Checks on Goods Entering UK

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight how important that sector is to the UK economy; that is why we want to protect those growing flowers here in the UK from any diseases that may be imported via products that have not come through the right channels with the right documentation. We want to keep the growing sector in the UK safe from any of those diseases; that is why we are introducing these checks.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The border operating model will not apply on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain; those trade routes are exempt. However, given the record of dodgy products being manufactured in the Irish Republic and brought through Northern Ireland to GB, can the Minister give an assurance that, should that route be used either by Republic of Ireland producers or other EU producers, he will not be installing checks on Northern Ireland to GB trade, which is so important to the Northern Ireland food industry and economy?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

Of course, we recognise the importance of the Northern Ireland economy, and we want to ensure that Northern Ireland feels part of the United Kingdom. We will do everything we can to limit any impact. As the right hon. Gentleman identifies, there is currently no timescale for the introduction of the way in which we will monitor and work with those who are moving goods across from that part of the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that that does not become a back-door route, and we will continue to have conversations with the authorities in that part of the world.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill (Instruction)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, That the Committee have leave to make provision for the whole of the United Kingdom.

First, let me thank Mr Speaker for selecting this motion, and the Clerk for the help and advice that has been given. The reason for tabling the motion is that the Bill, as it makes clear, applies only to the export of animals from Great Britain and does not include Northern Ireland, so an important piece of animal welfare legislation will not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. A significant part of the UK will be excluded, because a significant number of animal exports come from Northern Ireland.

That exclusion is important, because the most likely source of exports of animals that will suffer as a result of long journeys is Northern Ireland. As a result of the exclusion of Northern Ireland from the Bill, animals can be taken from Northern Ireland, exported through the Irish Republic, taken on a 23-hour boat journey to the European mainland and then carried down to the south of Spain, France or further abroad. The degree of suffering that animals are likely to experience as a result of the exclusion of Northern Ireland from the Bill is very severe, yet the whole point of the Bill is to reduce animal suffering and ensure that live exports, which could lead to animal suffering, do not happen.

Let me remind the House what that journey entails. In a letter from the previous Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland, I was informed that when animals were taken from Northern Ireland on a 300-odd mile journey through the Irish Republic to Rosslare, there was no necessity to feed them at that rest point. They could be put on a ship for a 23-hour journey without being fed, and that still enabled the exporters to comply with EU safety regulations. I put it to the House that if the Bill is about reducing suffering for animals when it comes to live exports, then this is a huge gap that needs to be closed.

The Minister is likely to tell us that there are a number of reasons why this cannot be done. The first reason is that if we include Northern Ireland, a substantial number of exports from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic—and there are substantial exports—would be affected. If this instruction were accepted, there would be an opportunity for the House to consider an amendment, in the name of my party colleagues, to restrict the export of animals to the main destinations in the Republic of Ireland only, so it would not affect that trade. However, that amendment cannot be considered unless this instruction is taken by the House and Northern Ireland is included in the scope of the Bill.

The Minister is likely to argue that that would be contrary to World Trade Organisation rules and so there is no point even proposing such an amendment, but the Government should be testing this area, because even under WTO rules, exceptions can be made. Trade with certain countries or regions can be excluded on the basis of the impact on animal health and welfare. When tested, it might well be that the rule will prove ineffective, but at least by including Northern Ireland in the Bill and accepting the amendment, which can subsequently be debated by the House and voted on, that exception can be tested. The first argument—that there is no point doing this because any subsequent amendments could not work—is not true. The second argument—that it would stop exports to the Irish Republic—can be dealt with.

Another argument that the Minister has not used to date—I do not know whether it is because he does not feel it is politic, or because he does not believe it is important—is that under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework, certain laws made in this House cannot apply to Northern Ireland. According to the EU, the reason for that is to safeguard the EU single market and ensure that no damage is done to it. I do not see how anyone could argue that the export of live animals from Northern Ireland to the EU single market damages the EU single market. It does not stand to reason.

Even though this is an unusual procedure, there is no reason why Northern Ireland cannot be included in the Bill. I point out to the Minister that, less than a year ago, this House accepted, without Division, a similar instruction in relation to Dáithí’s law on the transfer of organs for health reasons. It did so because there was support for it in Northern Ireland. I am not aware of any political party in Northern Ireland that would oppose the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the animal welfare legislation going through the House tonight.

I promised Mr Speaker that I would be brief, so I will conclude soon. I ask the Minister to accept this motion without Division. There is a logic to this. The Government have an objective of protecting the welfare of animals. A gap has been identified, and that gap can be closed. The inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill would reinforce the Government’s claim that Northern Ireland is fully part of the United Kingdom. Here is an opportunity for the Minister and the Government to show that that is the case. By including Northern Ireland in this legislation, we can protect the welfare of animals, which will be subject to extreme suffering as a result of being exported all across the European Union.

I hope that the whole House will accept that there is absolutely no case for excluding Northern Ireland on constitutional grounds, on the grounds of animal welfare, or on the grounds of the objectives that this Government have set themselves to protect animal welfare. I hope that the House will accept this instruction without any opposition, so that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom will be recognised, animal welfare will be protected, and the Government’s objectives will be achieved for every part of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The instruction would need to be agreed if we are to consider certain amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in Committee of the whole House. I am enormously sympathetic to his plight and arguments. I am grateful to him for meeting me privately last week to discuss his proposals, which seek to add Northern Ireland to the territorial scope of the Bill. In effect, his proposal is that the ban on livestock exports for slaughter would apply on a UK-wide basis, rather than GB-wide.

There is a crucial difference, as he is aware, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK with respect to the movement of livestock. Farmers in Northern Ireland routinely move animals to the Republic of Ireland for slaughter and fattening. Indeed, in 2022, around 3,500 cattle, 17,000 pigs and 337,000 sheep were moved in that way. The Bill must not jeopardise the access that Northern Irish farmers have to the Republic. That is a point on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman and I agree, as all hon. Members across the House would. His aim is to create a targeted exemption to the expanded ban: the prohibition would not apply to slaughter movements with an end destination in the Republic of Ireland. Unfortunately, that proposal is not an option that is available to us. That is because a range of international agreements and their core principles, including WTO rules, prevent discrimination against different countries in that way. Given that such a carve-out is not possible, extending the Bill to Northern Ireland would end all livestock exports for slaughter and fattening from Northern Ireland, including to the Republic of Ireland, and that is why the Bill is drafted in that respect on its territorial extent.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister knows that eight exceptions are listed by the WTO where it is possible to target trade interventions, and one of them is on the basis of animal health. Does he accept that taking animals from the north of Northern Ireland through the whole island of Ireland, on a 24-hour boat journey to southern France or southern Spain without food, risks animal health and is therefore an exception that we should at least be testing with the WTO, but we cannot do that if we do not accept the instruction?

[Mark Spencer]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from our discussions last week, I am enormously sympathetic to his view but, as he will be aware, those movements from the Republic of Ireland to the continent of Europe are a matter for the European Union. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). My understanding is that the EU is looking at some of those rules as we speak. That is, of course, a matter for the Republic of Ireland and the EU, and we cannot in this House legislate for other nations.

If we were to transpose “Republic of Ireland” and “Belgium”, for example, other nations would challenge completely one nation being favoured above others. We could not say, “We won’t export animals for fattening or slaughter to anywhere in the world, apart from Belgium.” That would be challenged instantly by the international trade bodies, and we would lose in court—that is the legal advice I have been given—so the Government are not in a position to put forward legislation that we know is not legally sound.

