Rural Transport

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

How nice it is to see you come back to the Chair, Mr Speaker, when your instincts must have suggested that you go elsewhere. I want to raise with the House a bizarre issue. For some reason, the Order Paper seems to have been misprinted. For example, it has given me an “s” on the end of my name. Also bizarrely, the presentation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill seems to have disappeared. I cannot understand what happened to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and why he would not want to be here—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just to help, that might be the case, but it is not a matter for the Adjournment, as you well know, so get on with your Adjournment debate instead.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I was clearly far too nice to you, Mr Speaker.

Let us start with the fact that 21.3% of the English population live in a predominately rural area. That is 12 million people who can contribute even more towards economic growth. Yet without greater thought about investment in infrastructure and innovation for transport in rural regions, that untapped potential is not being maximised. The Government have done much to support transport links with the north and in the devolved nations, despite the vibrant though poorly connected local economies in areas such as North Herefordshire. To maximise our growth and ensure that we meet our climate ambitions, as a nation we cannot afford to leave anyone behind.

Rural residents are distinctive because they are absolutely reliant on roads. Some 96% of journeys are made on local highways in the UK, and local roads make up 98% of the highway network in England. Road improvements can, unsurprisingly, have a significant impact on rural areas. In Herefordshire, the town of Leominster would benefit immensely from a northern link road—a brilliant £12 million investment that I raised some time ago. Of course, nobody should ever forget the tragedy and vandalism of the famous and now much-missed Hereford bypass. It would have made a phenomenal improvement to the city’s air quality and congestion. Everybody should remember that the opportunity for funding our bypass was idiotically thrown away by Herefordshire’s previous Green and independent council—a phenomenal failure for which they must never be forgiven.

Today, in trying to rectify that, we are limited by the cyclical nature of Government funding cycles. I live in hope that a funding window for the future Hereford bypass will open before 2030. The long cycles benefit civil servants, but leave vital short-term developments at the mercy of local authorities, which may themselves face funding constraints. Local projects are of course dependent on local planning rules; however, central Government can do much more to facilitate those projects by providing capital for roads to local authorities at shorter notice periods. I was delighted to learn that Herefordshire Council will receive an additional £1.8 million to help to repair the county’s roads. I praise the Government for redirecting funds from HS2 in that way. The importance of such funding cannot be overestimated in rural regions where car dependence is so high.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Lindsay Hoyle

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?

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Congratulating him on his knighthood, I call Sir Bill Wiggin, or Sir William Wiggin.

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

My right hon. Friend has touched on the number of people in intensive care: 90% of those have not had their booster, and 60% have not had any vaccination at all. He will know that there are people out there with very good reasons not to be vaccinated, who get tarred with the same brush as people who have been reading nonsense on the internet. Can we have better stats, so that people can see the benefits of vaccination and be encouraged to take it up? Obviously, everybody benefits if those people are not in hospital.

Environment Bill

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Lindsay Hoyle

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I tabled new clause 2 to address the proposed general licensing requirements for the release of game birds and the environmental benefits of shooting. A campaign group named Wild Justice is repeatedly challenging DEFRA. As a result, Natural England must make assessments of the potential damage to EU-protected sites before granting licences for the release of game species. The proposed assessments are intended to take years to achieve, thus halting the granting of licences. The new clause would shift the requirement for Natural England from mandatory assessments to doing them on a common-sense, case-by-case basis.

Campaign groups such as Wild Justice would like to end all country sports. Often fuelled by emotive and ill-informed rhetoric, such campaigns do not recognise the importance to the environment of country sports and their contribution to not only the rural economy but the conservation of land. The gross value added of shooting stands at £1.7 billion in England and £2 billion in the United Kingdom—£240 million in the west midlands alone. Shooting adds 350,000 direct paid jobs to the market and accounts for 10% of the total amount spent on outdoor recreation each year.

Every year, 3.9 million work days are spent on conservation —the equivalent of 16,000 full-time conservation jobs. Up to 700,000 hectares of farm land are planted with wild bird seed mixes and pollinator strips as a result of game bird management. That is five times greater than the land owned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Game shooting estates often have 65% more hedgerows than normal farm land. Most statistics show that the sport is not the preserve of the elite: figures from 31 March show that 159,483 firearms certificates and 567,358 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales. That means that at least 1.6 million people are shooting in the UK.

Pheasants have been in the UK continually for the last 2,000 years. Their release, management and subsequent hunting predates all site protections. Indeed, game bird release and management have largely been responsible for the existence of sites of high nature value that are worth protecting. Some 28% of woodlands in England are managed to some extent for game birds—more than are managed for nature conservation. We therefore need to do considerably more to ensure that, if the new clause does not suit the Minister exactly, such provisions are taken on board.

Natural England has two tools to monitor sites: the improvement programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites—IPENS—and a designated sites view, or DSV. The latter identified game bird release as causing an impact across seven sites of special scientific interest—the equivalent of 134 hectares. For context, England’s SSSI network covers 4,100 sites and that is more than 1 million hectares. The worst impacts on nature, unfortunately, are caused by dogs and walkers, and nobody wants to see them campaigned against, so I hope that DEFRA will adopt the gist of this amendment to protect itself—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Kerry McCarthy.

Foreign Affairs Committee

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will help the hon. Gentleman. I think Mr Wiggin is responsible for it appearing on the Order Paper.

[Bill Wiggin]

indicated assent.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) inadvertently misled the House. He can look at the record and see that I definitely said that the SNP should be heard, and to say otherwise is obviously wrong. I hope that he will check that and put what he said right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is open to any Member to check. Let us crash on now. David Warburton has six minutes.

Badger Cull

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As DEFRA has not released its report, it would be demeaning to the House to have a Division on this issue. Is it your view that Mr Speaker’s ruling should be maintained—that is, that if a Member shouts, he should vote in the way that he shouts?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You know very well, as I do, that if a Member shouts one way, they should not vote the other way, but they could abstain.