Agriculture Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

We owe it to our farmers and all those in our rural communities to have the level of broadband infrastructure that others take for granted in more urban locations and the digital literacy with which to operate effectively online. Amendment 157 puts broadband and digital literacy at the heart of this part of the Bill. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this amendment would go a considerable distance to enabling us to set aside the digital divide in our countryside?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support of Amendment 157, of which I am a signatory and which was so well proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. As we all agreed during the passage of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, the Covid-19 lockdown has shown how dependent we all are on good, fast and resilient broadband—nowadays, few more so than those in our agricultural sector. Indeed, it is clear from the difficulty many Peers have had in contributing virtually to our proceedings how woeful broadband is in some areas, especially rural ones.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, illustrated the lack of rural connectivity through the NFU surveys and this is backed up by the Ofcom reports. The average broadband speed in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting was half that in major conurbations in 2018. During the passage of the Bill, I said that the status of the Government’s intentions regarding the timing of the delivery of a 1 gigabit-capable service or ultrafast broadband was unclear. It is especially unclear as regards rural areas and specifically 5G.

With regard to 5G, we have the Shared Rural Network, which is a collaboration between the four networks that started as a 4G project to cover the notspots. Then, we have the seven trials that have been selected in the Rural Connected Communities competition for funding from what is called the 5G Testbeds and Trials Programme. It now seems that projects have been selected in West Mercia, Orkney, Dorset, Monmouthshire, Wiltshire and Yorkshire.

How do all these fit in with the several existing funding programmes for full fibre, launched under the May Government, including two voucher schemes to subsidise full-fibre connections to rural premises and small and medium-sized businesses? How are the Government avoiding unnecessary duplication in the rollout of full fibre to the home? What about Ofcom’s determination that there will be market competition in some areas—prospective competition and others—and non-competition in yet others? Is that really the most effective way of delivering the Government’s strategy, particularly in rural areas?

In another development, the Secretary of State did not mince his words last Tuesday on the consequences of the Government’s decision on Huawei, from which it is clear that the operators charged with delivering 5G will now, without compensation, have £2 billion less to spend on rolling it out while bearing, as they will have to, the cost of ripping out high-risk vendor 5G equipment by 2027. Many of his Conservative colleagues thought that he was offering too extended a timescale. This is a huge proportion of the investment which was to be committed by the operators towards 5G rollout. Are there really no plans to compensate operators, and will the full costs actually fall on consumers?

In his announcement, the Secretary of State admitted that this will delay rollout by two to three years. Given that 100% coverage at one gigabit will take much longer to achieve, will the Government now prioritise 5G rollout for rural areas, where full-fibre broadband is least likely to be installed on a market basis in the short and medium term?

I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for bringing forward this amendment, intended to deliver specific priority for rural broadband provision and rural digital literacy. It seems extraordinary in retrospect that broadband connectivity was not included in Annex IV of the rural development regulation as a thematic sub-programme for the purposes of article 7, given that it dates only from 2013. In current circumstances, this is highly relevant—in fact, essential—to the future success of our agricultural sector. It must be part of achieving what are now the UK’s priorities for agriculture.

As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, argued, there should be a full review of the levels of rural broadband provision and digital literacy, especially before there is any obligation on farmers et al to comply with any regulations by digital means. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions about the rollout of rural broadband, but also that he will accept the crucial amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, this is one of those occasions when you know that somebody in front of you has said it a little better than you. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has done most of the heavy lifting on the basic thrust of this group: are we going to make sure that the rural economy is generally supported, along with agriculture? That is how I take it. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about broadband. As the last few months have established, I am afraid that it is nigh-on impossible to function in the modern world without broadband at the moment, unless you are going to live in a very tight circle. I hope that we will get answers in the affirmative.

Amendment 155, which I have my name to, asks a technical point: are we going to ensure there is continuity of supply if the UK shared prosperity fund takes a bit of time to get up and going? I hope that we will get the answer to that, and I express my total agreement with the sentiments of those who have already spoken.

Fishery Protection Squadron

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I cannot speak of Appledore, although I have heard of it, but under the terms of the Fisheries Bill there will be opportunities for varying grants, including for port infrastructure. We will clearly need to think about this area because we want to have vibrant coastal communities, not only through vessel repairs and construction but by having vibrant fishing fleets in sustainable waters.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

Ivory Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, that is not the issue. The problem is that we simply do not have the resources to go around carbon-dating every single piece of ivory on the market. That is why we have to find some way of restricting it. If not, people will put their own classification on the ivory; sometimes it will be correct and sometimes it will be incorrect. We do not have the wherewithal or the facilities to manage that effectively. That is why the Bill is before us today: it gives us a structure for managing what ivory is coming on to the market and a more authenticated version of whether it is legitimate.

