Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December. They apply certain provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to customs officials and immigration officers in Northern Ireland, thereby fulfilling a commitment made by the previous Labour Administration in 2009 during the passage of Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, and replacing stop-gap measures that have been used subsequently.
By way of background, section 22 of the BCIA was intended as a temporary measure to ensure that customs officials transferring to the former UK Border Agency from HM Revenue and Customs had access to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers they needed to do their jobs. The ultimate intention at the time was to replace that measure in due course with separate regulations that applied the relevant provisions of PACE to customs officials and immigration officers investigating crime. That was achieved for England and Wales in 2013 through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in England and Wales) Order 2013.
However, it was not possible to make the same provision for Northern Ireland at the time. Immigration officers have hitherto relied on statutory powers in subsequent and preceding immigration Acts to discharge their duties, but those do not provide adequate powers, nor do they allow for the level of interoperability and co-operation that is essential in the modern law enforcement environment.
That brings me to the two principal reasons for bringing forward the regulations that are before us today. The first is to replace the temporary application of PACE powers in respect of customs officials with a permanent legislative solution in Northern Ireland that grants those officers greater legitimacy and assurance in their use of PACE powers. As I say, they have been operating under a supposedly temporary fix from the BCIA. There will not—I think it is reasonable to say—be significant practical changes, but this puts them on a more solid legislative footing.
The second purpose is to bring immigration officers in Northern Ireland, specifically those engaged in criminal investigation work, into line with their counterparts in the police and the National Crime Agency and, indeed, in England and Wales. That will remove the reliance on the incomplete powers afforded to them by various immigration Acts. It will also reduce the need for multiple briefings for the same operation, and minimise confusion about which officers are empowered to fulfil which functions. It will support interoperability with An Garda Síochána counterparts working in cross-border operations. Again, in substance, the regulations will not significantly change the powers available to those individuals, but rather will ensure that the regime they are working under is effective, so that, as I say, they do not need multiple briefings and the like.
By addressing these dual needs, the regulations will provide the legislative framework needed for customs and immigration investigations conducted by both Border Force and immigration enforcement in Northern Ireland. The powers conferred on immigration officers and customs officials by virtue of these regulations will be limited to the exercise of their functions in relation to immigration and customs matters where a criminal prosecution is realistically in prospect. Only officers who have been trained in connection with the exercise of these powers will be permitted to use them. We are committed to tackling immigration and border-related crime throughout the United Kingdom. The regulations will aid us in that critical effort, and I commend them to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for his remarks on these proposals. We recognise the need to give enhanced powers to those who enforce our immigration and customs laws. It is right that we equip them with all the necessary resources to stop any form of behaviour incompatible with our legal regime.
The equality impact assessment shows that the nationalities encountered by immigration officers in Northern Ireland are comparable to those who have arrived in the UK by small boats, demonstrating the continuing need to give sufficient powers to immigration officials to tackle the problems associated with migration. Conferring powers on to immigration officials to search, seize and arrest should always be welcomed when it is done to stop illegal activity on our border.
Much of the debate about the security of our border has rightly focused on the matter of illegal entry, which has increased significantly under the Government. A range of issues encountered by immigration officers require the Government’s attention. I hope the measures achieve the Government’s stated goals, such as greater interoperability between law enforcement agencies, to tackle immigration issues in Northern Ireland.
Critically, I recognise the Government’s point that
“Colleagues in the devolved bodies requested assurances around accountability which were discussed at working level and resolved to all parties’ satisfaction.”
I welcome those robust assurances, but will the Minister say whether any other issues were raised during those discussions or whether any other matters needed to be resolved?
Given the comments in the explanatory memorandum, will the Minister also say what progress has been made to ensure that the guidance is up to date, ahead of the predicted date for operationalisation in March this year, and whether work is under way to ensure that happens within that timeframe?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I have two questions for the Minister about the regulations. He touched briefly on the interaction with Garda Síochána; I note that enforcement of the regulations will
“serve to improve the interoperability of Border Force and Immigration Enforcement with partner law enforcement agencies”.
Given that Northern Ireland is the only part of this United Kingdom that has a land border with an EU member state, that interaction with the Garda Síochána and equivalent organisations will be crucial to implementing the regulations appropriately.
The other question is maybe minor, but I seek clarity from the Minister on the additional powers being given to customs officials under the regulations, and on the additional customs implications for small and medium enterprises in Northern Ireland due to the Windsor framework. Can he reassure me that the use of those additional powers will not have an adverse effect on parcels and packages coming from GB into Northern Ireland, and that the regulations will not become an impairment to keeping the border between GB and Northern Ireland free for the movement of goods and parcels?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. The rather shrewd assertion of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about the similarity of the country mix seen at the common travel area border to that seen at Kent shows that we need to have those common powers across the piece. I want to assure colleagues about our commitment to the protection of the common travel area. It is of course a very different challenge from protecting the channel itself, but it is nevertheless just as important. For obvious reasons, much focus is given to efforts in the channel, but it is crucial that we do not forget the importance of the CTA.
