Draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024
412Ayes
16Noes
Carried · majority 396 · Government won222 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 412 · No 16 · DNV 222 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 13 November 2024 to approve the Draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024, passing them by 412 votes to 16. The regulations introduce the Northern Ireland Pet Travel Scheme, which replaces temporary grace periods with a permanent system allowing owners to move cats, dogs and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland using a single lifetime document, instead of the single-use animal health certificates previously required under the original Northern Ireland Protocol. The practical effect is that pet owners travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will no longer face the cost and delay of repeated veterinary certification, rabies vaccination requirements, or tapeworm checks. The scheme substitutes documentary checks tied to microchipping for the more burdensome procedures originally envisaged under the Protocol. The regulations implement arrangements announced under the Windsor Framework in February 2023, and affect anyone bringing a pet across the Irish Sea from Great Britain to Northern Ireland on a non-commercial basis. Labour voted overwhelmingly in favour, joined by the Liberal Democrats and smaller pro-government groupings. The 16 votes against came primarily from the Democratic Unionist Party (4 votes), Reform UK (2), and a small number of Conservatives, Independents and SNP members. The Conservatives had 109 members with no vote recorded. The DUP's opposition centred on the argument that the scheme imposes EU regulation on movement within the United Kingdom, a position articulated in committee by Jim Allister of the TUV, who argued that no documentation was currently required and that the regulations represented EU law governing an internal UK journey for the first time since Brexit.
Voting Aye meant
Support implementing the Windsor Framework pet travel scheme, accepting that a permanent documentation system — easier than the original Northern Ireland Protocol requirements — is a workable compromise for pet owners travelling within the UK.
Voting No meant
Oppose the regulations on the grounds that they introduce EU-mandated checks on movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, treating part of the United Kingdom as a foreign country and undermining the integrity of the UK's internal market.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
303
1
57
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
3
109
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
56
0
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
—
4
2
8
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
1
3
Reform UK
—
0
2
5
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The carbon budget is a science-led framework that combines climate action with economic growth, job creation, and national security; Britain has already halved emissions while growing the economy 85%, proving climate action and prosperity are compatible.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,455 words) →
The carbon budget lacks credible impact assessment, will increase costs for households and businesses, offshore manufacturing to higher-emission countries, and represents unaccountable control by civil servants and activists; the Climate Change Committee's costings are unreliable and not properly scrutinised.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (3,539 words) →
The carbon budget sets a credible long-term framework that provides business certainty; the previous cross-party consensus should be rebuilt and the government's delivery plan will answer the detailed questions about implementation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,088 words) →
The carbon budget is necessary and science-based; climate change is already causing measurable harm; the government should accelerate electrification and place local authorities at the centre of delivery with statutory climate duties.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,426 words) →
The carbon budget reflects proven climate policy success; while scrutiny is legitimate, opposition to the measure signals climate denial; the transition must accelerate to tackle interconnected crises of climate, cost of living, and nature loss.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (783 words) →
The impact assessment explicitly states the transition will create net jobs; the Climate Change Committee's advice is robust and evidence-based; the cost of inaction is higher than the cost of the transition.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (155 words) →
The UK has already cut emissions 54% since 1990 and done its part; other countries should follow our lead rather than Britain imposing unilateral burdens on itself.Reform UK · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (157 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0