I take issue also with what the noble Lord said about the consultation. Around the Chamber, there are noble Lords who represent a number of the elephant charities whose members care passionately about the issue, but if we were to ask anybody in the street what they thought the priorities were, I think that the vast majority would say that they cared more about the elephants than the issues that he is raising today. That is the reality; the noble Lord has a very niche view of it, but I think that most people care more about seeing elephants and other animals living at peace in the wild.

The issue is not whether people own ivory. The noble Lord put great emphasis on sequestration and confiscation, but that is not what this Bill is about; it is about the buying and selling of ivory. People can own all the lovely pieces that he was talking about; they can pass it down through the family, but it is only when they want to buy or sell it that it becomes an issue. The Bill does not stop people valuing, loving and caring for family heirlooms. It is only the commercial market that is under question.

There are very good reasons for our trying to put in the Bill tightly worded exemptions—we shall talk about those shortly. The restrictions have to be extremely tight and the rarest and most precious items have to be recognised and distinguished. Not all items produced prior to 1918 are beautiful or valuable. There would be that cut-off date, but to allow all ivory unrestricted circulation in an unrestricted market would skew the market and undermine the wider intent of the Bill. The very existence of such markets would encourage fraud in a similar way to that which made the 1947 date unworkable. With a free flow of pre-1918 ivory, I think that everybody would start to reclassify ivory and the whole date would become blurred.

I am summarising—I am sure that Minister will do it better than me. We had a huge debate on this at Second Reading. I did not persuade the noble Lord; he did not persuade me, and I think that we will carry on the debate as the Committee proceeds. At the end of the day, it is about priorities. As far as I am concerned, the priority is the elephants living in the wild. On this issue, the noble Lord has his priorities wrong.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, due to illness in the family, my noble friend Lady Bakewell is not present for this part of Committee, although I believe that she will be along later. In her absence, I want to intervene briefly in support of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has started off Committee in fine, eloquent style, but the phrase “coach and horses” springs to mind as a result of what he had to say. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the kind of amendment that the noble Lord is putting forward would serve only to introduce further ambiguity and uncertainty into a Bill which has been designed to make sure that we do not have the ambiguities and uncertainties of the current legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had it absolutely right: the difficulties in identifying the difference between pre-1947 and pre-1918 ivory are rife. John Betjeman disapproved strongly of fish knives—

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to Clause 7, for example, which already contemplates differentiating by date. The Government are obviously aware of a way in which this can be done.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will deal with that issue as far as this amendment is concerned, but to introduce further differentiation into the Bill is extremely unhelpful, particularly in the light of its intentions and the fact that the CITES convention will take place later next month. I do not think that that would be a particularly good symbol.

I am the proud owner of a set of fish knives—I do not believe that John Betjeman would have approved of them. I am firmly in the category that the noble Lord, Lord, Cormack, has identified as being caught by this provision. I am very relaxed about it. I do not believe one should be able to trade, deal or sell that kind of commodity. It is the sort of thing you pass on to your descendants. I very much hope this provision will remain part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in saying that I very much look forward to the early return of my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for later stages.

My noble friend’s amendments intend to allow pre-1918 ivory objects to be bought, sold and hired within the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions. Indeed, my noble friend—and this has been raised already—used words such as “confiscation” and “loss of ownership”. These measures precisely do not affect the right to own, gift, inherit or bequeath ivory. They are precisely not for that purpose.

As this is the beginning of Committee stage, I reiterate the overriding purpose of this Bill. Its intention—and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also made this clear—is to introduce one of the strongest ivory bans in the world, with narrow and limited exemptions, to curtail the demand for ivory that currently threatens the elephant with extinction. As your Lordships know—a number of noble Lords have referred in different ways to the public consultation—there is overwhelming public support for this ban. I say to my noble friend in particular that we have worked extensively with conservation NGOs, the arts and antiques sector, and musician and museum sectors to help shape this Bill, and we believe it is a proportionate response.

The exemptions outlined in the Bill have been included to allow limited dealings in ivory to continue where they are unlikely to contribute to the poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be bought, sold and hired, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions, would significantly undermine the aim of the Bill and the carefully balanced package of exemptions. My noble friend is, of course, conversant with Clause 2, which we will address in more detail later. We have specifically created an exemption so that pre-1918 ivory items that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value, and which are the rarest and most important examples of their type, can continue to be traded.

