of the soaring population of elephants and the lack of game reserve patrols. Instead of channelling our efforts into eradicating trophy hunting, we should instead support better regulation of big game hunting to help reduce poaching, which is a cruel, anti-conservationist practice.

The biggest threat to wildlife in Africa is the human incursion it faces, which will only get worse with an ever-increasing human population. In order to incentivise local communities to protect animal habitats, they need to be rewarded for their efforts. When wildlife has a value, people treat it better. It may be easy for campaigners to raise emotional stories of animals being cruelly killed to justify the Bill, but in using compelling and upsetting stories of humans brutally killing animals to campaign for the ban on hunting, they fail to recognise the importance of the industry for the human livelihoods and the wellbeing of the people who live in those countries.

By introducing the Bill, we are fighting for an issue that will have virtually no impact on our daily lives. While it may make us feel virtuous to introduce a ban on trophy hunting imports in the UK, in doing so we will be undermining a vital source of income for African people. No matter what people feel, they are sending out a message that white people, like me, know better and care less about black people in Africa, who are more successful at wildlife management than white people were when we ruled those countries.

In their open letter to DEFRA in 2020, African stakeholders argued that a UK ban on the trophies of animals hunted in Africa would have

“devastating consequences for conservation and livelihoods.”

In their letter they pleaded that we uphold their

“basic human right to sustainably use the natural resources on which our communities’ livelihoods depend”.

They continued

“without markets for high-value low-impact hunting, we will not be able to sustain conservation or feed our children.”

Not only would a ban on imports of trophies to the UK have devastating effects on the livelihoods of individuals in Africa, it would also have financial repercussions for the wider economies in these countries. Hunting has grown to be one of the most important industries in Namibia in terms of GDP and rural uplift contribution. Africa Geographic estimates that 40 million Namibian dollars is generated per year across 79 conservancies in Namibia.

Hon. Members may say that there are alternative sources of income for African communities, but it is worth considering the viability of the proposed alternatives. If there were to be a total ban on hunting in these countries, local people would likely use the land for farming instead. Ironically, that would result in far fewer wild animals, as they would be viewed as a threat to livelihoods rather than an asset.

As we have heard today, some UK conservationists have proposed that photographic tourism might be used to support local economies in place of hunting, but in some areas photo tourism is just not viable and the only source of revenue is hunting. The former chief executive of the WWF in South Africa, Dr John Hanks, acknowledges that certain areas are better suited to photographic safaris than to hunting, but he argues that in areas where wildlife is more sporadic and the landscape more mundane, hunting may be the only profitable use of the land.

Danene van der Westhuyzen, a professional hunter who grew up in Namibia, highlighted that big game tourism attracts far fewer people but much higher profits, estimating that one trophy hunter brings the same revenue into Namibia as 2,000 tourists. Indeed, one hunter might pay as much as £45,000 to shoot just one animal. Therefore, so many more tourists would be required to visit those areas to produce equivalent profits. That makes eco-tourism far less environmentally friendly than big game tourism, because a larger number of people visiting game reserves has an impact on local flora and fauna and disrupts habitats for wildlife. There are those who suggest that agriculture would be a much better use of the land than hunting, but in certain areas hunting is a far better land use option than domestic livestock and crops, because it protects biodiversity and incentivises local people to protect these large animals. Ironically, banning hunting and instead endorsing the use of the land for farming would mean that there were fewer wild animals, because they are a threat.

Finally, let me come to the issue that we should not be deciding on. African people manage the conservation of wildlife that is some 6,000 miles away from us here in the UK. A ban on trophy imports as a means of banning hunting seems to me to be colonialist behaviour. Animal rights lobbies are lobbying hard to see this Bill pass, but Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi—the current President, not one from the past—has asked why western conservationists should be intervening. The President of Botswana is asking why we are deciding what happens to their elephants. Many African people have rightly taken offence at western conservationists’ attempting to puppeteer their wildlife management despite it having no bearing on our daily lives here in the UK. In an open letter to Ricky Gervais, Joanna Lumley, Peter Egan, Ed Sheeran, Dame Judi Dench and Piers Morgan in 2020, more than 50 African community leaders urged British celebrities to stop exerting their influence to jeopardise wildlife conservation efforts. They stated:

“Imposing worldviews and value systems from far away places, amplified through your powerful, influential voices, results in disastrous policies that undermine our rights and conservation success.”