I am enormously sympathetic to the view of the right hon. Member for East Antrim and, of course, I agree with him. I do not want to see sheep and cattle moved from Belfast all the way to Madrid. That is not what we want to see happen, but we do not have the power to stop that at this moment. That is why it is critical that we protect the Northern Irish economy. Extending livestock exports from Northern Ireland in that way would be devastating if we were to stop them moving to the Republic. I understand his desire for a modified ban to apply in Northern Ireland. However, it is just not possible under our international obligations, and making such a provision for the whole of the United Kingdom in this Bill is not appropriate at this time. I therefore appeal to him, respectfully and hopefully, to find a way to withdraw his motion, in the knowledge that we have enormous sympathy for his position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

This Bill is genuinely a Brexit benefit: we are able to take control of our ports within GB and stop the live export of animals for slaughter or for fattening. That is a genuine Brexit benefit and one that I hope we can now start to debate. I hope the right hon. Member for East Antrim will withdraw his motion.

[Sammy Wilson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind the remaining speakers that they should be focusing on the amendments and clauses. They should be speaking to those, not making a Second Reading debate speech.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Of course, my party tabled amendments to the Bill that cannot be discussed and decided on because of the House’s earlier decision about the instruction to include Northern Ireland in the scope of the Bill. We will support many of the amendments that have been tabled, because we believe that the scope of the Bill should be as wide as possible and that while it mentions specific animals, there are other animals that may well be subject to exports in the future.

I do not know if those who tabled the amendments have noted the irony of what we are discussing. This is a Bill to ban the export of live animals, and we are seeking by various amendments to make sure that any other animals not named in the Bill can also be included. Here is the irony: since 2020, the area of the United Kingdom to which the Bill applies has not exported any live animals; the only part of the United Kingdom where there are substantial exports of live animals is the part of the United Kingdom that is not included in this Bill. I do not know if people have noticed the irony of that.

In fact, I remember that at the time when there was criticism of the Government for not bringing forward this legislation, one of their defences was that we had not had any live exports. Of course, we could have live exports in the future, but the Bill addresses an issue that is not an issue for the area included in the scope of the Bill and it ignores the part of the United Kingdom where there are massive exports. Some speakers have said that at least the problem of exports will be made a bit less of an issue because the land bridge is no longer available for exports from Northern Ireland to the rest of Europe. However, that is not the answer, because exporters will of course simply use a more circular and tortuous journey through the Irish Republic.

I first became involved in this issue maybe 20 years ago when I was on a motorbike holiday through the Alps in France. I had not spoken to anybody who could speak English for about two weeks, and I noticed a lorry with a Northern Ireland registration number. I was a member of Belfast City Council at the time, and we had closed our abattoir because the conditions did not meet EU standards. I thought, “There’s somebody from Northern Ireland. I’m going to follow that lorry, and when it stops, at least I’ll have somebody I can talk to.” I thought I would find somebody who could speak English and could understand my sort of English.

I followed the lorry along a long and windy road through the Alps outside a town called Nyons, and it finally stopped at an abattoir in a small village and unloaded its sheep. The sheep came from outside Ballymena, and the driver told me they had come down through the Irish Republic, across the sea, through France and up into the Alps. That journey had taken me on a motorbike—and not because I was going slow either—about three days, and these animals were being transferred to a slaughterhouse. Because I was interested in the issue, I wanted to see what the slaughterhouse was like. We had closed that slaughterhouse in Belfast, but the place to which these animals were being transferred for slaughter from Northern Ireland was like an outhouse of the slaughterhouse that we had closed in Northern Ireland because it did not meet EU standards.

That awoke me to the issue, because I did not think that animals were transported such a distance. This Bill, even with the amendments that have been tabled, will still leave that route open. The objective that the Government are seeking to achieve will not be achieved. It is ironic that we have a Bill about animal welfare that ignores the main source of concern about the transport of animals across the continent of Europe.

I know what the Minister said about the challenges, but I wonder whether he has considered the challenges for this Bill under WTO rules, which the Library has highlighted. There is a reason for not including Northern Ireland, but would he like to comment on the challenges that the Government anticipate may occur and what their response would be? Are they going to use the response of making exceptions?

Lastly—I emphasised this in my speech earlier and other Members have mentioned it—unlike the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who is not here, I am more concerned about the objective of the Bill of protecting the welfare of animals than about protecting the relationship we have, through the Windsor framework, with the EU. I find it disgraceful that someone who represents a constituency where I know there is large concern about animal welfare is more concerned about keeping good relations with the EU than respecting and dealing with animal welfare considerations in the region with the biggest exports of live animals in the United Kingdom.

I wish the Bill well, and it may well be that without it there would be a return to live animal exports. It may well be that it is addressing a problem that is not there in GB. It is there in Northern Ireland, but it is not going to be addressed. I hope there will not be a loophole, because unfortunately, as a result of the agreements that the Government have made with the EU in respect of Northern Ireland, even the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has spent so much time on, is in jeopardy of being circumvented, because the hunting trophy exports could come through Northern Ireland and get into GB. That is one of the problems that need to be addressed, and it will not be addressed by this legislation, which will only exacerbate the difference between the part of the United Kingdom that I belong to and the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking eloquently this evening on two important principles that I hope every Member of the House will support: the principle of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the principle of ending suffering through improved animal welfare. While I am sorry that the amendment he sought did not come to a vote this evening, I hope that the Government will reflect on the fact that, whether it is in live animal exports from the United Kingdom or the importation of the body parts of endangered species, those principles of the whole Union and animal welfare should be paramount.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I hope the Minister will listen to, because otherwise—despite all the amendments that have been tabled and that, if pushed to a vote, we will support—the problem will still exist, it will not have been addressed and the protection of animals that the Bill is designed to provide will not be fulfilled.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I rise to speak about the amendments, in particular those tabled by the Opposition Front Benchers. They did so in good faith, but I do think there are issues with them. If we look at this issue as a nation and are honest about why there has been so little or no exporting of live animals, it is public opinion that made that happen. That is what stopped it at Dover and some of the smaller ports.

I had the honour of being a researcher for the late and departed Sir Teddy Taylor, the former MP for Rochford and Southend East. Among many things, he campaigned hard to ban the live export of animals. Before I came into this House, I did a little bit of journalism among many other things, and as journalists, we followed lorries, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) did, down to Italy, believe it or not, without them stopping for fodder or water.

I get where the amendments are coming from, but to suggest that animals such as llamas or deer might at some future time be moved for fattening and slaughter is stretching the imagination. This place is for debate. The Labour Front Benchers disagree with me—I absolutely get that—but I am sent here to express a view. We have major problems with deer in our forests—not just muntjac, but other species—to such an extent that some farmers are going to give up their leases on some of the National Trust land they farm. They say it is not viable. We are not going to export those deer—we will not send them across for fattening. Llamas are not going to be sent for fattening and slaughter. The Bill is targeted at an industry.

I have every sympathy with my friends from Northern Ireland, and I know exactly where they are coming from, but it will not be financially viable for wholesalers—that is normally who it is—to take cattle from the Province into the Republic and send them on that huge sea journey. That journey is not cost-effective and just will not happen.

We are sent here to protect and not just to talk about financial viability, and this Bill is important. Yes, I would like to have seen it earlier, as I think we all would. It was a manifesto commitment that I stood on, and I think manifesto commitments are important. However, we cannot divide this sovereign Parliament and give those duties to, for instance, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I do not think that is right; it is for this country to set what is right and wrong in terms of those international obligations.

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman said that the closure of the land bridge will make it less commercial for animals to be exported that way. I had a response from an agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland talking about the export of animals from Northern Ireland via Dublin and then on to Rosslare and Le Havre. He said:

“Analysis by my officials has shown that calves exported from Northern Ireland via a Republic of Ireland port (Dublin or Rosslare) are rested on the truck in the Republic of Ireland for at least one hour before sailing to France. It has not been considered necessary to date to feed the calves during this rest period to achieve compliance with the EU regulation”.