I suggest to my noble friend that his other amendment concerns the offences of buying or hiring ivory as the owner within the UK only. Subsection (4)(b) concerns selling and hiring ivory as the lender both in and outside of the United Kingdom. My noble friend and my noble friend Lord De Mauley have raised a number of issues about the antiques sector. A 2016 report by TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring network, on the UK’s domestic ivory trade, showed that consumers of UK antique ivory are increasingly from Asia, particularly China, Japan and Hong Kong. This constitutes a change since the last UK ivory market report in 2004, which found that most buyers were from Europe and the United States. This worrying shift demonstrates that the UK antique ivory market is increasingly connected to the Far East, where the demand for ivory is highest, further fuelling the demand for ivory, and its social acceptability.

I also want to refer to a point in the discussion between the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the 2010 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime concluded:

“The trade in illicit ivory is only lucrative because there is a parallel licit supply”.


This is precisely why we are having to introduce a ban, with only tightly drawn exemptions that are unlikely to continue to fuel the illegal trade and poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be traded would further perpetuate the demand for ivory and undermine the effectiveness of the ban. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said: we have got to bear down on the situation in which 20,000 elephants a year are being slaughtered. We saw only last week reports from Botswana of this slaughter continuing, and the status quo at the moment is simply not acceptable. This country has to lead. We have a responsibility to lead. We are one of the world’s largest exporters of ivory and we must act. So, for the reasons I have given, I am not able to support my noble friend’s amendment and I respectfully ask him to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) Except in regard to sections 8 and 9, the exemptions referred to in subsection (6) do not apply in circumstances where the dealing in question has taken place online.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the sale of otherwise exempted items comprising or containing ivory from taking place online. This, alongside other measures in the Bill, would help to prevent illegal trade of ivory. The online ban would not apply to the items exempted under sections 8 and 9.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, there is ample evidence that illegal ivory trading frequently takes place online. The arguments against committing online trading have been rehearsed many times: the difficulty of policing online transactions; descriptions of ivory being disguised to avoid search-term filters; and the near impossibility of checking every parcel dispatched from the UK.

Surely all online dealing in ivory should be banned. Allowing only physical sales, combined with the exemption certificates and registration process, would considerably reduce illegal trade and make the enforcement authorities’ job far easier. A recent study published earlier this year by the University of Kent illustrates the problem. It found that, in fact, barely any ivory or other illegal wildlife products are being sold via the so-called dark net, where there is a flourishing criminal market in drugs and firearms. Instead, the researchers found that ivory is being sold openly on conventional auction sites, including eBay. Traders have exploited the previous complex rules, which were meant to restrict the trade in Britain to pre-1947 antiques but can act as a cover for the sale of items fashioned from poached elephant tusks.

Despite perfecting a prototype software scheme that can pinpoint potentially illegal ivory with 93% accuracy, the University of Kent team has been told by law enforcement agencies and wildlife protection groups that they cannot afford to fund its deployment on the front line. I very much hope the Minister will be able to look at that allegation by the University of Kent and give a response. Dr David Roberts, a conservation scientist at the University of Kent and co-author of the study into illegally traded wildlife, has been quoted as saying:

“The surface web is being used by criminals because they have found they can trade there for the most part with impunity. Unlike those selling drugs or guns, they don’t feel they have to move to the darknet. What is frustrating is that tackling this online trade does not seem to be priority. It falls between boots-on-the-ground enforcement against poaching in Africa and reduction of demand in south east Asia. We have had enforcement agencies and campaign groups say they would like to have our software as an enforcement tool but they don’t have the funding to progress it further”.


The fact is that the illegal wildlife trade is a rapidly evolving environmental crime that is expanding through e-commerce. Because of the nature of the internet, the detection and enforcement of online illegal wildlife trading has proven to be difficult and time-consuming, often based on manual searches through the use of keywords. This is aggravated by the fact that, as a result of scrutiny, traders in elephant ivory now use code words to disguise the trade, thus adding an additional level of complexity. Rather than blatantly advertising items as “elephant ivory”, online traders use alternative key words recognised by buyers, at least some of whom are likely to know that they may be purchasing illicit items.

In his letter after Second Reading, the Minister said—I will quote extensively:

“Several Noble Lords have called for a total ban on all online ivory deals, I understand the concerns that differentiating legitimate and illegitimate sales online can often be difficult, but we believe it would be disproportionate to ban online sales, given that existing regulations on other products such as alcohol and medication, which do pose a threat to human health do not have their online sale banned. The Bill has been drafted from the outset with both online and physical sales in mind. The Bill makes it clear that it will be an offence to cause or to facilitate a sale of ivory that either does not meet an exemption, or has not been properly registered or certified. This will apply equally to any website or online forum which hosts or facilitates an illegal sale. It will be the responsibility of any online forum to ensure that ivory items sold on its site are legitimate in exactly the same way we will expect of a high street shop or auction house”.