The Ban Trophy Hunting website uses anecdotes from 300 years ago to convince readers that hunting is some kind of colonialist sport, and yet African stakeholders in their open letter to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs likened the behaviour of these western conservationists to that of European colonists, who removed the rights of local people to manage their own land and animals. They highlighted that post-independence Governments have restored their rights to sustainably manage their wildlife by providing socio-economic incentives for doing so. An estimated 50% to 90% of these economic incentives derive from regulated, sustainable and humane hunting, which has resulted in wildlife population and habitat expansion.

On the surface, this Bill may appear to change only our import laws here in the UK, but it is no secret that, ultimately, a vote for this Bill is a vote to instruct African democratic Governments on how to behave. That is why I cannot endorse it. It should not be up to us to stop hunting in these countries. It should be for their own Governments to manage their wildlife and conservation, because we are not affected; they are the ones who will be affected. Of course no one wants to encourage illegal hunting, but by withdrawing our support for legal and well-regulated hunting in these countries, we are, in effect, removing the financial incentives that encourage African people to protect their local wildlife and habitats. That is why I support the current licensing system for CITES-listed species to protect vulnerable species and regulate imports to the UK.

I wish the Minister had used her comments to explain why she was not using that licensing regime to stop the imports of the various trophies that people object to, because that is what it is there for. If people use the CITES website on the gov.uk system, they will find it is extremely helpful. If they type in the type of animal they want to ask about, it will tell them that they need a licence. It lists animals in their taxonomic order, by their Latin names and by their English names. It is an extremely good website. I am fairly faint in my praise for Government websites generally, but this one is good. People can tell if they are allowed to bring species in or not; if not, they must have a licence. All the animals that the Bill will protect are already licensed imports.

I stood on a manifesto to protect our borders, and we have the legislation in place to do so. The Bill gilds the lily. It is extra, it is not necessary and it is deeply wrong, because it is up to African people to decide how they manage their rich natural resources, which are in their backyard, not ours.

Sewage Pollution

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I agree, which is why the Government have changed our legal powers through the Environment Act 2021 to strengthen the regulation, and to require improved monitoring. On the basis of that monitoring and the evidence that it has revealed, we are now bringing record numbers of prosecutions. So the hon. Gentleman is right that there have been regulatory failures in the past. We have addressed those legal deficiencies through the Environment Act.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing the urgent question, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be aware that Herefordshire has been under a moratorium for several years now. Herefordshire Council has spent millions of pounds of council tax money buying land around Welsh Water’s sewage works to work as soakaways, yet now I learn that Natural England wants to extend the moratorium to the rest of the county. Please will he use his time in office to stop Natural England from pursuing this pointless and ineffective policy?

[George Eustice]

This issue is linked to a separate but associated challenge around nutrient pollution. We published our proposals to make some changes to deal with this issue on a strategic level before the summer recess, and we may well indeed need some legislative changes as the challenges that he highlights are a legacy of EU law.

Farmed Animals: Cages

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am quite concerned about what is going on here today. I do not think anybody wants to defend sow stalls or enriched cages, but we need considerably more detail and honesty. The 16 million “animals” that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) referred to are all chickens—well, there are 200,000 pigs—so realistically, this is not exactly about “animals”; the petitioners could have put “birds”.

We saw one of the most infuriating attacks on poultry during the avian influenza outbreak: all free-range chickens were put inside, and no free-range eggs were available in our shops. There was not one campaign about that appalling treatment of poultry. It is entirely understandable why the Government insisted on locking up our chickens, but there was a real welfare issue and we heard not a squeak.

The same applies to all the other things we are dealing with here. My hon. Friend made a lovely speech, but 180,000 extra piglets will die if those crates are not used. That may be acceptable, but it is part of the story. The real problem is that unless the farmer can make a decent living—unless agriculture is profitable—he cannot undergo those kinds of losses, yet that is what we want.

We need to be much more honest about this issue. When we go to Tesco and see bacon from Brookfield Farm, it is coming from Denmark; it is not British-produced. When we get a letter about game birds, we should be aware that most of the game birds released in this country are bred in France. Because of the avian influenza over there, there has been a massive shortage of eggs and chicks. That is because the French reacted differently.

A lot of this animal welfare debate needs to be focused on truth and accuracy, and on the points my hon. Friends made earlier about what we import. We cannot expect to have better animal welfare if we do not honestly and accurately tell the truth about it to each other.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I have listened with wry amusement to my hon. Friend, who I think I am right in saying is a Brexiteer. One of the advantages—some might argue the only advantage—of leaving the European Union was that we were going to be able to exercise control over what came into the United Kingdom. I argued vociferously for a long time that we should not disadvantage our own farming community by putting up costs in a way that prevented them from making a living in competition with, for example, Denmark on pigs. Now that we have left the European Union, we have the power to say that we will not allow into the United Kingdom a product that has been produced under circumstances that we would not permit here. That is what we are asking for. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

How could I not understand? My right hon. Friend was crystal clear. However, I am not sure it is quite as straightforward as we would like. He will be aware that people in dinghies are coming into his constituency. We have not quite got the hang of border control yet, but I hope that we will in due course.