The practice was already happening before this legislation. It closes one route—the land bridge—but is likely to lead to even greater suffering. The EU regulations and Department officials do not even consider it cruel to rest the animals for one hour and then send them on a 24-hour boat journey without any food.

[Sir Mike Penning]

This House thinks the practice is cruel, and that is why we are changing things with this legislation today. Frankly, what our European friends do, now that we are out of there, is down to them. We can talk to them, be friends with them and do lots of things with them, but we do not have to do what they tell us to do anymore. That is crucial.

There is one amendment that I would have been the first to support, had the Opposition or the Government wanted to table it, and that is on foie gras. I cannot understand why they have not. I spoke on Second Reading about amendments that should have been tabled. Why on earth is something whose production is banned in this country, because it is cruel, allowed to be imported and sold in this country? That is a mistake in the Bill. I am sure that amendments might be tabled in the other House. If they were tabled in this House, they would be agreed. Those amendments should be made to the Bill, but perhaps I will speak a bit more on that on Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that tonight is a big step forward. We have a huge chunk of the kept animals Bill, and I believe that early in March there will be a private Member’s Bill, on which we will of course deliver. Let me contrast that with what happened under Labour by taking the hon. Lady back to July 2009. This was the answer to a question from a Labour Member about what Labour intended to do about the export of live animals:

“The export of live animals is a lawful trade and to restrict it would be contrary to free trade rules. Such trade must, though, adhere to the standards set out in health and welfare rules.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 716W.]

The Labour Government had the opportunity to do this in 2009, and chose not to.

Let me now turn to Third Reading. I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I am hugely grateful to Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill and have been present during its passage to ensure that this trade is consigned to history. I know that the topic of live exports is close to the hearts of a great many Members, and it is been cheering and wonderful to hear so many parliamentarians speak in support of the Bill.

[Sammy Wilson]

While the Minister is receiving accolades from the Members behind him for the work that he has done on animal welfare, may I express, on behalf of people in Northern Ireland, the disappointment that is felt about the fact that a Conservative and Unionist Government have not applied the same law to the place where most live animal exports come from? The Minister has not extended the animal welfare protections because the Government are more interested in cosying up to the EU than in dealing with the issues that affect people throughout the United Kingdom.

[Mark Spencer]

I am not going to argue with the right hon. Gentleman. We agree on much more than we disagree on, and I will not sour this moment by being drawn into such an argument. The right hon. Gentleman knows how much sympathy I have for his political desires, and I am enormously sympathetic to his desire to hold the United Kingdom together. He has my commitment to work with him and his colleagues to ensure that the United Kingdom remains intact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I simply want to use the opportunity of Third Reading to emphasise the point I made on Second Reading and in Committee, as we come to the conclusion of the debate on this Bill. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I represent people who believe that being a member of the United Kingdom means that the laws that apply should apply to them as well as to everybody else. I find it obnoxious that a Bill that the Government say is to help animal welfare should not apply to the part of the United Kingdom to which I belong. This is an example of the long-term danger that I and my party have highlighted—namely, that as a result of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol, there will be regulatory divergence, legal divergence and eventually constitutional divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

It does not matter how the Government try to dress it up. I had a long discussion with the Minister last week, and I know he is sincere. I know he has a love for Northern Ireland, but the truth of the matter is that, no matter what he wants and no matter how he views things, he cannot live up to the promise of wanting to work to ensure that the same standards apply in Northern Ireland as apply in other parts of the United Kingdom, because the first duty of this Government, it seems, is to ensure that they do not annoy their masters in Brussels to whom they have subjected themselves as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to this very important issue on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. Does he agree that the notion that the Bill is trailblazing, and the consequent backslapping, sends a dire message to the people of Northern Ireland who want to see us improve and enhance our animal welfare standards even further? The message from this Government is very much that Northern Ireland does not matter in this regard.

[Sammy Wilson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Northern Ireland is regarded as a place that has to be treated differently. As I said earlier, the irony is that there have not been any live exports from GB to outside GB since 2020. The Bill leaves out the part of the United Kingdom where animal welfare concerns should be highest, because, at present, we are the area of the United Kingdom that exports animals. We export animals to the south of France, the south of Spain and all over the place, with those journeys taking days.

Before the Government congratulate themselves, they should address the main problem that, because of EU diktat, this Bill cannot apply to the part of the United Kingdom from which animal exports primarily occur—the part of the United Kingdom to which I belong. So much for taking back control. I hope the Government will address this problem.

Unless the application of EU law to Northern Ireland is addressed, we will see more examples of divergence. In fact, when we consider the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill tomorrow, we will find that this immigration legislation cannot apply to Northern Ireland, leaving Northern Ireland as a back door. There is a big problem that needs to be addressed, and it cannot be ignored. The people of Northern Ireland, those who are Unionists, cannot be ignored.

More importantly, where the Government set objectives, as they have for animal welfare in this Bill, those objectives can be thwarted by the constitutional arrangements that have been put in place between this Government, the European Union and Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman that farmers care passionately for the welfare of their animals. A similar point arises where one often sees the debate on nature and sustainable farming set up as if those things are in conflict. I do not think they are. I think that farmers are the custodians of the land and want to pass it on to future generations in better health, with better soil quality, than before. They have a similar approach to animal welfare issues. Farmers care for their livestock, which is why so many of them will welcome the measures we are taking today.

I was just touching on the 2018 report by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee commissioned by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, which included expert opinion through stakeholder engagement, the responses to a call for evidence on welfare in transport, and a systemic review conducted by Scotland’s Rural College and the University of Edinburgh. The report identified several aspects of transport that have a detrimental effect on animal welfare, such as the stress of unfamiliar surroundings, vehicle motion, confinement and poor ventilation. The report expressed concerns about lengthy journeys, recommending that animals should be transported only when necessary.

In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, and following the FAWC report, in 2020 we undertook a public consultation with the Welsh Government on banning live exports. The strength of public feeling against live exports was clearly demonstrated; we received more than 11,000 responses to that consultation, showing that the public care deeply about this issue. Some 87% of respondents agreed that livestock and horses should not be exported for slaughter and fattening, and now is the time to lock in a ban to permanently end those unnecessary export journeys.

The Bill’s core provision prohibits the export of relevant livestock from Great Britain for slaughter and makes doing so an offence. The Bill is focused on banning live exports where major animal welfare concerns have been identified. Accordingly, it legislates to end all exports from or transit journeys through Great Britain of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses for fattening and slaughter.

It may be helpful to speak to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and set out briefly what the Bill does not prohibit. The Bill still allows exports of livestock, including horses, for other purposes such as breeding, shows and competitions, provided the animals are transported in line with legal requirements aimed at protecting their welfare. Animals exported for breeding are transported in very good conditions so that they can live a full and healthy life once they arrive in their destination country. Moreover, the export of breeding livestock from the UK can assist in food resilience of local breeds in third countries. Indeed, British breeds can offer advantages, such as genetic disease resistance and high-quality animals.

The Bill does not apply to journeys within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, nor does it apply to livestock and horse movements within the UK, such as those from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That is to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the UK and Republic of Ireland markets. This Bill will not apply in Northern Ireland.

In addition to the central provision that introduces the ban, the Bill contains a delegated power to provide regulations about enforcement of the ban. It empowers the appropriate national authorities to make regulations to provide for enforcement and sets out the scope of those enforcement regulations, including safeguards relating to powers of entry and the criminal offences that may be created.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister has identified a point of great resentment to people in Northern Ireland who are concerned about animal welfare, and it should be a point of concern for people right across the UK. He has indicated that the Bill cannot and will not apply to Northern Ireland. The journeys that he says are unnecessary, stressful and exhausting, and can cause injury to animals when they are transported from Great Britain, will be able to occur for animals based in Northern Ireland. They can be taken to the south of Spain without any of these requirements being applied to them. How does he explain that?

