Pet Abduction Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before we begin, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of the debate on Report is the new clauses and amendments that have been 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.

New Clause 1

Guidance

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the enforcement of the provisions of this Act.

(2) Before issuing guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Crown Prosecution Service.”—(Sir Christopher Chope.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the House will be aware, very serious events have taken place overnight in the middle east, with Israel apparently striking targets in Iran. That could lead to further, very serious escalation. As a former armed forces Minister and now a member of the Defence Committee, may I take this opportunity to say that it is important, as the House is fortuitously sitting today, that a Minister from either the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office or the Ministry of Defence comes to the House as soon as possible to make a statement on exactly what we know about the attacks and what the Government believe the implications might be? Madam Deputy Speaker, have you or the Speaker’s Office had any indication that the Government intend to make such a statement, and, if so, at what time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he says, he is an ex-armed forces Minister. There has been no indication either to myself or to the Speaker’s Office, so far as I am aware, that the Government intend to make a statement. Certainly, at the conference meeting this morning there was no indication that the Government intended to make a statement, but Government Front Benchers will have heard his point.

[Mr Francois]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not for one moment wish to push my luck, but under the circumstances I believe that a statement is very important. As you know, the Government can interrupt business at any time to make a statement. Such is the importance of these events—and I notified the office of the Leader of the House that I would make this point of order—that I believe, before the House rises this afternoon, a Minister should come to the House to tell us everything that the Government know about what is going on. I will leave it at that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. I note that he has informed the Leader of the House of his strong views on the matter, so I think he is right that at this stage we leave that there.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I take it from the ruling you have just made, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, unfortunately, there was no application for an urgent question on the matter that my right hon. Friend raises. If there had been such an application, in the circumstances it is likely to have been granted. Perhaps the Government, when thinking about whether they will make a statement, should take into account that so far they have been very lucky that there was not an application for an urgent question in the required timescale. They were probably prepared for such an eventuality, so it would be reasonable for the Government to come along and volunteer a statement, as my right hon. Friend has requested.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is rather pushing his luck. Could he return to his speech on the Bill?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, to emphasise the importance of the Bill we are discussing. This is not the only occasion when, compared with what is happening in the rest of the world, the legislation we are discussing seems to many people to be relatively unimportant, but pet abduction is a very important subject for those who are directly affected by it.

Before the point of order, I was seeking to make the point that people should not be charged or arrested for dog abduction if it is clear at the time of the initial investigation that, at the time of the taking or detention of the dog, the person who took or detained the dog, the person from whom lawful control was taken and the dog all lived together in the same household. Why should a household in that situation be faced with having to defend themselves against arrest and prosecution by using this defence? Surely it would be better and fairer to require that someone only commits an offence if they abduct a dog without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. That is the background to my putting forward new clause 1. We increasingly put the cart before the horse in accusing people of crimes and then forcing them to defend themselves against the allegations, instead of requiring the prosecuting authorities to look into possible defences or excuses before making an arrest or instituting a prosecution.

Amendment 2 is designed to test out whether an offence is committed if a dog is not permanently removed from someone’s lawful control. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments in response to that.

Amendment 3 is designed to ensure that an offence is committed only where a dog is removed from the lawful control of its registered keeper, rather than where it is taken from any other person. I know it will be said that if someone is a dog walker or running some kennels and is not the registered keeper, the offence of pet abduction should equally apply, but in those circumstances the more serious offence of theft should be applied under the Theft Act 1968. Again, that would emphasise the distinction between somebody who is a registered keeper and whose details are set out on the microchip database, and another person to whom the dog has been given for safe keeping, for whatever reason.

Amendment 4 would test out the distinction between the requirement of permanence where someone is depriving an owner of their dog, which in essence comes under the Theft Act 1968, and the less stringent requirements under this Bill. Amendment 5 is a similar amendment to ensure that only where a dog is detained so as to keep it from its registered owner would there be an offence. Amendment 6 is consequential on amendment 1, and amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I suspect that the incidence of theft of tortoises is much higher, if we look at the percentage of thefts in the relative populations. My hon. Friend says there were only 379 cases of cat theft, and my understanding is that there are 10.5 million cats, so if we work out the percentage of cat owners who find that they have been deprived of their cat, I suspect that it is much lower than the percentage of tortoise owners who find that their tortoise has been abducted.

However, I think what my hon. Friend’s point shows is that, in the context of 10.5 million cats, 379 thefts is hardly a really serious issue. He is a cat owner; I am not—my family are dog lovers, but the two are not necessarily incompatible. I recognise the importance of microchipping cats. Obviously, this legislation will not get on to the statute book until after the microchipping of cats has become mandatory, and until there are criminal penalties if that is not complied with.

I am proud to have visited the premises of the Cats Protection League in my constituency, in Ferndown, which is a very important centre for the rehoming of cats, and that is one of the great tasks that that important charity undertakes. I am not against cats, but I tabled this amendment to test the Government’s thinking. The original taskforce set up to look into these issues reached the conclusion that dogs should take precedence, but the Government subsequently gave way because of behind-the-scenes lobbying by interest groups—not as a result of public consultation—and supported the extension of the legislation to cats.