Those are very reasonable words and I am sure that the Minister was being utterly genuine when he talked about the need for proportionality. However, what assurance can the Minister give about the energy devoted to enforcement online? How will the online dealing ban be enforced in practice? Will the resources be in place? Otherwise, surely it will be necessary in due course, if not now, to have an online ban if it is seen simply to be the easiest way of ignoring the legislation and engaging in dealing in these ivory items.

I am pessimistic that any enforcement situation can cope with the sheer volume of trade online and be able to distinguish online between legitimate and illegitimate sales. I do not believe that the alcohol and medication examples that the Minister has given should be brought into account. This is a much more difficult situation. It is much more difficult to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate sales of ivory than in either of the two other cases that the Minister has cited. I hope the Minister will rethink the Government’s decision not to include online sales. I think an insistence that all sales were physical would make life a great deal easier. I beg to move.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I wholly support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. However, one serious aspect that may have been overlooked is a nasty little market which may escape the whole of this affair, and that is the casinos’ use of roulette balls. This is a very big, constantly renewing market. The life of a roulette ball in ivory is only about five weeks and they cost £100 each. They can only be obtained from the Far East at present through the dark market.

I do not know what the solution is, but we should not be ignorant of this big market. It is likely to continue and will be very persistent. The only alternative for a casino is to use a Teflon ball, which is fine but it bounces too much. It is too easy to use a Teflon ball which has a steel interior which can then be mixed up with a magnetisation of the roulette wheel’s rim and give easy distortion for fraud. This is why casinos do not want Teflon balls and they do want ivory balls. We should be on guard against this because it is going to be a big, dark market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My noble friend is quite right. If a forum is domiciled overseas, it will be up to enforcement to look at those advertising their wares and those who are looking to buy those items. However, we should also consider that in due course, the items for sale online will either be registered or will have an exemption certificate. We will be able to see clearly whether those items are legitimate, and that additional level of security for buyers and sellers is the most important thing when it comes to online sales.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. In particular, that last sentence was extremely important in the circumstances, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the same point: that that will be the essence of the online sale as well. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his intervention and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her positive words. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the amendment is meant to do what it says on the tin: certain of the exemptions are exempt, and certain others are not, and Clauses 8 and 9 are excluded from the ban on online sales for a purpose.

To come back to what the Minister said, I am of course reassured about the provisions of the Bill, and it is precisely the resources and the activity around enforcement which are absolutely crucial. A provision about banning online sales is not disproportionate if enforcement is inadequate. If enforcement is adequate, then of course it would be disproportionate, but this is in a sense designed to prevent the mischief of online sales taking place without adequate enforcement. I look forward to the letter from the Minister. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the National Wildlife Crime Unit and other aspects of enforcement, and I very much hope that they will be fully apprised of the importance of making sure that online sales are scrutinised and that these keywords—these coded words—are understood and combated in accordance with the research from the University of Kent. This is not some figment of the imagination of those who are against ivory poaching but respectable research, and we should pay heed to it. I look forward to the letter from the Minister and obviously I reserve the right to come back on Report if necessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Ivory Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Space for Giants, the conservation charity, and as an organiser of the Giants Club conservation initiative, which unites the heads of state of the four countries that hold half of Africa’s remaining elephants: Botswana, Gabon, Kenya and Uganda. It has been a pleasure to follow the speeches today. It is true that, whatever our disagreements on other matters, what unites everyone in this building is that we are all elephant lovers. There are many people who should take credit for the decisive action in this Bill, and many of them are in this House today. This is a real opportunity for leadership by the UK, as several witnesses said to the Public Bill Committee, and Defra has shown enthusiasm for the cause. At the same time, we are part of a worldwide movement, and I am particularly pleased by the hugely significant ban by China on the trade in ivory, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hague.

I am not going to repeat the figures for the decline in the savannah elephant populations, which were set out so clearly by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, or indeed the rate at which elephants are being slaughtered for their ivory each year, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hague and Lord St John. However, the rate is unsustainable: one every 25 minutes. There is global consensus that legal domestic ivory markets contribute to the illegal wildlife trade and to the poaching of elephants, by fuelling the demand for ivory items and providing the opportunity for illegal modern ivory to be laundered through the legal market.

The UK has one of the world’s largest domestic ivory markets, with ivory items widely available for sale, subject only to certain licensing restrictions on post-1947 ivory. Independent reports have found that the UK market plays a role in the illegal wildlife trade, providing cover for the trade in illegal items. Trade data indicates that the UK is the world’s largest exporter of legal ivory pieces and in particular exports more than any other country to the world’s largest illegal markets in Asia. So I strongly welcome the UK Government’s proposal to ban ivory sales. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, mentioned, recent polling conducted at the beginning of December 2017 showed that a huge proportion of the UK population—88%—supports a ban on buying and selling ivory in the UK.