[Steve Barclay]

It is because the Bill ensures that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The point that the right hon. Gentleman highlights is part of the wider issues that the House has debated at length, not least when considering the Windsor framework. We have discussed those issues on many occasions in this House.

The Bill empowers the appropriate national authorities to make regulations to provide enforcement and includes safeguards relating to powers of entry and the criminal offences. The power will enable the Department to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to provide an effective and proportionate suite of measures to enforce the ban across England, Scotland and Wales. It will ensure that the enforcement of the ban can work alongside the existing protections on the welfare of animals in transport, which are set out in detail in existing legislation.

The Bill also repeals sections 40 to 49 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Those provisions were intended to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter, particularly by setting minimum value requirements. Now that we are banning all live exports, including of horses and ponies for slaughter, those provisions are no longer necessary. Their repeal will streamline the legislation, avoiding any confusion that might arise from the existence of two measures for controlling the export of horses and ponies for slaughter. Given the degree of support for the ban on live exports, I want to reassure Members from across the House that the ban and its associated enforcement regulations will come into force as soon as possible.

In conclusion, continuing to allow the unnecessary live export of animals for slaughter would undermine this country’s proud record on animal welfare. I am confident that many Members of this House will agree on the importance of advocating for the animals in our care and that this Bill marks another significant milestone in our progress towards delivering better animal welfare across the nation. In 2016, the EU referendum brought renewed public interest in finally ending live exports for slaughter. Now that we have this long-awaited opportunity, I urge the House to support the Bill in consigning this unnecessary trade to the history books. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am not going to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this Bill, first because we should ask: why has it taken so long? The Conservatives had this issue in their manifesto in 2017, they boasted in the 2019 general election that they would use Brexit freedoms to bring in animal welfare measures, and now, at the end of 2023, we are finally seeing a Bill emerge. There is no doubt about the need for this protection. Members have outlined the undue and unnecessary suffering involved in the live export of animals, and Ministers have made reference to it—whether it is the stress, injuries and trauma for animals; the fact that they are taken to destinations where they are often treated far worse than they would be in abattoirs here in the United Kingdom; the starvation, or the fact that many animals die during those journeys. Of course this is a necessary piece of legislation.

If the Government had grasped the Brexit opportunities, we could have introduced this Bill a long time ago. It is no excuse to say, “We have not had any live exports of animals anyway, so it did not matter.” The fact is that there was a promise and an ability to deliver on it, but it was not done. Members have mentioned many of the other animal welfare measures that could have been introduced on leaving the European Union, but they have not happened. That is the first reason why I will not congratulate the Minister: the Bill is tardy, and it is a mark of the Government’s unwillingness to use the opportunities that Brexit made available to the country.

The second important reason why I will not congratulate the Minister is that the Bill does not refer to the whole of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is left out. When I intervened, the Secretary of State gave the totally spurious reason that Northern Ireland was left out to give Northern Ireland farmers—because we can have movements within the British Isles—the benefit of being able to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom and with the Irish Republic.

The farming Minister may well argue that trade with the Irish Republic may not involve long journeys for animals, because some of the abattoirs are just over the border, and there is significant trade across the border, and that is true. However, if it were only a case of applying this Bill to Northern Ireland so that we can trade with the Irish Republic, it would have been easy to provide for that by having this Bill cover the whole United Kingdom with a clause making it clear that when animals are being exported to the Irish Republic, a final destination must be stated, because of the nature of trade across the border. If the real aim of this Bill, as the Secretary of State has said, is to stop the disgraceful trade in animals being taken for long journeys in terrible conditions with terrible suffering, it has not achieved that for the thousands of animals who will still be able to be transported from Northern Ireland into the continent of Europe.

[Mr Francois]

I suspect the House would thank neither me nor the right hon. Gentleman if we tried to embark on a long debate about the Windsor framework tonight. I am sure that the Minister would not, either. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree in principle that it would be a desirable outcome if the Government could find some mechanism in Committee—if they could be ingenious about it—so that the benefits of this Bill applied to animals in Northern Ireland?

[Sammy Wilson]

If the Government did that, I would eat the words with which I started my speech and I would congratulate the Minister. I have suggested that it could be done by making the Bill cover the whole of the United Kingdom. If the only concern is about the volume of cross-border trade on the island of Ireland, the Government should state in the Bill that the livestock must have an end destination in Ireland.

Let me just spell out the Bill’s implications. Thousands of animals are exported to continental Europe every year. The good thing is that we will now, Pontius Pilate-like, be able to wash our hands and say, “If they are going to continental Europe, they will not go through Great Britain.” The Bill makes it clear that a person who exports

“relevant livestock from Great Britain”,

or,

“transports, or attempts to transport, relevant livestock from or through Great Britain”,

or,

“organises, or attempts to organise, the transport of relevant livestock from or through Great Britain”

will be breaking the law. However, there is nothing to stop someone from Northern Ireland taking the animals in a lorry the whole length of the island of Ireland down to Rosslare for a 20-hour sea journey. They could then go on to continental Europe and down to Spain, or wherever the final destination happened to be, and all the suffering that this Bill is attempting to stop would not be prevented for exports from Northern Ireland.

People may say, “There are safeguards on the journey.” When the Northern Ireland Assembly was operative, I remember raising the case of unweaned calves with an agriculture Minister. I asked him to refuse to accept journey logs unless the calves were given milk replacer and unloaded before the lorry went on a ferry. That is a ferry journey, do not forget, of nearly 20 hours. I will share the answer from the Minister, just so that I can spell out the welfare implications of omitting Northern Ireland from this Bill. He said that the Department does not consider it necessary to feed calves during their rest period or before they get on the boat. Even if people do not do that, they will be in compliance with EU regulations. That is the implication of leaving Northern Ireland out of this Bill. The real reason for doing so is not to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland can have free access to the Irish Republic. The real reason was given earlier by another speaker: judgments have been made in the European Court of Justice.

Judgments made in the past still apply in Northern Ireland. Any judgments in the future will still apply in Northern Ireland. EU law will, and does, still apply in Northern Ireland. This Bill cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as a result of the protocol, the Windsor framework and the arrangements that have been put in place, Northern Ireland is still gripped by the tentacles of the European Union. That is the real reason for leaving Northern Ireland out of the Bill. Do not let the Minister pretend tonight that he is concerned about farmers in Northern Ireland not being able to take their cattle to abattoirs or places for fattening in the Irish Republic. If that were the case, he could make that possible under this Bill.

I ask the Minister whether that has been considered in his discussions. If it has been considered and rejected, why has it been rejected? Is he content that a part of the United Kingdom will still have the ability to export sheep, cattle and animals of all sorts right across the continent of Europe and over a long sea journey? The sea journey will be longer now because we cannot use the land bridge of Great Britain. The sea journey will be from Rosslare to somewhere in northern France. To me, that does not look like concern for the welfare of the animals that will be transported.

Although it is not the subject of today’s debate, one of the impediments to getting an Executive set up in Northern Ireland is that kind of intrusion. Even if the Executive were operating today—I believe that the majority of MLAs in Stormont want the same provisions as there are for the rest of the United Kingdom—they would not be able to bring in those provisions, because this is an area where it appears that Westminster does not have any control over the law in Northern Ireland. The Assembly would not have control over the law in Northern Ireland; Brussels makes the decision on this. The European Court of Justice has made a ruling on it, and the sufferers are the animals that are subject to inadequate protection in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friends. Should my diary allow, I am sure we can find a slot for that to happen.