The taskforce’s advice was to start off with dogs and then extend the measures to cats. All I am doing is, in a sense, repeating what the taskforce said. The essence of my amendments 10, 11 and so on is that they would enable cats to be included at a later stage under the provisions of clause 3, thereby bringing the Bill into conformity with the recommendations of the pet abduction taskforce. If the Government do not want to do that—I understand why they may not—then so be it, but I still think that is worth exploring in debate. That is why I tabled the amendments, including amendment 13, which is consequential on the removal of clause 2, as are amendments 14 and 15.

The next amendment on the amendment paper is amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, who promotes the Bill. She says:

“This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).”

Who could possibly object to that? However, when Back Benchers bring forward legislation and do not get it drafted by Government lawyers, there is always something faulty with it, and Ministers delight in saying at the Dispatch Box, “We agree with the intent, but the wording is inadequate.” The question I throw out for debate and discussion is this: why did the Government lawyers who drafted the Bill for my hon. Friend not get it right in the first place? Why did they leave it until so late in the day before insisting that this amendment, and Amendment 20, be included in the Bill? When she addresses her amendments, I hope that she can explain the background to that situation. It shows that instead of being all-knowing and beyond criticism, Government drafters have some of the same frailties as Members of the House when trying to draft legislation, even with all the expertise that the Public Bill Office is able to bring to bear when assisting us in that task.

Amendment 21 links back to my new clause 1, which would make the commencement of the legislation contingent on the necessary guidance having been issued. From discussions I had with the ministerial team, it seems that is the intent, but the amendment would put that in the Bill. Amendment 16 is consequential, and I have already referred to amendment 20, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West.

That is a quick run-through of the amendments. I hope it will generate a proper debate and discussion, and enable people who take an interest in the matter to become more familiar with the issues around microchipping, including the importance of ensuring that cats and dogs are microchipped, the burden on the enforcement authorities, and the deterrence that microchipping provides against those who are minded to engage in the theft of pets. I hope those issues can be shared more widely across the country. There is a lot more detail behind the Bill, but there is no need for me to go into any more of that at the moment. If the Government cannot accept new clause 1, I hope they will be able to provide undertakings that its measures will be implemented voluntarily.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for passing on his condolences to Mr Speaker. As he said, Doug Hoyle was a great parliamentarian and a very kind person, who was always there with a ready smile and good advice to all of us. I pass on our condolences to Mr Speaker from the whole House.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar]

It is fascinating that some Conservative Members want to defend not only this completely outdated and barbaric practice of trophy hunting, but the procedure by which a few hereditary peers are elected among themselves, no member of the public having any say in the matter. May I help my hon. Friend by saying that in the previous Session, the Bill was introduced by a Conservative Member? Indeed, a Conservative Member of the House of Lords was going to take up that Bill, but someone else shot in and grabbed it beforehand, with a bit of sleight of hand. If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) wants to defend that sort of jiggery pokery, he is welcome to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am anxious for us to come back to the Bill before us, as opposed to discussing a Bill that we might deal with later today about hereditary peers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not going to take any interventions, because Members have made so many already and we do not want to restrict the debate on the ultra low emission zone, but I will refer to some of the points that my hon. Friend rightly raised in a moment.

It is important to recognise that the import ban will not prevent a UK resident or citizen from participating in hunting while they are overseas. Trophy hunting can and will continue around the world. It is right that each country should be able to decide how best to manage its own wildlife, and the Bill does not change that. That point was highlighted vociferously by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North Herefordshire, but it has to be remembered that we are not preventing that. Countries around the world on both sides of the debate have had regular opportunities to discuss this issue and raise their points. Indeed, we have had letters from the Presidents of Botswana and Namibia—the high commissioner was written to just yesterday.

It is important to keep in mind the contribution that the UK trade in hunting trophies makes. Annual imports of hunting trophies to the UK are very few in number—on average, there have been 73 a year over the last 10 years. Even so, it is essential that we play our part to ensure that communities around the world benefit from conserving the wildlife that they live alongside. That was reflected in the agreement of the hugely important global biodiversity framework. There is now a strong and essential focus on how, as a global community, we finance biodiversity, conservation and restoration work. Members will be aware of just how much the Government are doing on that front, with our huge £93 million Darwin initiative and our £30 million Darwin Plus initiative. All of that focuses on biodiversity and conservation, working with locals and indigenous peoples.

Penultimately, let me run through some of the provisions in the Bill. The Bill will ban the import of hunting trophies from specific species, with the explicit aim of ensuring that imports into Great Britain do not place unnecessary pressure on species that are at risk. For those species, an import ban without exemptions will be the most effective protection, as it will provide clarity and address the conservation concerns arising from trophy hunting.

Clauses 1 and 2 make provision for the import ban, which will cover trophies brought into Great Britain from animals hunted after the legislation comes into force—there are strict, clear lines about anything that happens before that. The definition of a hunting trophy in clause 1 is:

“the body of an animal, or a readily recognisable part or derivative of an animal, that…is obtained…through hunting…for the hunter’s personal use”.

That is how hunting trophies are defined in our current controls under CITES.

Clause 2 applies the import ban to all species listed in annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulation. The wildlife trade regulation implements the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES—in Great Britain. Annexes A and B are broadly equivalent to appendices I and II of the convention, and include species that the global community has agreed to protect through trade restrictions due to their conservation status. They cover a great number of species threatened by international trade, such as big cats, all bears, all primates, hippos, rhinos and elephants. As a result, the Bill will end the permit system for imports of hunting trophies derived from those species. There will be no provision for exemptions to the import ban.