In respect of this debate, there are wider problems. The biggest problem for pig farmers is the foot and mouth outbreak we suffered in 2001. The best thing to do with pigs is feed them waste food. Until we can get back to doing that, it will always be difficult for our pig farmers to make a margin, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be wonderful if we could stop other people doing horrible things to animals. Unfortunately, he also supports the ban on foxhunting, which led to the complete eradication of my chickens. There are balances to be had in the countryside, and we need honesty in this debate.

The more accurate we can be, the better. For example, 55% of UK egg production is free range. It is only 9.1% in Spain and 4.9% in Italy, so we are actually doing an extremely good job in this country. We should be supporting our farmers rather than criticising them, particularly for things that are going on abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), and all the people who signed the petition and enabled us to debate this important subject.

I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that these are not easy issues to resolve. I think everybody in this room shares the goal of working to improve animal welfare, but we also live in a world where we are conscious that such improvements may increase the price of production of our food. I am committed, as are the Government, to working with producers and the food sector to raise standards across the board, and it is important that we set my remarks in that context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South introduced the debate very well by emphasising that we need to work with, not against, the farming industry. I hope that my remarks will give him some reassurance on that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) called for honesty in the debate, which is critical. Many of us do not really know what we are eating or where it comes from, and nobody could have lobbied me more heavily than he did on behalf of chickens during the winter. There is nothing about his now sadly demised flock of chickens that I do not know, and I am sorry that they spent their final winter housed because of avian influenza.

I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that improved animal health and welfare is integrated into all our farming schemes. There is very good news—I would be delighted to discuss it with her in greater detail—on the vet visits that are being rolled out next year, which will specifically target cattle, sheep and pigs. Those will be a good way to provide farmers and vets with a safe space to have a discussion that is not reported to me or the Department afterwards, and they will lead to some really sensible and long-term improvements in the health of the national flock.

I reassure the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) that animal welfare is right up the agenda when it comes to forging trade deals. I think everyone in this Chamber is of one mind that animal welfare is important and needs to be improved. Most of us are also aware that this is an extremely challenging time for Britain’s farmers, with enormously increased input costs—of food, fuel and fertiliser—affecting almost all production systems to a greater or lesser extent.

The UK has a strong record of banning battery cages for laying hens, sow stalls for pigs and veal crates for calves. What have the Government been doing in recent years? The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 was given Royal Assent in April, and provides legal recognition that animals are sentient, and that general Government decision making should continue to reflect that sentience. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum sentence for the worst animal cruelty offences from six months to five years in England and Wales. The Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 will, I hope, support transparent enforcement and encourage good behaviours in husbandry generally.

I reassure everyone here that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill remains a priority for the Government. As soon as the business managers can find us time in a busy parliamentary schedule, we expect a date on which we will debate the Bill on Report. That Bill will, alongside other measures, deal with the issue of excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening. As I have discussed with Members in the Chamber whose names I will not mention for fear of giving their age away, many of us have been committed to campaigning to end animal exports since we watched those pictures on “Blue Peter” as children.

I am pleased to say that moving away from cages is the direction of travel for the egg industry, so 60% of our hens are now kept in free-range systems. Supermarkets are playing their part, with the major supermarkets pledging to stop selling eggs from the remaining 40% of hens in colony cages by 2025. Some supermarkets and other retailers have gone further to extend that pledge to include processed products; that is to be welcomed.

So what is the plan? We are almost ready to go with a consultation on the caging of laying hens, but we must recognise that the transition must be done with, rather than against, the industry. As we move away from cages, we need to continue to work with the industry on improving feather cover and keel bone health, and reducing the amount of beak trimming that is done. The challenges for the sector in recent times—covid, staffing and, of course, the largest ever avian influenza outbreak—have been significant, but we will continue to take steps forward.

Broiler chickens perhaps do not fall quite so neatly into this debate, but they comprise a significant proportion of the animals reared in this country, so it is important to recognise that almost all of them—nearly 95%—are reared in barns, in confinement. Although we have better stocking densities than much of the EU, there is a great deal more to do in this area, some of which I will set out later.