I pay tribute to all colleagues who have participated today.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Mark Spencer]

I thought I had got away with it, but I will give way.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the Minister. I hope that he was not coming to a conclusion, but was about to address the very important point that I raised in the debate. The Bill should include animal welfare provisions right across the United Kingdom. There is a route by which his concerns about cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic would be dealt with, while at the same time ensuring no loophole for long journeys for animals into continental Europe. Will he take that up in Committee?

[Mark Spencer]

I commit to continuing this conversation with the right hon. Gentleman beyond the Chamber. I should be clear that livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to a slaughterhouse. It would be an offence for them to move anywhere else. On arrival at the slaughterhouse, the animals and the accompanying health certificates must be presented to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs officer at that point. Livestock exported for any other purpose—not for slaughter—would need to remain at the place of destination in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days and be re-tagged. That is necessary to comply with the animal identification requirements after arriving in Northern Ireland.

The requirements would mean that livestock must remain in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days, and would make the slaughter trade uneconomic in those circumstances. I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him offline. We have given some thought to this and have had conversations with our friends both in the Ulster Farmers’ Union and Northern Ireland.

Border Target Operating Model: Food and Biosecurity

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mark Spencer]

The Windsor framework sets out the criteria for trade between GB and Northern Ireland. We are keen to facilitate that border and to work with businesses in Northern Ireland. We want Northern Ireland to feel very much part of the United Kingdom, as I know the hon. Lady does, which is why we are trying to make sure that that trading operation flows as freely as possible.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I think the Minister may have misunderstood the question. It is not about GB to Northern Ireland. Now that the border control model is going to refer to goods going into GB, will there be any checks on Northern Ireland qualifying goods going from Northern Ireland into GB—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) asked, will people be free to drive through without any checks at all?

[Mark Spencer]

I am not quite sure that I fully understand. Is the right hon. Gentleman talking about trade coming from Northern Ireland to the European Union?

[Sammy Wilson]

No, to GB.

[Mark Spencer]

Let me take another intervention and let the right hon. Gentleman try to explain the question again.

[Sammy Wilson]

We are talking about trade from Northern Ireland into GB—trade that the Government have said will be totally unfettered. Since the border operating model will require goods going into GB to have checks, the question is: will Northern Ireland goods then be subject to checks going into GB?

[Mark Spencer]

My apologies; I now understand the question that the right hon. Gentleman is asking. The TOM does not change controls on qualifying Northern Ireland goods. They will still benefit from completely unfettered access. It should not affect that at all.

Let me just return to what we are doing on the new controls.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Spencer]

I will take another intervention, but I do want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover.

[Sammy Wilson]

There will be goods travelling from the Irish Republic via Northern Ireland—through the port of Larne or through Belfast—into Cairnryan. How will a distinction be made between loads of Northern Ireland qualifying goods and goods coming, for example, from the Irish Republic, which is part of the EU, through Northern Ireland and into GB? What criteria will be put in place to ensure that those goods are checked but Northern Ireland ones are not?

[Mark Spencer]

I am very conscious that this is a debate about the Dover straits, and I do not want to be diverted into a debate about the Windsor framework, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s passion on the topic. We are setting out how the Windsor framework will operate in the future; as I have said to him, we are very keen to ensure that trade is as free as possible between Northern Ireland and the rest of GB.

Let me return to the controls that we are introducing. On 31 January, we are introducing health certification on imports of medium-risk animal products, plants, plant products, and high-risk food and feed of non-animal origin from the EU. On 30 April 2024, we will introduce the documentary and risk-based identity and physical checks on medium-risk animal products, plants, plant products, and high-risk food and feed of non-animal origin from the EU. We will also begin to simplify imports from non-EU countries. On 31 October 2024, the requirement for safety and security declarations for imports into Great Britain from the EU or from other territories will come into force. Alongside that, we will introduce a reduced dataset for imports, and use of the UK single trade window will remove duplication.

In response to the feedback on the draft TOM, we have also improved the trusted trader offer for animal products, designed a new certification logistics pilot to support movements of goods from hubs in the EU, and provided further information on how we will support importers using groupage models to move sanitary and phytosanitary goods into the UK.

We are confident that the decision to move controls back by three months achieves the right balance between supporting business readiness ahead of the introduction of the controls and mitigating biosecurity risk to the UK. In the meantime, DEFRA has implemented controls on the highest-risk imports of live animals and plants from the EU. We will continue to support and fund port health authorities to manage UK biosecurity, including controls to protect against African swine fever.

As was promised when we published the UK 2025 border strategy in 2020, the TOM introduces a range of technological advances to ensure a fully 21st-century border that facilitates UK trade. The development of a single trade window will make the process for importing to the UK simpler and more streamlined, enabling importers to meet their border obligations by submitting information only once.

Let me turn to the facilities in Kent. To implement the SPS controls regime, we need the right infrastructure, particularly in Kent, where the port of Dover and the Eurotunnel are the main points of entry for the majority of EU SPS imports. Further to the publication of the TOM, and based on data gathered, the Government are reviewing our BCP needs in Kent and reviewing whether two inland BCPs—one at Sevington and one at Bastion Point—are needed to serve the volume of SPS goods transiting the port of Dover and the Eurotunnel. As the infrastructure was constructed for a previous border model, which required more intensive checks, it is only right that the Government review the operating arrangements to ensure that they are proportionate to our needs and are cost-effective for traders using the short straits.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for sharing her views on the matter in such a forceful way. She is a passionate advocate for her constituency, which is important to the UK’s security. As she knows, we will be in touch shortly with a decision on this important matter. I thank her again for securing the debate, and I thank all colleagues who have participated.

Draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 General Committees

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

On the basis of the Minister’s opening speech, the regulations were designed to protect Northern Ireland consumers from goods that might be damaging and that come not from outside the UK, but from within the UK. I suppose we should be grateful, although I am sure many hon. Members will ask what goods are circulating in the rest of the UK that could be damaging to people in Northern Ireland and from which they need protection, while those protections are not afforded to people in Great Britain, because there is nothing in the regulations about those goods being dealt with and prevented from being sold in Scotland, Wales or England. I was a bit bemused by that argument, but according to the explanatory notes it is central to the justification that the Government give for the regulations.

I want to look at the regulations in two ways. Some people have already given up on the idea that we have broken free of the European Union and that it no longer has any say in the United Kingdom. It is a pity that despite the fact that the Windsor framework has been place for six months, the regulations are being raced through. The explanatory notes accept that no consultation was done, even though there is a legal obligation to carry out such consultation. It is claimed that the consultation did not take place because, “We didn’t have enough time.” We do not have, therefore, the benefit of the opinions of and input from those who will actually feel the impact of the regulations on their businesses, or those who will have to ensure that they are properly enforced.

The regulations also relate to other regulations, such as the plant health regulations and the retail movement regulations that were laid just last week. They are all bound together, but we have not even had sight of them, we will not get a vote on them as they will be taken under the negative resolution procedure, and we will not have a proper discussion of them. That is one reason why people get so suspicious. What is the real motive behind rushing the regulations through?

We should bear in mind that the regulations are not primarily based on decisions made by this Government. They are based on EU regulation 2023/1231, which defines, for example, plant health labelling, which is mentioned 42 times in the regulations. They are not defined by GB or UK legislation—they are defined by the EU. The EU regulation does not even apply to the whole of the EU: it applies specifically to the UK. The requirement for the labelling is part of EU regulation, and for goods to move they have to comply with EU requirements. I know that the Minister has said that the regulations are to help to reduce and do away with the sense of a border, and the Prime Minister has said the same. But look at the conditions that EU regulation 2023/1231 imposes. The goods have to be labelled, they have to be taken over by a trusted trader, they have to have export documents, the retailer has to have a confirmed address in Northern Ireland, and the goods will still be subject to checks—10% initially, and 5% eventually.