Clause 3 is about movements from Northern Ireland. The clause states clearly that the import ban will

“not apply in relation to the removal of qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.”

Clause 4, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, establishes an advisory board on hunting trophies. The clause states:

“The role of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary of State on any question relating to this Act”.

Clause 5 simply covers the Bill’s extent, application, commencement and short title.

Let me quickly discuss the impact assessment, as I did not allow any interventions. We heard some views about the impact assessment and what the Government will do about it, but there are two sides to that. The impact assessment presented both sides of the debate, but it also highlighted that trophy hunting can lead to population declines and that over-hunting threatens more than 30% of endangered mammal species, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The impact assessment also noted that trophy hunting quotas are inappropriate, unscientific, excessive and over-reliant on opinions, and that the management of such quotas is based on poor-quality data. Similarly, a report by the University of Oxford found that the damaging effects of the unsustainable trade in hunting can extend beyond hunting areas.

I hope that I have answered some of the questions. This has been a very positive and lively debate on both sides of the House. I thank the right hon. Member for Warley for bringing the Bill back to the House, and reconfirm that the Government are fully committed to supporting it.

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Lobby?

Food Security

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Insect decline and UK food security, HC 326; Second Report of the Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental change and food security, HC 312, and the Government response, HC 646; Seventh Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2022-23, Food security, HC 622, and the Government response, Session 2023-24, HC 37; Oral evidence taken before the International Development Committee on 30 January and 12 March 2024, on the UK Government’s work on achieving SDG2: Zero Hunger, HC 112; and e-petition 611113, Ban development on agricultural land to increase food self-sufficiency.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will call Philip Dunne to move the motion and will put an advisory 15-minute limit on the clock, which I am sure will be helpful.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of food security, including the effects on it of environmental change and of insect decline.

I start by thanking the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on food security, as covered in recent reports by the Environmental Audit Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, chaired respectively by myself and my right hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I look forward to their contributions.

Food security affects us all. We all want enough food to feed ourselves and our families. I declare a particular interest in this area as a food producer myself, having held responsibility for my family farm for over 30 years. Our reports are, we hope, in the broadest sense complementary, in that each Committee recognises threats to the country’s food security and makes recommendations to Government on how to mitigate those threats. It may be hard to imagine the UK not having access to enough food to feed our population, but the truth is that British people have already felt the effects of climate change on our plates. Cold snaps and floods in Spain and Morocco were partly to blame for empty salad shelves in our supermarkets last year. We know that extreme weather events both at home and abroad are likely to become more frequent. Cost of living pressures mean that there are households in this country for which insecure access to food is already a daily reality. I commend colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their work on household food security.

In the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry, we looked at how to keep Britons fed in the face of environmental change. What we found is that food production and environmental change are—not to put too fine a point on it—mutually destructive. Climate change and biodiversity loss threaten to undermine not just food production itself, but the whole food system. Colleagues on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee have drawn attention to a particular aspect of this relationship in their recent report on insect decline and UK food security.

Our global food system is itself one of the biggest drivers of environmental change, contributing to those very factors that undermine food security. In our inquiry, we heard that British farming is responsible for only 0.5% of the UK’s gross domestic product, but 12% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, the food system is responsible for 30% of carbon emissions, but 50% of biodiversity loss.

We framed our findings around three pillars. First, we need to adapt our food and farming system to become more resilient to the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss. Secondly, we must mitigate the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss on our food system. Thirdly, we must mitigate the damage to the environment that some aspects of our food system may cause.

According to the latest annual statistics of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the UK produced 58% of its own food in 2022 and imported the remaining 42%. My Committee took the view that prioritising, sustaining and improving our dependence on home-grown produce would be key to keeping Britain nourished while protecting the planet. That will be particularly important for foods that are vital for our health but where we currently rely on imports. For example, we currently import 84% of our fruit. We cannot rely on domestic produce alone and even if we did it, would not guarantee food security. We heard that an exclusive focus on producing food here would make us more vulnerable, not less, to extreme weather events such as heatwaves, which are becoming more common not just in other countries, but here in the UK. Food produced here is dependent on the wider global food system. British food still relies on imported fertiliser, pesticide and animal feed.

We know all too well that the global food system does not exist in a vacuum. Health crises, such as the covid pandemic or avian flu; geopolitical crises, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the world’s breadbasket; and global supply pinch points, such as the blockage in the Suez canal all affect supply chains, prices and protectionism, and compound the effects of environmental change. We have seen all those things in the course of this Parliament.

When food insecurity is exacerbated by environmental change it can lead to conflict, with devastating consequences. Incidentally, that is why our Committee has just this week launched a new inquiry into the effects of climate change and wider security issues, and I encourage anybody who is interested, including those interested in the impact on food security, to submit evidence by the end of April.

Today, we have published the Government’s response to our report on environmental change and food security, and I wish to thank the Minister and his officials who have engaged with our report. There is much in the response that we welcome, and I would like to focus my remarks this afternoon on some of the responses to the issues that the Committee highlighted in our report.

Under the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government are required to produce a food security assessment every three years. Although that is welcome, in view of the growing risk of volatility of food supplies, we urge the Government in our report to move to an annual publication of its food security report, with which colleagues on the EFRA Committee agree. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that the Government will introduce an annual food security index and encourage them to find parliamentary time to put this on to a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.