As the hon. Member for Cambridge acknowledged, it has been an extremely difficult year for pig farmers. When we look at welfare in global pig systems, some 40% of our pigs are kept outdoors, so those sows have outdoor farrowing systems. The pig sector also gives us the clearest evidence of what happens when we ban a system without having a plan to help the industry through it. The ban on sow stalls 23 years ago led to a 40% decline in the UK’s pig production statistics, which, truthfully, we have never recovered from.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) put this point extremely clearly: we must not offshore our animal welfare harms, because that would do the pig world as a whole no good at all. There are difficulties—we are bound by World Trade Organisation rules, of course—but active work is being done to establish how, if we banned a system here, we could ban imports from that system. We are working hard on that, but these things are not easy.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

It would be much easier if we had honesty in food labelling, because then at least as consumers we can make a choice.

[Victoria Prentis]

I will get to that point.

Our consultation on pig farrowing crates is not quite ready, particularly the impact assessment on costs, and this is an industry that has really struggled over the past year. The consultation is still being worked on and clearly further work is needed. I am very much in touch with the pig industry, as we come through what has been a very difficult period. We continue to work collectively to try to solve its problems. We are also in the middle of a serious supply chain review, looking at how contracts could be made to work better for the industry as a whole.

In order to raise standards, it is important that we have other tools at our disposal; it is not just about banning systems. I very much refute the allegation that no action has been taken over the past two years. It is important that we put this in context, because probably not since the last major period of rationing have a Government been so involved in ensuring that the food supply system remained operational, and that good-quality food was available on the shelves. I absolutely refute the suggestion that nothing has been done.

Our action plan for animal welfare was published in May last year, when we committed to working with the farming sector to support higher welfare conditions. The animal health and welfare pathway is being used to raise standards all the time, not just through banning things, but through a three-pronged attack. It states that financial rewards will be available for farmers who use higher welfare systems. It also sets out a plan for stimulating market demand—that is the labelling point—and, working hand in hand with that, for strengthening the regulatory baseline.

On pigs specifically, through the animal health and welfare pathway we will continue to improve biosecurity in order to control endemic diseases, and of course the vet visits will help in that area.

On meat chickens, through the pathway we are encouraging producers to implement the Better Chicken commitment, which requires the use of slower growing breeds and lower stocking densities. Only 5% of chickens are produced to higher standards. Frankly, we all need to interrogate where our meat comes from.

Labelling obviously plays an important part in enabling consumers to interrogate where our meat comes from, and we know that it works to stimulate market demand for higher welfare products, as we have seen with shell eggs. We have issued a call for evidence on animal welfare labelling, and last week affirmed our commitment to working on this issue in the food strategy. The food data transparency partnership will help, because the way we work with retailers is critical to changing their behaviours and forcing change from the consumer end up.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to phasing out confinement systems and supporting the industry to do so, not least to underpin UK food security. However, we need to work carefully and sensitively with the pig and poultry industries, which are both struggling with some difficult input costs and other challenges at the moment.

Government Food Strategy

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The UK Government stand absolutely four-square behind our fantastic Scottish food industry. Scotch whisky is our biggest food and beverage export, and Scottish salmon is also a major export. We have some really strong industries in Scotland.

On the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, we absolutely recognise that farm businesses have seen their input costs rise, particularly over the last six months. That is because the price of fertiliser and many other agricultural inputs is directly correlated with the gas price. It is also the case that agricultural commodity prices have risen. Generally speaking, since 2016, as a result of the referendum result and exchange rate changes, we have seen farm incomes and farm commodity prices rise quite strongly. The price of lamb is now more than £6 a kilo. The price of wheat has doubled in the past year, and we have seen strong prices in other sectors, such as that of beef. The picture is mixed, though. There are some sectors that have not seen that price rise, but, generally, the position has been strong. Finally, on the issue of labour, as I have said, we have a seasonal agricultural workers scheme. We work closely with the industry to understand its needs. Our assessment at the moment is that 40,000 visas are necessary for this current year.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I will, if I may, draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to paragraph 2.4.2, which concerns public procurement leading by example. It says that

“the public sector reports on progress towards an aspiration that 50% of its food expenditure is on food produced locally”.

As a very small British farmer, I think I can speak for all of agriculture when I say that we want not 50% British, but 100% British.

[George Eustice]

The commitment that we outlined today is in addition to the previous commitment of which my hon. Friend will be aware. It is the case that, some years ago, we introduced changes to the Government buying standard and the so-called balanced scorecard, which already requires all Government Departments and the Crown Commercial Service to follow that approach, and that is mandatory. What we are seeking to do in this case is to broaden that to hospitals and schools, which control their own budgets, but it is a slightly different situation.