I will be interested to hear how the Minister justifies that, because at the minute no border posts have been built to do these checks. By the time the border posts have been built, the rate will be down from 10% to 5%. Do we even have the capacity for these checks? If not—and even if we accept that checks are a good thing in the first place—what does that mean for the movement of goods and the back-up of lorries? I know that that first point will resonate with some Members. These draft regulations are dependent not on what our Government have decided but on specific regulation imposed by the EU on the Government of the UK.

My second point is about what are described as GB standard goods. Goods that come into Northern Ireland must now be examined to ensure that they comply with GB standards. Will the Minister explain why that is the case? In most cases, the standards for these goods are not set for GB alone, because they have been set by UK legislation. Why, therefore, do we have to have this differentiation? Why are goods exported into Northern Ireland to be treated as GB goods that comply with GB standards? If the standards have been set by legislation in this place, on a UK-wide basis, surely there is no need for checks to ensure that goods coming into Northern Ireland comply with GB standards, because all goods should be produced on that basis.

For the life of me, I cannot understand this. I think that the distinction has been made to provide cover. We are talking not about an international border but about border posts designed to ensure that UK standards apply in Northern Ireland. That is the only explanation I can think of for making the distinction: to try to soften the idea that there is an international border between Northern Ireland and GB. But the truth of the matter is that there is an international border for goods that go through the red lane, because they have to go through full international border checks. As I have indicated, the process is not unfettered for those that go through the green lane, because there are requirements on those goods, too.

And here’s the thing about EU regulation 2023/1231: it is clear that the EU can, at any time, without discussion with the UK Government, and without having to give a reason, remove the option of the alternative border—I do not know what else to call it. If the EU believes that the green lane is not working, or if it has other reasons for deciding to get tough, it can remove it. That is its default position. Once again, the Government are telling us, “We have a good deal and we are in control of this,” but that is not the case.

The whole point of these draft regulations is to safeguard our independence, which is why it is so important that we do not look at them in isolation. They depend on the terms of an EU regulation, which states that the border arrangements that the Minister says are so beneficial to Northern Ireland can be removed at any time by the EU. The irony here is that our own Government never sought a default position on the green lane; the only default position is on the red lane. We do not have any alternative whereby we can say, “The way in which you have directed goods to the red lane is unacceptable to us, so we will go to a green lane default position.” We have handed over to the EU the definition of the goods that can comply, we have handed over to the EU the right to decide the nature of the border between Northern Ireland and GB, and we have this justification in place.

One of the purposes of the draft regulations will be to protect Northern Ireland consumers from faulty or non-compliant goods that come from GB. If it is so necessary to have checks for such goods that are so widespread that we have to check 10% of those that go through the green lane, maybe the Minister can tell us what arrangements are in place to protect GB consumers from non-compliant goods.

If there is so much concern about non-compliant goods coming from GB into Northern Ireland and harming Northern Ireland consumers, why is there no such concern about goods coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland that might not comply with UK standards and from which Northern Ireland consumers need protection? Let us just remind ourselves of the food scandals that have occurred: tainted olive oil from Spain, which killed over 1,000 people; pizzas with E. coli, which killed two people; or the scandal of horsemeat in burgers that came from the Irish Republic, France and Spain. I could go on and on about food standards. Indeed, a recent report stated that EU consumers were at a health risk from faulty goods because of inadequate policies and the inadequate policing of food standards in the EU.

If the Minister is so concerned about protecting Northern Ireland consumers from goods that are made in the UK, which presumably do not go through the same checks for GB consumers, why is there no concern about goods that cross the border—and not just into Northern Ireland? Do not forget that Northern Ireland is a conduit for goods that can come from Europe into GB. The justification for the draft regulations does not seem to stand up when we look at things in that way. We deserve an explanation from the Minister as to why, if there is such a fear, it is not dealt with on both sides. I suspect that some of the reasons behind the draft regulations that have been given are not valid and do not carry any serious weight.

Although the new arrangement is presented as an improvement, the Minister has already said that many of the goods that will now be caught under the draft regulations, and have checks imposed on them were not subject to checks under the Northern Ireland protocol because of grace periods. This situation is actually worse, because the grace periods disappear. As a result, more goods will have to go either through the red lane for full international checks, or through the green lane.

I do not want to go through the Minister’s claims, because a lot of this is anecdotal, but I can tell the Committee that promises such as free access to seed potatoes for Northern Ireland are just not true. In Northern Ireland, seed potatoes cannot be sold in retail outlets, garden centres and so on. People like me who do a wee bit of gardening would not buy tons of them; they would buy a wee bag to plant for Christmas time or whatever. That is not available. Many plants are still not available, and many businesses now say that requirements under EU regulation to permit goods to go through the green lane are so onerous that they are simply not going to purchase any more.

Even big retailers say that. Tesco recently indicated, certainly to its own suppliers, that it would do three things—look to the Irish Republic; look to EU supply chains; and find ways to stock its shelves other than bringing goods from GB—because even with what it knows about the Windsor framework arrangements, it would be too onerous to bring goods into Northern Ireland. That is the consequence, and I do not think that we should make claims for these regulations that are not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

We are very keen to expedite this as quickly as possible. Obviously, no one will be planting a tree at this moment in time and we will then move into winter. I will clarify in writing exactly when we hope to have this in place, but we are conscious that we do not want barriers. We want to allow free market movement of goods wherever possible.

I turn to my friend from Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for East Antrim. I understand his passion and his commitment to Northern Ireland, and we share many of his ambitions. Of course we want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, but in creating the Windsor framework, we are trying to address the challenges that were brought forward through the protocol. He criticises us for not consulting Northern Ireland and those who are affected, but of course there is huge pressure to try to solve this challenge. I know that he would be one of those voices—indeed he was—saying, “Let’s try and overcome the challenges that we face in the protocol.” These are the solutions that we have brought forward and we are trying to expedite those solutions as quickly as possible.

The Windsor framework achieves a long-standing UK Government objective of restoring the smooth flow in trade within the UK internal market. By pursuing a green lane for the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, supporting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, it restores that smooth flow of trade within the internal market by removing some of those unnecessary burdens that disrupted east-west trade.

[Sammy Wilson]

When one thinks of smooth trade, one thinks of a lorry leaving here in London and going up to Scotland or Wales: it does not get stopped; it does not need to have labels on the goods; the final destination of the goods does not need to be known; it does not need a trusted trader arrangement for the people involved; and it does not need export papers. How can the Minister claim, when all that has to be in place for goods going to Northern Ireland that are purely for consumption in Northern Ireland, that that can be regarded as smooth trade? It would not be regarded as smooth trade if people had to do it in GB.

[Mark Spencer]

Again, I hesitate to wade in, because such matters are often way above my pay grade. However, we have to recognise that there are a number of challenges, not least of which are that we have to respect the Good Friday agreement and we have to respect the phytosanitary integrity of the island of Ireland. That is why we are devising these processes to try to expedite and ease that trade as much as possible while respecting all those other challenges that we face as a Government. We need the regulations so that we continue trade with Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

I appreciate the Minister’s point about safeguarding the Northern Ireland market and making sure that goods are compliant, including with UK law. However, he was the one who emphasised this point in his speech, and it is also emphasised in the explanatory memorandum, so could he explain to me what dangers the UK Government see in goods going from GB into Northern Ireland that could harm Northern Ireland consumers? Is there a volume of goods, and what sectors of the economy are those goods coming from, that require these kinds of checks because he and his explanatory memorandum have emphasised that this is one of the main reasons for the checks?