We found that one of the easiest wins in shoring up UK food self-sufficiency and mitigating the environmental impacts of our food system is to prevent the food that we have produced from going to waste, so I also welcome the £15 million that the Prime Minister recently announced to stop farm food going to waste. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed whether he agrees that the Government’s strategy for preventing food and drink waste, as outlined in their waste prevention programme for England, would be greatly enhanced if it included some targets and timescales for reducing food waste, as was recommended by my Committee.

In response to our report, the Secretary of State committed to taking a decision in the next four to six months on compulsory food waste reporting by businesses. I encourage him to do so before Dissolution. I also encourage the Minister to look at accelerating the regulation of insects as a high-protein source—something that has now been approved by the EU. Insects can be reared on organic waste streams, including food waste, to create a domestic alternative to soy imports for animal feed. It is potentially a tremendous way to have an impact in this area by reducing the millions of tonnes of soy imported for animal feed from countries at risk of deforestation, for example.

One of the key ingredients for food security is healthy soils, which face degradation from increasing droughts, flooding and more intense rainfall brought about by climate change. I welcome the new Government commitment to publish a progress report on the development of a soil health indicator by June. Ensuring that farmers have access to clear information to help to measure the health of their soils, which is a fascinatingly complex subject, is incredibly important, so I am pleased that the Government accepted our recommendation to publish guidance for farmers on soil monitoring. I believe that today the EFRA Committee is publishing the Government response to its report on soil health, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby might refer to in his remarks.

The other key ingredient is water, so I am particularly pleased that the Minister for water is responding to the debate. Food producers need enough of it, and they need it to be clean. My Committee recommended that the Government look holistically at managing water demand so that farmers have enough water in the right place at the right time to be able to feed the nation.

The Government’s commitment to consider more robust water efficiency standards is welcome as a demand control measure, as is their commitment to a third round of the water management grant later this year. We pointed out that the scheme will benefit only a small proportion of farmers in England. Will the Minister state what proportion of farmers he expects to benefit from the water management grant, specifically for establishing on-farm reservoirs and for precision irrigation technology to help British farming to become more water-efficient and better prepared for hotter, drier summers?

Turning briefly to consumption, what we choose to eat can have a big impact on the planet, which clearly affects our future food security. The choices that we make now will affect how much choice we have in the future. In response to our report, the Government pointed to Public Health England’s guidance, the Eatwell Guide, stating:

“Given that most people in the UK do not currently follow a diet in line with government dietary recommendations, improvements in population dietary intakes in line with the Eatwell Guide would go a significant way to meeting sustainability targets.”

All very laudable stuff. What will the Government do to encourage more people to follow this beneficial guidance? Surely if it is well-evidenced advice, the Government should be making more of it.

One landmark piece of work that we are still waiting for is the Government’s land use framework. Time and again, we heard in our inquiry that optimising the way English land is used for all the many demands required of it is the central issue to maintaining food security in a changing environment. When he gave evidence last July, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries promised us that the land use framework, already delayed, would be published by the end of 2023. Sadly, the Government are now telling my Committee that it will be published in 2024. Will the Minister update the House on when in 2024 we can expect the land use framework to be published? Will he undertake, as my Committee recommended, to publish the Government’s methodologies alongside the land use framework when it eventually appears, to give confidence that the framework will contribute both to maintaining food security and to the Government’s net zero and biodiversity targets?

The other hugely relevant innovation brought in by the Government are the environmental land management schemes, or ELMS. The Government described those schemes as being founded on the principle of public money for public goods, but Ministers have declined our reasonable invitation to designate food security as a public good—as the Minister will be aware, the NFU has been calling for that for some time. Will the Minister explain why?

I did not come here today to be all doom and gloom. The environmental challenges facing our food system are worrying, but they are also an opportunity for the best of technological innovation. Our Committee has been keen to examine over this Parliament how technology can help us to address to environmental and climate changes that we face. Modern technology—be it the use of artificial intelligence and drones to pinpoint the use of fertiliser, the use or methane-suppressing food additives, or alternative proteins such as insects, now mostly grown in labs—opens up new ways of producing food while minimising the environmental impact. I am sure that we will hear a lot about that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells.

In response to our recommendations on expanding the incentives for farmers to take technological innovations, the Government increased the farming equipment and technology grant to a maximum of £50,000 per farm, and increased its overall budget to £70 million, which I welcome.

The fact that three Select Committees are here to represent recent reports on different aspects of food security shows how important the subject is. We are not alone: the International Development Committee is in the middle on an inquiry on hunger and nutrition. I thank the Liaison Committee for granting time for the debate, and I thank the Government for their response to the Environmental Audit Committee report on environmental change and food security. I commend the report to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I served for some time. I was pleased that he referred to my Committee’s report on soil health and spoke about baselines on where we are with our soils. A lot of soil testing work has been done in Northern Ireland. As we have heard, although many farmers, particularly arable farmers, are making great strides in testing their soils, none of that data is uploaded to any Government website, and there is very little data on the amount of carbon in our soils and on what we can do to improve the situation.

This is not the first time that this House has debated food security. Perhaps the most contentious issue dominating politics in the 19th century was the balance to be struck between protecting the interests of British farmers and landowners, and the need to provide cheap food to the workers in factories and mills in the industrial revolution. Lord Liverpool introduced the corn laws in 1815, preventing the import of wheat under 80 shillings a quarter, or £20 a tonne. In today’s money, that is double the price that wheat hit after the invasion of Ukraine, although the production stimulated by those protections meant that the actual price of wheat, and hence bread, never reached those dizzy heights.