With the London conference on the illegal wildlife trade being held in October, I agree with the conservation charities that it is imperative that a near-total ban on UK ivory sales is in place as soon as possible. But I also agree with many of the environmental and conservation charities, such as the Environmental Investigation Agency, the Born Free Foundation, the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation and others, that there are key flaws in the Bill that should be addressed in the meantime.

I do not advocate a total ban on sales of all antique ivory and I support the Government’s proposed exemptions for sales of items containing a very small amount of ivory, along with pre-1975 musical instruments, and sales to and between museums. As a strong supporter of live music, I do, however, share some of the concerns of the Musicians’ Union, which is otherwise very supportive of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer a number of specific questions in this respect. Does mere ownership require registration under Section 10 or if the owner wishes to sell an instrument? Will a certificate be required for non-commercial use? Will a UK certificate be usable internationally as a musical instrument certificate when a musician performs abroad? Is that a certificate for each instrument or are all instruments owned by an individual covered? What will be the charge for such a certificate? The MU asked that this be waived or set at a low rate for professional musicians.

On the contrary, however, I do not support the width of the proposed exemption for continued commercial trade in items of artistic, cultural or historic significance. The scope of the proposed Section 2 exemption in the Bill is vague and will involve subjective judgments. An analysis of the impact of the Bill showed that around 25% of currently traded ivory items will fall under the exemptions. The UK exported around 36,000 ivory items worldwide from 2010 to 2015, with the USA the next-highest exporter with around 9,800 items. Therefore, even if the proposed ban with exemptions had been in place, exports would have been around 9,000 items—a quarter of 36,000—meaning that the UK would still have been the second-highest exporter of antique ivory in the world. At the very least, exemption certificates should be made harder to obtain.

All commercial imports and exports of ivory items should be banned and, if not, at least Section 2 items should be banned. All online dealing in ivory should be banned, as the noble Lord, St John of Bletso, mentioned. Allowing only physical sales, combined with the exemption certificates and registration process, should considerably reduce illegal trade and make the enforcement authorities’ job far easier. As the noble Lord also said, the Bill should clearly specify that all trade in raw ivory is banned—in other words, raw ivory should not be sold under any of the exemptions.

There should be a compulsory registration scheme for items exempted under Section 2:

“Pre-1918 items of outstanding artistic … value and importance”—


which means that they can be traded repeatedly. Documentary evidence to prove the legality or origin of the ivory item should be required to support applications for exemption certificates and registration. Finally, the statutory guidance on criteria for the artistic exemption to be issued by the Secretary of State under Section 2(3) will be crucial. Will there be public consultation with all stakeholders on its provisions? Then, as mentioned by a number of other noble Lords, we have extensions to non-elephant ivory. That should not delay the Bill, but there should be, as many organisations have suggested—I hope that the Minister will repeat this assurance to the House—a consultation under Clause 35.

I have a further query about resources for enforcement, both online and offline, for Border Force based at Heathrow leading the CITES team that enforces the UK’s obligation to the convention and the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit. Will they have sufficient powers under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979? How will this interface with the regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards? Also, while there is mention in the Bill of forfeiture following conviction, there is no specific mention of the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for recovery of criminal assets. I hope that the Government can clarify that all this will apply. We should ensure that the full force of the criminal law is brought to bear through the process of this Bill.

Cultural and Community Distribution Deregulation Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Clement-Jones]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, up and down the country, local authorities, using powers granted by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which amended the Environmental Protection Act 1990, have been restricting leafleting for cultural events, including performances at comedy clubs, theatres, music venues, art galleries and even village halls. Under powers introduced by the 2005 Act, local authorities can designate areas within which people must buy a licence if they want to hand out leaflets. The Act gives local authorities powers to designate land on which people require a licence to distribute free printed matter, makes it an offence to distribute leaflets on this land without obtaining the consent of the local authority, and permits the local authority to refuse consent or to give or limit consent, for example with reference to the time and place of distribution or the material distributed. It requires a person distributing leaflets to produce, on demand, written evidence of the local authority’s consent, and permits authorities to charge a fee for the issuing of licences.

A survey by the Manifesto Club, the organisation that first identified the issue, found that 27% of local authorities restrict leafleting, including Nottingham, Leicester, Brighton, Swindon, Wolverhampton, Oxford, Bournemouth, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Leeds, Derby, Doncaster, East Hertfordshire, Colchester, Basildon, North West Leicestershire, Sheffield, Rushmoor, Oldham, Kirklees, Birmingham and seven London councils. This means that leafleting restrictions cover the country’s key metropolitan centres and many smaller towns.