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but this is about the phytosanitary protection of the island of Ireland. Of course, we have obligations to try to mitigate the spread of any diseases in the United Kingdom. For example, we have measures in place with the Welsh Government, and we have operations that will restrict movement of plants across the United Kingdom to protect other parts of the UK from the spread of disease. It will be similar to moving an infected tree from London to Edinburgh, or from London to Shropshire. We need measures in place to ensure that we do not unwittingly spread disease around the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central asked a specific question about titanium dioxide. I will do my best to answer him, but I am more than happy to write to him if he does not feel my answer is adequate. The regulations mean that food items containing titanium dioxide, which is now banned in the EU, can lawfully be sent for sale to consumers in Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, more 60 pieces of EU legislation have been disapplied on retail agrifood goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. GB standards will apply instead. That food additive remains authorised for use in Great Britain, so prepacked agrifood goods with this additive may be moved from GB to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme for supply to Northern Ireland consumers. That is consistent with a UK market.

Animal Welfare

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

That is just wrong. This demonstrates that we think there is a better and more efficient and effective way to deliver the things we have committed to. The good news is that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to help and support the Government in delivering them as these measures go through the House, albeit in a different format. I look forward to seeing him in the Lobby supporting the measures we are going to bring forward.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

My constituents do not really care whether these issues are dealt with in one big Bill or a series of single-issue Bills; what they are concerned about is that the Government deliver on the promises they made to protect animals from cruelty. My constituents are no different from the Minister’s, and many of them write to me regularly about animal cruelty issues and about how they want the Government to act.

Unfortunately, many of the proposals the Government are promising to bring forward today cannot apply in Northern Ireland because the laws in Northern Ireland are made not by this Government but by the European Union as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework, including those on the export of live animals, the import of mutilated dogs, hunting trophies imports and—if the Government decide to bring forward legislation on it—the import of foie gras. What can the Minister do to ensure that my constituents have the same benefits of such legislation as those in other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Mark Spencer]

Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman speaks directly and frankly, and I support lots of his comments about wanting to deliver on animal welfare. We are trying to achieve that through this statement, albeit through a different vehicle from that originally proposed. He tempts me to stray into areas that are way beyond the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I know his concerns are recognised in Government Departments and not least in Downing Street, and I know that they will seek to help him with the challenges he faces.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate and consider the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I am grateful for the constructive way in which they and the Government have consulted on them. I am happy that new clause 4 will be accepted, as it would establish an advisory board on how a trophy import ban will operate when it becomes law. Amendment 1, which would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to add species, will also be accepted.

New clause 4 covers many of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire set out. I trust that across the House we want to see the best conservation of endangered species around the world, whether that is in Africa, North America, parts of Asia or elsewhere. The Bill is about banning the importation of endangered species’ body parts into this country not only from Africa, but from around the world. I note that my hon. Friend will not press the amendments on the sunset clause, on monitoring and on how the Bill would work in respect of Northern Ireland, but new clause 4 covers many of those concerns.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad the hon. Member mentions the issue of Northern Ireland. I raised the point in Committee that with EU law applying in Northern Ireland, the importation of trophies could be done through the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and then across to Great Britain—a back-door way of circumventing the important provisions of the Bill. What assurances have we had that that back door can be firmly locked so that trophies cannot come through Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Henry Smith]

The detailed response to that needs to come from the Minister, not from a simple backwoodsman Back Bencher, but I have had assurances from Ministers that Northern Ireland will not become some sort of back door or stepping stone for the introduction of trophies from endangered species into Great Britain. The Windsor framework, subject of course to its agreement by the House next week, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 should cover those concerns, but I defer to the Minister, who will no doubt address that question shortly.

In conclusion, I am happy to support new clause 4 and amendment 1. I am grateful that the other 30 amendments and new clauses will not be pressed. I hope that we can move on to ensure that this legislation protects the most endangered species in the world, and that Britain plays its full part in doing that, and that it can proceed to its next phases both here today and later on in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I wish to make only a brief speech. My party is totally committed to the Bill. In fact, I was pleased to be a sponsor and to have served on the Committee. My one disappointment is that, because of the Government’s existing arrangements with the EU—past and future EU law will apply to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland remains part of the EU single market—this Bill cannot apply to Northern Ireland. That means that those who wish to go trophy hunting and reside in Northern Ireland can bring their trophies back. To be part of the United Kingdom, but yet to find a law which, although supported by more than 86% of the UK population, cannot apply in one part of the UK is an offence; it is offensive to me and it is offensive to many of my constituents who wrote to me asking me to support this legislation.

Secondly, there is a danger. The fact is that UK law cannot apply in part of the United Kingdom. The stark reality is that, as a result of Northern Ireland remaining part of the EU single market and EU law still applying there, Northern Ireland could become a backdoor for those who wish to circumvent this legislation. People could bring their trophies into Northern Ireland and, because there is frictionless trade from Northern Ireland to GB, could then take them into Great Britain. I would like to hear from the Minister on this matter, which was raised in Committee. I understand that the promoter of the Bill was not able to provide an answer on this, because it is a matter that the Minister should have been addressing. I would like to have an assurance on this. My preference of course is that Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom is fully restored, by neither the protocol nor the Windsor framework. In the absence of that, I would like to hear from the Minister what steps she intends to take to ensure that this very important, well-supported, worthwhile piece of legislation cannot be circumvented because we have left part of the United Kingdom half in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

My right hon. Friend is correct. We have accepted this amendment because we want the Bill to progress in not only the Commons but the Lords.

The import ban will cover all species listed in annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations, broadly aligned with appendices 1 and 2 of CITES. That extends to around 6,000 species, including those mentioned in the House.

I take the opportunity to recognise again the concerns that have been raised about Northern Ireland, and the risk, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), that Northern Ireland would become a backdoor. He queried how we would make progress and clearly set out that he very much wants to be part of the UK. Let me reassure the House that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure that Northern Ireland will not be a backdoor for so-called trophies from endangered species to enter Scotland, England or Wales. Northern Ireland will not be a stepping stone for imports to Great Britain.

In Committee, we discussed the workings of the Bill, and how it operated alongside the Northern Ireland protocol and the UK internal market. Since then, the Government have published the Windsor framework.

[Sammy Wilson]

I hope that I made it clear that my concern is not only that Northern Ireland could become a backdoor, but that it would be exempt from the legislation so people who engage in trophy hunting could operate freely in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol does not stop it and the Windsor framework does not stop it. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will take action to stop imports coming into Northern Ireland—full stop—just as they would be banned from the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Trudy Harrison]

I would like to put on record that our current controls on imports will continue to apply to Northern Ireland, under the current CITES controls, in line with the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. We will continue to scrutinise import permit applications carefully, ensuring that they will not be moved onwards. Movements of hunting trophies from Northern Ireland to Great Britain will be subject to the import ban, unless they are qualifying Northern Ireland goods, in line with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. But we will continue to review this and continue to work with my right hon. Friend as we make progress.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister says that the Government will seek to do this using the CITES legislation. If that were the case, there would be no need for the Bill. The Bill is required because additional action is needed to stop people going and cruelly hunting down animals in other parts of the world and bringing them back as trophies to the United Kingdom. I want to know how the Minister intends to ensure that Northern Ireland trophy hunters do not have licence that they do not have in other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Trudy Harrison]

My right hon. Friend makes a convincing point, but it should be recognised that this is a Brexit opportunity. We would not be able to make this progress across Great Britain if we were still in the European Union. It is not ideal; I would be the first person to state that clearly. We want to make further progress. We will make further progress, I am sure. I will continue to meet with those in Northern Ireland, as will my officials.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

I commend the Bill to the Committee.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley on getting it to this stage. I hope the Government will support it to ensure its full passage through both the House of Commons and the upper Chamber.