My own family farm—to which I draw the House’s attention in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—started business four years after the repeal of the corn laws by Robert Peel’s Administration in 1846. The workers’ cause, led by Cobden and Bright, had prevailed over the landowners’ vested interests. The era of free trade did not submerge the country under cheap imports from the empire and new world, however. British farmers enjoyed a golden era in the 1870s, helped to some extent by the mass exodus of workers from the prairies to make their fortunes in the 1849 California gold rush, and by the little matter of the American civil war between 1861 and 1865. I make these points because of the parallels we see today, as we move out of a protectionist European Union into a new era of free trade. We should not forget that it was only the submarine blockades of the first and second world wars that brought into sharp focus the need for domestic food production. Two years ago, following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, we once again learned the same lesson.

We face a whole new challenge today: not only recognising the need for domestically produced food, but striking the right balance between food production and the environmental goals we need to achieve. In many cases, those goals can be delivered together, such as through the sustainable farming incentive, but in others, they are mutually exclusive. Surely, for example, it makes no sense to cover our most productive agricultural land with solar energy arrays. We can, of course, also produce biofuels on our land: wheat is used to make the ethanol in E10 petrol, and vegetable oil is used for diesel engines. However, if that means indirect land use changes in other parts of the world where forest is being cleared to create agricultural land, are we really delivering on our overall greenhouse gas obligations?

Perhaps the most contentious issue is that of the uplands—the moors and dales in places such as North Yorkshire and the Lake district. Henry Dimbleby MBE, who was then lead of the national food strategy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave evidence to my Committee. His report is well worth a read, and I agree with much of its content. It correctly states that the 20% of farmland that is in the uplands contributes only 1% or 2% of the calories produced in this country, and suggests that that land would be better utilised by planting trees to lock up carbon. We have already seen that happening in the west of Scotland, with serious consequences for local communities and employment, and the Welsh Government have approached it in a very crude way: 10% of land is to be planted with trees, regardless of the size and viability of the remaining farming business. Farmers have made their opposition to that policy very clear in Cardiff. I worry when I hear that Labour in Wales is a blueprint for what will happen in England if Labour were to get into power after the election. It is disappointing that there are no Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber today to give me their view of the future. Where are they?

We need to strike the right balance between the need to deliver our carbon obligations and the need to support rural communities, while also protecting the landscapes that merit national park designation. My Committee’s report on food security was launched in July 2022, as a direct response to market volatility following the invasion of Ukraine. It was published in July 2023, and the Government responded in November last year. We also looked at food poverty, extending free school meal provision, and the junk food cycle that contributes to rising obesity levels. We made 18 recommendations, which can be read on pages 45 to 49 of the report by those who wish to do so.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow referred to, we were delighted that the Government have already adopted a number of those recommendations. I was particularly pleased that the Farm to Fork summit will, as we suggested, now be an annual event, alongside the publication of an annual UK food security report. In February, the Government announced that they would publish an annual food security index, in line with our recommendation in paragraph 29 of the report. I look forward to other aspects of that report being taken up, particularly the response to John Shropshire’s independent review of labour shortages.

I have two specific points that I would like to raise. First, do sugar beet and oilseed rape have a future in the UK? This is particularly relevant given the report on pollinators. The science is clear that neonicotinoids have a profound effect on bee behaviour and hive viability when those insects are exposed to them. Sugar beet is susceptible to a number of virus diseases, including virus yellows. The vector for those viruses is the peach potato aphid, Myzus persicae. If an aphid feeds on a beet plant, it transmits the virus in much the same way a mosquito transmits malaria. One bite is enough, and the earlier in the season the infection takes place, the more devastating the effect on the yield. In cold winters, there are fewer over-wintered aphids and the risk is low, but if—as in the current season—the scientists at Rothamsted determine that the risk is high, the use of a neonic seed dressing is sanctioned. If that option were not available, sugar beet production in the UK would quickly become unviable. We would have to import beet sugar from countries that have not banned those seed dressings, or cane sugar from tropical areas.

The point is that bees and other pollinators feed on nectar and pollen. Sugar beet is a biennial, and is harvested before it flowers—I know that DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser is looking at this issue. Is there a risk to bees from soil residues that may be taken up by flowering plants, either as weeds in the sugar beets or in subsequent years? The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee report calls for more research on pesticide accumulation in terrestrial environments.

Oilseed rape—those yellow fields that we see in the spring—has declined by about 60% in the UK. That is because of the cabbage stem flea beetle, which can decimate the crop as it emerges, and the larvae that hatch can also be a problem in the spring. My farm still grows rape, but like many of my neighbours, this could be our last year. Seed dressings only need to work against this pest in the first three or four weeks of drilling in August. The crop does not flower until April or May the following year. What evidence is there that there is a risk to bees more than six months after the chemical seed dressing has been used, and just as importantly, what will be the effect on pollinators if we lose this important source of pollen and nectar early in the season? I know some beekeepers worry, as I do, about the law of intended consequences coming into play. Indeed, in the absence of the neonic seed dressings, my own rape crop was sprayed five times with synthetic pyrethroids in the month or six weeks after drilling. This is not a chemical that is bee-friendly, although farmers obviously take the precaution of spraying when the bees are not flying.