Licence fees are prohibitively expensive for small groups. In Basildon, a licence costs £150 for one day, £350 for a Saturday or Sunday and £800 for one week. Oldham charges £50 and Brent £55 per day. Wolverhampton charges £262 per distributor. Some boroughs, such as Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea, have a number of separate leafleting zones, each of which requires a separate licence. Hammersmith and Fulham charges £250 for each of its eight zones, so it costs £2,000 to leaflet freely throughout the borough. The Manifesto Club’s research found that these leafleting restrictions fall most heavily on grass-roots art and community events, including comedy clubs, theatres, music performances and art exhibitions. Larger-scale events have the option of more commercial advertising channels, and can afford leafleting licences if they so choose.

However, there is a paradox here. The Local Government Association, as recently as March, extolled the benefits of the contribution of the arts to local communities. Its press release stated:

“Arts investment can bring in £4 for every £1 spent ... From international festivals and museums that attract hundreds of thousands of visitors, to street entertainment revitalising high streets and theatres supporting young people to gain new skills, thriving arts create great destinations, vibrant places to live and have many valuable economic spin-offs. A theatre, museum or festival draws visitors who do not simply spend money on their ticket or entrance fee, but also buy meals in local restaurants, go to local shops, or perhaps stay in hotels as part of their visit. These people might never have visited that location without the pull of its cultural attractions. Businesses also choose to invest in places with a vibrant arts scene because they offer their employees a high quality of life”.

Quite contrary to this enlightened statement, leafleting licence rules have been catastrophic to grass-roots arts organisations, local theatres, jazz nights, comedy nights and arts shows in venues such as theatres, village halls, comedy clubs and small nightclubs, which rely on leafleting to build an audience but cannot afford the high licence fees. In Leicester, a one-off licence application fee is £103, on top of which an organisation must pay £26 per distributor per day. The Leicester Comedy Festival has 200 small comedy acts. It would cost an unaffordable £5,200 per day to allow them all to leaflet. These rules in effect mean that only the most commercial operations are able to freely leaflet in Leicester.

Oxford student societies were asked to pay £100 per month to hand out leaflets, as was the Oxford Jazz Festival. A flyer ban in Leicester Square, London, caused the collapse of several comedy nights and the reduction of many audiences from 75 to 25. A Newcastle jazz club owner said that leafleting restrictions reduced his audiences by 50%. The Sawbridgeworth Evening Women’s Institute was threatened with a fine for handing out leaflets about its annual art exhibition. It no longer leaflets for the event.

Leafleting licence schemes have had a widely recognised adverse effect on the music and arts scene in key British cities, reducing the grass-roots scene and limiting opportunities for emerging artists to win themselves an audience. Leafleting restrictions have had a severe effect on the music and experimental arts scenes in cities such as Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham and Brighton, and on the fringe comedy scene in Brighton and Leicester.

One unintended consequence of leafleting licence schemes has been the commercialisation of the leafleting of the arts scene. In Brighton, for example, the leafleting licence led to the decline of smaller, experimental music nights, and the growth of bigger mainstream club nights. Several comedy festivals, including those in Brighton and Leicester, now have a diminished number of fringe acts, because only those who can afford to take out brochure adverts or pay the leafleting fee are able to reach an audience. Perversely, the more commercial operations, which employ full-time leafleters, tend to leaflet more indiscriminately and create most litter.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend’s flow. If a number of small acts get together and put out a single leaflet, will they be charged separate licence fees or a single licence fee?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

If it is a single leaflet, the fee will be for a single licence, but these acts are small organisations with very different timings for their events during a festival, and they all have different audiences, so they want to put out their own material and find the target audience most appropriate to them.

As I said, commercial operations that employ full-time leafleters tend to leaflet more indiscriminately and create the most litter. Small groups leafleting on their own behalf will leaflet more selectively and responsibly and create very little litter. The leafleting licence scheme punishes the small events and organisations that leaflet most responsibly and cause minimal litter. McDonald’s can leaflet freely, but the local arts centre cannot.

The importance of flyering for grass-roots arts was summed up by David Mulholland, a comedian and promoter for the Soho Comedy Club. He said:

“Flyering is a life and death issue for small clubs that are just starting up. The birthplace of alternative comedy in the UK, the Comedy Store, started above a strip club in 1979 and relied heavily on flyerers to attract audiences until 1993. If flyering had been prohibited in 1979 there would be no alternative comedy scene in the UK”.

Supporters of the Bill have received testimonies from a variety of organisations, stating that leafleting is the primary way in which they can reach a local audience. They include folk music societies, theatre groups, chamber music and early music groups, church choirs, amateur orchestras, amateur dramatics societies, village halls, experimental DJs, unsigned bands who play in pubs, and small comedy clubs.