That speaks to the point that the hon. Member for South Antrim raised about our work with An Garda Síochána. The work between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to ensure a balance between freedom of movement and trade and not making ourselves more vulnerable to organised immigration crime is important. We are having those conversations and we intend for the powers to work exactly as the hon. Gentleman said: in a way that promotes the good movement of goods and trade, but keeps a protected border. I think that is what his constituents would expect.
Operation Comby is a good example of our work across UK and Irish police services, and with the National Crime Agency, to target smuggling gangs. It is taking cash off the table, generating arrests and showing the criminals who think that this is a different way of perpetuating their horrendous trade how seriously we take it. The powers and alignment of powers in the regulations do that. I hope that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point about An Garda Síochána and customs.
The shadow Minister also raised accountability. The accountability regimes in Northern Ireland will be unchanged and will remain as were, so that the regime remains robust. The powers can only be used by trained individuals, so we will make sure that those using the powers have all the right training and guidance to be able to do their jobs properly.
On the shadow Minister’s point on engagement, he will know that I am not always able to say how the sausage gets made in policy term. However, I give him a commitment, just as I have given a commitment to the hon. Member for South Antrim in the Chamber, about how seriously I take our engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive on these and other matters—including communities matters, in connection with which I had a joyful visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency with him last year—so that the decisions we make in this building are effective, and they include, as in this case, decisions affecting what is a very important land border, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Those conversations, on all issues relating to immigration—which is of course a matter for this Parliament—happen as a matter of course. I have those conversations with the devolved Governments and their leaders. They are often very difficult conversations, but they are important in making sure we get it right, so we will of course do that in the usual way.
The regulations are a series of sensible changes to make sure that the right powers are in the right places to keep our borders secure.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Glue Traps) Regulations 2025
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Glue Traps) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. These regulations were laid before the House on 1 December 2025. The instrument makes an exclusion to the market access principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, also known as the UKIM Act, for legislation prohibiting the sale of glue traps. This will be the second exclusion to the Act, the first of which happened in 2022 and related to the banning of single-use plastic items such as plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds.
I will set out the background of what the UKIM Act does, as well as what a glue trap is, before turning to the reasons why it is necessary to use this statutory instrument. Before I do that, I would like to make you aware, Mr Stuart, that I was previously a vice president and then a trustee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I am delighted to be moving this important legislation today, which will support the goal of improved animal welfare, which I hope we all share.
The UK Internal Market Act 2020 aims to create a seamless internal market across the UK by removing trade barriers to ensure goods and services can move freely. That is achieved primarily through mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles. The principle of mutual recognition means that goods that meet one nation’s rules can be sold in others and do not need to comply with any additional requirements. The impact of excluding glue traps from the market access principles means that those principles will not apply to any legislation that prohibits the sale of glue traps.
For those Members who do not know what a glue trap is, it is a board, often made of cardboard or plastic, on which a non-drying glue is applied. That is placed on to flat surfaces so that small rodents, such as rats or mice, will walk on to them and become unable to escape as their fur or their limbs get stuck to the glue. According to the British Veterinary Association, they may then suffer from torn skin, broken limbs or hair removal, and die a slow and painful death from suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and even self-mutilation.
Despite concerns that glue traps are inhumane, until recent changes to legislation in 2022 in England and 2023 in Wales, glue traps were commonly used across Britain to catch rats and mice in households and commercial premises alike. In the UK, we are committed to high standards of animal welfare, but we recognise that devolution means that each Administration may need to achieve shared goals in different ways.
In Wales, the use of glue traps is strictly prohibited. In England, the previous Government regulated glue traps so that they may only be legally used by pest controllers to preserve public health or safety when there is no other satisfactory solution, such as in hospital theatres and inside aircraft. Scotland has sought to ban glue traps with the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 by prohibiting use, possession and sale.
However, unless glue traps are added to schedule 1 of the UKIM Act to exclude them from the application of the Act’s market access principles, the Scottish Government’s ban on the sale of glue traps in Scotland will not be fully enforceable. That is because glue traps produced in or imported into England, Wales and Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the mutual recognition principle and could still be sold in Scotland.
The previous Government decided that banning the sale of glue traps would not be substantially more effective than a ban focused on their use and possession. However, this Government have carefully considered the impact of an exclusion for glue traps, and we have concluded that this will have minimum economic impact on trade within the UK, further to the Scottish Government’s ban on the use and possession of glue traps in Scotland. Ministers from Wales, Scotland and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland have consented to the making of these draft regulations.