For many, the only real alternative crop to sugar beet or rape would be field beans or combining peas. The economics of growing these profitably are not good. Perhaps the Minister would consider including these crops as stewardship options and eligible for support to reduce our reliance on imported soil, which we know has an effect on the planet globally.

Secondly, what will be the effect of the wet autumn and winter combined with depressed cereal prices on our future food security in the United Kingdom? Around 30% of our wheat crop either did not get drilled last autumn or has rotted in the field. With payment for stewardship options looking increasingly attractive and predictable, does the Minister share my worries that increasing areas of land may be entered into multi-annual options such as overwintered bird food, or pollen and nectar, and that we may be short of wheat in future years, or is there a risk that some schemes may even be over- subscribed? Of course, we have other schemes. There is certainly an offset scheme in my area, where quite a large amount of land has been taken out of production because of a housing developer needing to offset a particular biodiversity.

In conclusion, our farmers produce some of the best- quality food in the world. We need to improve the amount of food we produce here, not least because of the environmental impact of international transport, particularly air freight of out-of-season products. We can also deliver the environmental gains that the environmental land management scheme incentivises, but that loss must not be at the expense of domestic production or result in carbon emissions elsewhere.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

Water Pollution: East Durham

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am, exceptionally, going to take a point of order, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has been asked by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to correct the record as soon as possible, and that he has given a commitment to do so. I would not normally do this, but I will this time because it is about a speech that was made earlier today.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal, who pointed out to me that I had got something completely wrong in the speech I made earlier. I said that she had presented a ten-minute rule Bill, the Schools (Gender and Parental Rights) Bill, but that was not introduced by her at all; it was in fact introduced by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who is quite a different matter. I heartily apologise to the right hon. Lady—I am terribly sorry—and I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to do that as swiftly as I could, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I heard the right hon. Lady say that she was grateful that the hon. Gentleman had done this as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by drawing the House’s attention to the impact on animal welfare that the dither and delay on this issue has caused. In the two years since the kept animals Bill was first introduced, the Dogs Trust has cared for 485 puppies that have been smuggled into the country, often in desperate conditions. It has also looked after 101 dogs who were transported while heavily pregnant, which we know poses significant risks to their health. Scrapping the Bill has given a green light for that cruelty to continue.

The Government used to claim that the Bill, first promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, would bring in some of the world’s strongest protections for pets, livestock and kept animals. Its provisions included ending live animal exports for fattening and slaughter, tackling puppy smuggling and restricting the keeping of primates as pets. I can see that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to correct the record on that point, and I am happy to say that the Government committed to introducing in legislation the individual facets in that Bill. It is my understanding, however, that private Members’ Bills are a lottery and are introduced by individual Members, so I still suggest that that is a broken promise. Of course, the challenge with the reliance on private Members’ Bills is that they are not just a lottery but a minefield.

We need to hear significant assurances from the Minister on the timings, on what will and will not be brought forward, on what elements of the Bill she considers her priorities, and on why she considers the other elements of the Bill less of a priority so that they will be phased behind those. We had a Bill that had already passed its Second Reading and was ready to go. We are told, “People tried to broaden it, so it became a Christmas tree Bill,” but, for heaven’s sake, the Government have a significant majority and a mandate to deliver on this matter—those excuses simply do not wash. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I will support the Labour motion. We need to see the kept animals Bill in statute, in full, as soon as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

That is a different point, on which I agree—I have been on Bill Committees with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison)—but my point is that using private Members’ Bills to get the measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill through this place is not the same as the Government legislating. It is merely piecemeal legislation. There are no guarantees that every measure in the Bill will get through the House by the end of the parliamentary Session, before the next general election. The most likely outcome is that hardly any will, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Secretary of State, but the proof will be in the pudding; at the general election, we will all see.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) is right, again, about the dither and delay. He made a number of good points, including the point that the Bill has been so long in gestation that it predates his entry to the House. A number of Members who have spoken have not been here as long as the Bill. That is why, in the motion, we propose resurrecting the Bill, and have set a date—12 July, which is soon—on which to get it moving through the legislative process. It is really quite simple: we politicians need to do our job, and do the right thing. In this case, that is to end the unnecessary suffering of innocent animals. We call on Government Members across the aisle to join us in the Lobby and give this place time to consider the Bill—a Bill that was brought to us by the Government. Let us work together to do the right thing, and put animal welfare before party politics. I heard Government Members say that they supported the Bill; they voted for it, and even served on the Bill Committee. Why can they not join us in voting for the motion today, and give the Bill time to get through this place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Secretary of State, I emphasise once again how important it is for all Members who spoke to get back to the Chamber in time to hear the Opposition spokesperson, as well as the Minister. It is very discourteous not to be here for those speeches. It is incumbent on Members to follow the debate, and not spend a lot of time away from it, so that they know when the wind-ups start.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

Food is assessed before it is allowed to be placed on the UK market, and that assessment includes whether it is safe. As with any other food, any producer has to be registered with its local food authority to meet strict food safety requirements. Food derived from or including insect protein must be properly labelled, with ingredients clearly indicated and any warnings, such as the presence of allergens, included on the label.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last night, Abi Kay of Farmers Weekly posted a piece detailing allegations of a major fraud in the meat processing sector. Her investigation revealed that