The Cultural and Community Distribution Deregulation Bill 2013 would exempt small-scale cultural and neighbourhood events from leafleting restrictions. It would reform the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to allow a greater exemption from leafleting restrictions for grass-roots arts and community events. Currently, leafleting for religious, political or charitable purposes is exempt from legislation. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 states:

“Nothing in this paragraph applies to the distribution of printed matter … by or on behalf of a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1993, where the printed matter relates to or is intended for the benefit of the charity”,

or,

“where the distribution is for political purposes or for the purposes of a religion or belief”.

This means that religious, charitable and political groups do not have to buy a leafleting licence. A wide exemption would avoid the unnecessary penalisation of the informal events that are so valuable to community life.

The Bill would introduce a further exemption that would exclude leafleting restrictions,

“where the distribution is for the purposes of an event which consists wholly or mainly of live entertainment and takes place in the presence of an audience of no more than 600 persons”.

Live entertainment is defined as arts and music events and other cultural, social or recreational events of a similar nature, so the exemption would cover arts, music and theatrical events, as well as local events, such as talks, shows, fetes or coffee mornings. This reform would be compatible with the current regulation on street advertising, which exempts events of this nature from regulations. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 state that posters will have deemed consent and exemption from planning laws if they announce a local event of religious, educational, cultural, political, social or recreational character.

This reform of leafleting restrictions would recognise the value of local events and free up the arts and music scenes in key British cities from this unnecessary restraint. The strength of British comedy, music and the arts ultimately depends on the health of the grass roots, which allows new talent to emerge and win an audience. This reform would also recognise the importance of free speech in public places, a liberty that has existed for several hundred years in this country, embodied in our strong tradition of pamphleteers. Leafleting is a key civic freedom, with a long tradition in this country going back at least to the late 17th century, when the requirement for printers to be licensed was lifted, and should not be restricted without very good reason.

Problems with litter should be dealt with through the provision of litter bins and other common-sense measures, not by placing restrictions on our civil rights. Leaflets advertising cultural events, an important expression of our community activity, should not be treated in the same way as a burger wrapper or a crisp packet.

The campaign to change the law is supported by a great range of artists across the spectrum, comedians such as Al Murray and Simon Evans, the directors of the Oxford Jazz Festival, the Leicester Comedy Festival, Rick Wakeman and Radiohead’s manager, all of whom recognise the importance of the grass-roots scene to producing new talent. A whole host of organisations are in support, including Equity. The Musicians’ Union says that it has supported the campaign against leafleting bans from its inception and that it is vital to musicians that events where they perform can be advertised and promoted through unhindered and responsible leafleting.

UK Music, the organisation that represents the music industry in the UK, supports the Bill, as do the Association of Independent Festivals, the Association of British Orchestras and the Association of Festival Organisers, which says that this Bill is too modest. It says that the amendment to get free leafleting for up to 600 people works fantastically well for clubs and societies, small concerts and even fund-raising events, but does not do much for a festival that is trying to attract 2,000 people. If I thought that I would get support for going further than I have, I would have done.

The Concert Promoters Association supports the Bill, as does the Agents’ Association. The English Folk Dance and Song Society says that it fully supports the Bill and that a large majority of folk events are presented by amateur and community groups, as well as small folk clubs and local festivals, which are not in a position to pay their local authorities for permission to distribute leaflets about their activities. Their activities should be encouraged, as they bring people together and encourage community cohesion, and they should not be hampered or discouraged in their efforts. The International Association for the Study of Popular Music supports the Bill, as do the Stand Comedy Club and Jazz Services.

In conclusion, I have a few quotes from individuals, which I think are telling. Alison Honour, the head of the School of Arts at Oxford Brookes University says:

“I am writing in support of the campaign against leafleting bans. Arts organisations and artists of all disciplines rely on self-promotion in order to publicise their practice, whether it be exhibitions, performances or events. These activities contribute to communities’ coherence, well-being and positive engagement, and bring a cultural landscape often reaching out to the most remote places and spaces”.

Liam Gardiner Webber, a band and youth theatre member in Nottingham says:

“I’m a member of a small, unsigned band. If we were able to leaflet for our gigs, it would make a huge difference to the numbers who would come and see us. The lack of ability for small venues to leaflet has meant that, as a member of a band and youth orchestra, being able to expand the audience of either beyond family and friends is very difficult. Leafleting would allow for much greater presence for such activities and would in turn boost the culture side of the city”.

An independent promoter said:

“It has been difficult to promote small events, as it seems only the larger companies can afford such licences and therefore get more business, which does affect independent promoters”.

All this is powerful testimony and very powerful support for the Bill. There is no doubt that this legislative change would boost the arts and local economy at no significant cost to national or local government. Political, religious and charitable events are exempt from the need to buy a leafleting licence, which means that small cultural events are being unfairly penalised. It is unjust that the Church of England and political parties can leaflet for free but the village fete or local theatre group must pay. The grass-roots arts are fundamental to community life and the local economy as well as producing talent of international renown. The deregulation of entertainment licensing was, of course, of great benefit, but groups need to be able to promote themselves. Unless we act quickly, irreparable damage will be done to the grass roots across the UK.