I want to start by saying some things about the necessity of the Bill. First, public opinion is clearly in favour of it. Some 86% of those surveyed believe there should be an immediate import ban, and that cannot be ignored.

Secondly, in the countries where these animals are often hunted, there is now a growing consensus among politicians, the population, academic researchers and environmentalists that the trade is not good for their country and not good for the animals, especially those under threat—it does not even contribute economically in the way that many of those who support this trade and activities claim that it does.

Thirdly, it is clear from the figures that have already been quoted—I will not go through them all again—that many of the animals are being hunted close to extinction.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley on his Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley, who has been working on the issue for a long time. I completely support what the right hon. Member for East Antrim says, but on the question of potential extinction, does he agree that it would be better if organisations such as Safari Club International were honest about their position—that they just like shooting and killing things? They appear to be dressing that up as a sort of conservation effort on their part, with the killing of the animals bizarrely irrelevant to that aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member is right. There is no evidence that such activity has led to the conservation and protection of animals. In fact, as a result of trophy hunting, elephant numbers are now in a critical situation. Lions are often hunted after they have been bred in captivity, so there are no longer even enough out in the wild, and the numbers are down to about 200,000. Leopards have fallen from 700,000 in the 1960s—in 1961, I think—to 50,000 today, so there is no evidence there of conservation. It is the same with hippos—the hippopotamus population is down by 20%.

The idea that hunting animals somehow helps with conservation is just not proven by the facts—yet despite that, and despite the clear threat, we find that, given the number of trophies coming into the United Kingdom, the trade has not declined but increased substantially: from 17 per year in 1981 to 300 in the year before the pandemic. There does not even appear to be any restraint on those who carry out these activities, despite the fact that fewer animals are available.

Fourthly, I do not think that there is even an economic case. It is significant that countries such as Tanzania, which are banning the practice, are getting far more money per hectare from nature tourism than they would have from the hunting of animals. The figure that has been given is $14 per hectare, as opposed to 20 cents per hectare for when tourism was centred on hunting wild animals. The case is unassailable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on it. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the Bill could mean that Northern Ireland acts a back door. Another way of tackling the issue is to persuade EU countries to implement bans. Finland has passed a law that will, from June, ban the import of hunting trophies of endangered species. Does he agree that we need to encourage other EU countries to go down the same path?

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes, I do. There is an international battle to be had here. If we really believe that hunting is endangering animals, then we should encourage nations across the world to act—and not only nations in Africa; do not forget that there are 30 countries across the world where endangered animals are hunted almost to extinction. We need to persuade those countries that there is an alternative to this trade. We also need to persuade countries that allow trophies in, and therefore encourage the trade, of the view encapsulated in the Bill, so that there is a whole approach to the issue. I would be more than happy if, instead of Northern Ireland having to comply with EU law, the EU decided it would comply with UK law. That would be a gain for us. I have no doubt that the UK population shares its opposition to hunting trophies with the populations of many other countries.

I give my full endorsement to the Bill, and congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley on pushing it to this point. I would like to hear from the Minister about how the loophole that will exist until the protocol is dealt with can be handled.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

At the outset, let me say that I am sure that all of us have received numerous letters from constituents about this issue, because animal welfare is at the heart of the views of many of the ordinary people in this country. They want animals to be treated decently and expect the law to ensure that they are. The Government, of course, now have the power to do that.

I want to make a couple of points about how slow the progress of legislation has been. Many of the Bill’s provisions cannot and will not apply to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out that the protocol will affect the ability to treat animals because veterinary medicines and so on will not be available, but some of the Bill’s provisions will not be allowed to apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remains part of the single market and is subject to single market rules, so many of the restrictions on exporting or importing animals cannot apply because they will be regarded as restrictions on trade within the single market. Even though we remain part of the United Kingdom, EU law on the movement of animals and goods still applies to Northern Ireland. Having said that, I still support the Bill.

A manifesto commitment was made, an action plan was drawn up and a Bill was written and started to proceed through the House, so those who signed the petition and hon. Members who have spoken today are bemused about why it has suddenly been stopped towards the end of its stages in the House of Commons. The Bill has cross-party support, as well as widespread public and sectoral support, and many of the groups campaigning for changes to animal welfare provisions have given their assent to it. Many people are bemused that at a time when the Government ought to be looking for as much good will as they can obtain, given the other difficulties they are facing, the Bill has suddenly stopped moving forward.

It would be good to hear the Minister explain the rationale for this. I cannot accept the argument that there is not sufficient parliamentary time. One only has to look at the number of times in the past few weeks that Parliament has finished early to see that there is certainly time. Okay, the closure of business was unplanned, but I am sure those who organise the parliamentary timetable are cognisant of the fact that we have not used the full time every day.

I would also have thought that this legislation would be a priority for the Government. They dearly want to show that Brexit has worked, and Ministers have repeatedly been asked to give us examples of some of the benefits of Brexit. Well, here is a Bill that illustrates the benefits that we as a nation can obtain from the fact that we are no longer subject to some other body making law in the United Kingdom. We can make the law ourselves without having to worry that some European nations do not want a ban on the live export of animals. We can make that decision ourselves.

Hon. Members have talked about dogs being brought into the UK from abusive situations in the Irish Republic, pregnant dogs having caesareans and so on. That can happen because of the free movement of goods and animals within the EU, but the Government have an opportunity to stop it. There is a manifesto commitment, and other parties are willing to co-operate with the Government on this issue. There is support among the general public for the measure, and there is sectoral support for it. There is therefore no reason why the Government should be afraid of bringing the Bill forward. I do not doubt that amendments will be brought forward, as with all legislation. If the amendments are reasonable, there is no harm in accepting them. If they are not reasonable, they can be argued against, and the Government have the votes to ensure that no unreasonable amendments go through. Many people will ask why we did not go ahead with the legislation.

Another important thing is the benefits that the legislation will bring. Farmers in my constituency have in the past made representations to me about sheep worrying and the losses and the stress such incidents cause. It is not just a financial loss, by the way. Most farmers love their animals and care for them; they do not want them to be abused by dogs worrying them or whatever. Apart from the financial hardship, animal worrying by dogs is something that concerns the farming community, yet here we have a piece of legislation that would benefit the farming community. At least there would be greater powers for the police to investigate and punish those responsible, either because they let their dogs run free or because they take them into situations where they know they should have them under control, but do not.

How many families suffer as a result of puppy smuggling, especially given the prices paid for some breeds now? They buy a puppy, believing they are buying it with proper paperwork and proper protection, only to find that the dog they have grown to love has not been properly treated before they purchased it, so they have to either meet costly vets’ bills or lose the dog altogether. We need protection for those people and for the dogs as well, which in some cases are mutilated or brought into this country in non-commercial vehicles. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) mentioned earlier a 260% increase in the number of animals being intercepted because the rules are not complied with. That figure shows that, because of the increased demand, the increased prices and the profitability of the trade, there are criminals who are prepared not only to break the law, but to harm animals in pursuit of their profits. At least the Bill would deal with that.

The last point I want to make is about constituents whose dogs have been stolen. Currently, if somebody lifts a dog from someone’s garden, it is treated in the same way as if they had lifted a garden gnome—an inanimate object—from someone’s garden, despite the impacts such thefts have on families and on the animal, which is taken from an environment that it knows to an environment that it does not know, sometimes to be ill-treated. It is important that we have the legislation.

There are good reasons—selfish reasons—for the Government to pursue the legislation and get it through. There are also the good reasons of animal protection and protecting individuals who have animals that they love. I hope that we get a positive response from the Minister. As I do every time I speak in the House of Commons, I emphasise the importance of Northern Ireland being included in UK legislation. I know this is not the responsibility of the Minister answering the debate today, but it is important that all efforts are made to ensure that the impact of the protocol is removed from Northern Ireland.