“up until at least the end of 2020, a food manufacturer was passing off huge quantities of foreign pork—sometimes tens of thousands of tonnes a week—as British”,

as well as passing potentially unfit food into the food chain. We had hoped that Ministers might make a statement this morning to reassure the public. In the absence of that, will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking, how often he has met representatives of the meat processing sector in the last month, and whether he is confident that adequate whistleblowing and trade union representation structures are in place to ensure that such malpractices cannot go undetected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I was appalled to read in this week’s Farmers Weekly that food labelled as British has actually come from South America or even Africa, and that meat not fit for human consumption has been going into the food chain. The Food Standards Agency’s report makes it clear that it has been misled and hoodwinked by these operators. Is there a case to bring the FSA within DEFRA rather than the Department of Health and Social Care, where it is now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I have no doubt, and nor has anyone in this House, about the Attorney General’s commitment or that of Conservative Members to the European convention on human rights. Beyond the fact that the section 19(1)(b) statement, while unusual, is not unique, does she agree that it is also important to remember that our whole case law system depends on existing legal precedent being tested from time to time in the light of changing and emerging factual circumstances to which case law or existing statute can be applied? The testing of the legal position is not any kind of illegality or impropriety at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend is a staunch defender of the procedures and the propriety of our activities in this House. I know that he will agree that it is important that the Law Officers convention is upheld. As I have said, I cannot share my advice with this House; I would very much like to do so, but I am unable to. For the Government’s position, I refer the House to the explanatory notes that accompany the Illegal Migration Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Last month, the Attorney General told the Justice Committee:

“It is particularly important that they”—

Government lawyers—

“work to keep the Government acting properly and within the rule of law”.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee found in January that the Government had

“twice knowingly introduced legislation in Parliament which would…undermine the rule of law: the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.”

This Illegal Migration Bill, even before the Attorney General’s own Back Benchers are finished with it, is a further example of that. When will her

“first duty…as an officer of the court”—

those are her words—trump her loyalty to a lawbreaking Government?

[The Attorney General]

My first duty is to the court and to the rule of law. I have absolutely no hesitation about restating that as often as the hon. Gentleman wishes me to; it is something that I believe very deeply, and I know that the Solicitor General agrees. Our advice on the Illegal Migration Bill is not something that we are able to share with the House. The use of the section 19(1)(b) statement is, as I have explained, unusual, but not unprecedented and certainly not improper.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is no secret that the Attorney General has reservations about the Illegal Migration Bill, and it is also no secret that those on the far right of her party are intent on rebelling to push the Bill further into breaking international law. Will she do the honourable thing today, and confirm that if the Prime Minister concedes on this, she will make a stand and declare the Bill unlawful?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I am indeed aware of that symposium, because I have been invited to speak at it this year, and I very much hope to see the hon. Gentleman there so that we can discuss this subject even further. As he will know, the National Economic Crime Centre, which was launched in 2018, leads the UK’s operational response to economic crime. As for his wider question, he will be aware of the Government’s fraud strategy, which will be released soon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Every day that passes, more lives are destroyed by fraud. We urgently need a Government who understand the scale of that crisis and have a plan to tackle it. Five months ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that

“the Government will shortly publish our fraud strategy…to block more scams and better protect the public.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 859.]

The Solicitor General has told us again today that the strategy will come shortly. Do the Government have a different concept of time? What do they mean by “shortly”, and how much longer are we going to need to wait—or is this just another example of the Government making big promises on crucial issues and delivering absolutely nothing?

Food Price Inflation

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and for his interest in this area. I hope he recognises that we are self-sufficient in lamb; we are very close to being self-sufficient in beef; and we are more than 100% self-sufficient in liquid milk. The UK has a very good supply chain and top-quality producers. The good news, which I hope he will join me in celebrating, is that the Windsor framework now allows Northern Irish farmers to plant Scottish seed potatoes without interference. That is good news for the United Kingdom, for Scottish seed producers, and for Northern Ireland’s potato growers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I am pleased to see the Bill return to the Chamber for its final Commons hurdle. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has done an outstanding job and is a dedicated advocate for the cause. I wish to thank organisations and individuals for their continued work on the campaign to see the Bill pass, and for the briefings that they have provided.

I have been disappointed to see the persistent lobbying from certain interest groups against this legislation, often intentionally based on misinformation and on hiding behind the transparent and false veil of conservation. I spoke in some detail on Second Reading about the misrepresentation of those purporting to be conservationists and I do not wish to repeat myself today. However, it does not take much scratching at the surface to see that what many of these lobbyists are looking for is the conservation of hunting for sport, rather than anything environmental. When we look at who is funding their deeply biased works, it becomes all the clearer.

On Second Reading, I argued that trophy hunting was an ugly relic of the colonial era. Let me now add that trophy hunting and poaching are, in fact, illegal for locals in these countries. It is ironic that those who seek to protect the highly profitable western white trophy hunting tourist industry might find themselves under the spotlight of that very same colonial accusation. In that context, I pay tribute to a man who has seen at first hand the positive impact of hunting bans to protect his country's beautiful wildlife: the former president of Botswana, Ian Khama. He has urged Members to support the Bill today,

“to halt the reckless, cruel destruction of nature’s wildlife by nature’s enemies”.

I would further add that the UK Government and, more important, the UK public have every right to decide that they do not want these macabre, mangled animal body parts to enter the country or to circulate here for profit. Preventing that is what the Bill will ultimately achieve. As we have heard, it will not change the law in other countries, or outlaw hunting there. Polling has shown unequivocally that the British public, including many of my constituents, support an outright ban on trophy imports, and do not support proposals for a partial ban or “smart bans”.