This instrument therefore delivers on this Government’s commitment to implement a UKIM exclusion, as announced in December 2024 by the then Minister of State for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), in response to the Scottish Government’s request for an exclusion relating to glue traps. This underlines our commitment to taking a more collaborative approach to the management of the UK internal market, as well as developing closer working relationships and increased transparency between the UK Government and the devolved Governments on UK internal market matters that significantly impact on devolved responsibilities.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stuart. I thank the Government for bringing forward this important statutory instrument, and I compliment the Minister on her advocacy for animal welfare—she is obviously highly informed from her former role in the animal welfare charity sector.
We should be very proud in this country that the UK is a world leader in animal welfare. The previous Conservative Government took extensive and proactive action to improve animal welfare. For example, we banned the export of live animals—including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses—for fattening or slaughter with the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; we increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and we enshrined animal sentience into UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee, such that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare.
I was delighted to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated and drafted Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, and to support the passage of the again Conservative-initiated and drafted Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, which was brilliantly steered and led through Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, and Baroness Coffey in the other place.
On the instrument that we are looking at today, the last Government gave their full support to the groundbreaking private Member’s Bill introduced by my friend and former colleague Jane Stevenson, the former Member for Wolverhampton North East, which became the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022—I too was very pleased to support that Act. That vital piece of legislation bans the use of glue traps in all but exceptional circumstances, when they can be used only by licensed professional pest controllers. This is similarly controlled in Wales with the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023; it takes glue traps out of the hands of amateurs and ensures that they are used only by professionals when absolutely necessary—when there is a risk to public health or safety, and there is no satisfactory alternative.
Many Members may remember the powerful debate during the passage of the 2022 Act in which we heard—as we have heard again today from the Minister—the extreme suffering that can be inflicted by these glue traps. They are indiscriminate and can ensnare wildlife, including birds, and also, horrifically, domestic pets. As a veterinary surgeon, this is something I feel passionately about.
This instrument seeks to enable the measures included in Scotland’s Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 to come into force, specifically the provisions to ban the supply of glue traps through selling, exchanging for a consideration other than money, giving as a prize or otherwise making a gift of them, or otherwise making glue traps available. Can the Minister clarify whether the UK Government are planning to make provisions for England to follow suit on this? If this is the direction the Government are heading in, what assessment has she made of the effectiveness of alternative methods of rodent control in upholding the highest public health and food safety standards? Furthermore, will the Minister engage and consult the pest control industry so that it is not kept in the dark about this process?
As the Minister will know, the provisions in the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 came into force at the end of July 2024. Since then, the British Pest Control Association and the National Pest Technicians Association have written to the Government to highlight issues they have been experiencing with the licensing regime and enforcement of the legislation. On the issue of enforcement, the Government have said that comprehensive briefings for wildlife crime police officers are available on the National Wildlife Crime Unit’s DISC hub. Does the Minister appreciate that the issue is not that the content does not exist, but that there is no requirement for officers to read or familiarise themselves with it?
Finally, glue traps remain available and legal for use in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister raise that with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs so that animal welfare standards can be promoted across the entire United Kingdom by such measures as the banning of damaging and horrific glue traps?
Imogen Walker
I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for his contribution, and acknowledge the work of the previous Government. I know from my experience in the animal welfare sector that compassion for animals crosses party lines, and it is a powerful reminder of what we can do when we work together.
The hon. Gentleman asked about plans for a ban in England. He will be aware that that is outside the scope of the regulations, but it is an important point, given the suffering it causes animals. Since 2022, market-leading suppliers have been removing glue traps from sale, and promoting more humane alternative methods of pest control instead, which is positive and to be welcomed. Once a UKIM exclusion is in place, a ban on sale may become a feasible option for reducing their illegal use in England, should there still be a need for it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Northern Ireland, where, as he said, the regulations do not apply. We respect devolution, and legal matters in Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved Government. We may have views on that, and I am certainly happy to talk to and make contact with the Department, should that be appropriate.
The UK Government are determined to lead the way on protecting animal welfare, and we will continue to work with all the devolved Governments to achieve that. Where there are grounds for divergence— in this case, those are primarily about the best way in which to achieve similar goals—and where that divergence is expected to have minimal economic impact on trade within the UK, as is the case here, we will work together to ensure flexibility where we can.
The UKIM Act is rightly there to protect the internal market of the United Kingdom, which is vital to every nation within it and plays an integral role in their economies. The current Act works, and ensures that we can respond to requests, such as that of the Scottish Government, to be flexible and implement exemptions on a case-by-case basis as appropriate.
To conclude, I trust that hon. Members understand and accept the need for the instrument. It creates an exclusion to the UKIM Act for legislation on glue traps, ensuring that products made in or imported into other parts of the UK cannot be sold in any country that has banned them, regardless of whether an equivalent ban exists elsewhere. Scotland will therefore be able to bring in an effective ban on using and selling them. I once again thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
Question put and agreed to.