In 2020, the Government consulted on banning the import of hunting trophies. Their subsequent policy statement said:

“Within the consultation, we asked whether exemptions should be considered, for example for conservation reasons. We note the strength of sentiment from those who did not support exemptions, and there will be no exemptions for hunting trophies from species in scope of the ban.”

It is clear that some of the exemptions that some Members were trying to include in the Bill were not in keeping with public feeling—the public feeling that the Government were able to test through public consultation It is also clear that including any exemptions to a ban would undermine the very purpose of the legislation. Where we allow loopholes to exist, we also allow people to find ways of exploiting them.

I think it is fair to say that participants in this “sport” come from one main demographic—rich white men, and sometimes rich white women—and it is those in that same demographic whom the proceeds benefit. They are seeking to protect their financial interests at the cost of the existence of some of the world's most beautiful animals, the conservation of natural resources of wildlife in Africa, and Africa’s communities. I therefore urge all Members on both sides of the House to throw their full support behind the hon. Member for Crawley and his Bill, which is a critical and overdue change for the better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Could everyone who is trying to catch my eye please stand up? It is a bit confusing if only one Member does so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I will be brief, because I know many hon. Members would have loved to speak in the debate today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for this Bill and to my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for doing something that has enabled this important Bill to safeguard animals to go through. We have seen an outpouring of support for the Bill across the nation, from hon. Members, the Government and the general public. I pay tribute to them all and thank them. I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members have cancelled constituency events to be here to support the Bill; I support it wholeheartedly and I thank the House for supporting it too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend made that intervention at precisely that moment, because it enables me to talk about green finance, and the importance of involving the private sector and ensuring that critical private finance is coming in. Green bonds and debt-for-biodiversity swaps are innovative and fundamental ways in which we should facilitate countries such as Belize to tackle the environmental problems they face. It cannot be done without money, and it cannot be done simply with public money. In fact, green bonds are now classed as more attractive than ordinary, vanilla bonds, because they tackle not one issue, but two; they mitigate risk on two factors. The secondary market in green bonds has really taken off.

I want to talk about the way in which the financial sector needs to be regulated and guided through the issue. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the way in which our financial sector was incentivising deforestation, particularly in Brazil. He is absolutely correct. We should not simply say, as is the Government’s position, that companies need to declare their climate and sustainability actions in their mandatory annual reporting, and that they should not fund any activity, such as ranching in Brazil, that drives illegal deforestation. That is not good enough. When those stipulations were put in place, countries such as Brazil simply changed the law to make it legal so that they could continue to receive the finance. There must be objectivity about whether something is or is not deforestation.

I am conscious that I should not take up too much more time, but it is critical that COP15 addresses access and benefit sharing. We will not have global agreement and global co-operation on the environment and our failing global biodiversity unless biopiracy by pharmaceutical companies is addressed. These companies must not go into communities—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central referred to this—and say, “We are going to take the genetic sequences of these two trees and use them in our pharmaceutical products, but you will not get any advantages from it.” That is why the UK must be foursquare behind access and benefit sharing at COP15.

An ecosystem has the right to exist, to flourish, to regenerate its vital cycles and to evolve naturally without human disruption. Nature has rights. We often think that rights apply only to us, but trusts and institutions have rights, and those rights are safeguarded by trustees and guardians. That is us. Nobody else is here to argue for nature. We must be the guardians of that trust. We have been on this planet for only 0.13% of the time that biodiversity has existed. We have no right to destroy the world around us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

With the leave of the House, I will say a few words of thanks. I particularly thank the Minister for leading on behalf of the Government today and for her support and the reassurances she has given about how the Bill will be implemented. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for her support and the enthusiasm she showed for the Bill. I echo her words about Jack Dromey, who was a real gentleman. We disagreed politically, but my goodness, he was a very kind and genuine person. We will all miss him, and our sympathies go to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has served this place so well for so long.

I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew)—he made a lot of valid points that I completely take on board—for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith). My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made a superb intervention. I thank all Members for their comments.

I also put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for her work helping me to ensure that the Bill reached its final stages in this House. I also thank Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. We have enjoyed a strong working relationship over many years, particularly over the issue of protection of animals and conservation. I am honoured to have had the opportunity to work with him on the Bill. Lord Randall of Uxbridge has my deepest gratitude for kindly agreeing to take my Bill forward in the House of Lords. I have no doubt that he will ensure that it passes all the necessary stages before—hopefully—it receives Royal Assent.

I am also eternally grateful to the team at DEFRA for their advice and guidance throughout this process, especially Claire Ingham and Kirsty Groves for their tireless efforts and regular engagement with me.

I thank very much indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has given me great advice and guidance during the passage of the Bill and is always there when I need her.

Finally, I could not possibly fail to thank the staff in my parliamentary office, who have worked so hard, especially Elliot Keck and Stephen Reed, who unfortunately have both now left. They have been replaced working on the Bill by Scott Sherlock and Daniel Burden. I thank them for their valued and unwavering support and hard work. No Member is successful without the support of their staff, and mine have gone above and beyond the call of duty. A huge thank you must also go to the Clerks of the House of Commons, who have supported me from day one and made sure that I kept things properly on track, to ensure that we get to the successful place I hope we are reaching today.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. In this historic year of the Queen’s jubilee, let this Bill ensure that the animals that inhabit our cherished land and islands will be the winners under this new legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Congratulations.