I very much hope that the Government will heed these calls for reform and back the Bill. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. In particular, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who really got into the detail of the local arts scene, which he knows so much about, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who has done extremely interesting research into the Wolverhampton situation, which is replicated up and down the country. Taking an example in that way becomes very powerful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support and his interrogation of why we have this legislation despite the fact that, as he acknowledged, these provisions were passed under the previous Government but have had these unintended consequences.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He had a pretty miserable hand to play in this debate. It had some positive elements but was broadly disappointing. One of his phrases, I think, was that he would be concerned to hear that the powers were being used disproportionately. There is a thick booklet from the Manifesto Club, which details in extenso all the ways in which these powers are being used disproportionately. There are ways of playing a miserable hand but I can tell the Minister that he did not turn it into a silk purse.

I cannot help feeling that if a different department were involved—if the DCLG or the DCMS, praise the Lord, were to have responsibility for this legislation—the response would have been very different, as it was, of course, in such a positive way to my Live Music Bill last year. We really have to lift our eyes from the pavement and noble Lords speaking in the debate made that very clear. I am really disappointed that Defra seems to regard the faint risk of extra litter as more important than our cultural and community life.

The Minister raised a number of objections, including the claim that it will lead to increased street-cleansing costs and divert resources for local government. It is probable that the width of definition of live entertainment underlies what the noble Lord said, as well as in terms of opening the floodgates to all the commercial operators and McDonald’s going mad all over our streets. Other objections in discussions have been made, including that it is difficult to say in advance what size an audience will be. But that is absolutely standard in health and safety, licensing and so on. It is not an issue.

In the debate, the Minister set us the task of changing human behaviour. Let us start with small steps. I do not think that, in order to defend culture and community life at local level, I first have to change human behaviour to justify this very small but significant Private Member’s Bill. Then we all have to be beamed up in some way. I do not know whether we have any “Star Trek” enthusiasts around here, but let us all hang on a star and get digital. We can all use Twitter, e-mail and so on but physical bits of paper handed out to people who happen to be in the right place at the right time is extraordinarily important.

On the cost of litter collection, when the original leafleting restrictions were introduced, the Government’s impact assessment said that the leafleting licensing schemes might or might not save councils money because there would be costs to set it up. It is therefore highly moot whether in a particular case a licensing scheme is cost-effective and, therefore, whether its demise would cost anything in certain cases. The impact assessment said that,

“the total set-up cost to local authorities would be between £450,000 and £750,000; and taking account of the costs of enforcement and the cleaning costs saved, on an annual basis there would be somewhere between a net cost of £37,500 and a net cost saving of £525,000”.

We all know what impact assessments are like across government, which may sound particularly broad-brushed. I do not believe that those figures are any more reliable than the dire consequences the Minister has predicted in this case. It goes on to say:

“This illustrates that it is not certain whether there would be a net financial cost or benefit to this measure”.

If they were uncertain then, I am sure that they are uncertain now.

We then got into the nether regions of tattoo parlours, free magazines, night clubs, bars and so on. Let us throw the kitchen sink at this problem. I can assure the Minister that the Bill is not designed to deal with tattoo parlours. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made plain, there are additional economic benefits which outweigh the disbenefits of a little bit of extra litter from a poetry club or a comedy store. The noble Viscount demonstrated exactly those points.

As a result of the Bill, local businesses and cultural activity would almost certainly thrive. As I have mentioned, Brighton audiences have plummeted. If the Brighton music scene, for instance, returned to its former size, more people would come to Brighton, spend more money, the council’s arts budget would go further and so on. Surely, in the light of the benefits of deregulation, is it not worth the candle?

As to the second objection—the question of the width of “live entertainment”—as I said, we can clearly work on the definition. Amendments could be agreed in Committee if there was the political will. As regards the size of audience issue, this works for licensing so why not for leafleting. If that does not find favour in terms of audience, it could find favour in terms of capacity. The term capacity is used in other forms of legislation, such as that on health and safety.

However, I am heartened by part of the Minister’s response. He seems to accept that there is a problem. He may not think that there is enough of a problem—I am sure he has not read the Manifesto Club’s report and I urge him to do so—but he has undertaken to sit down and talk about it with the Manifesto Club. I hope he will also sit down with DCLG and DCMS. I have seen a ministerial letter from the Creative Industries Minister to that effect in the DCMS and I welcome it. I hope that revised guidance will be agreed for the application of these provisions in the way that he said.

We need to make the Minister’s assurances concrete. Is it an absolutely firm commitment that the guidance will be changed? When will meetings take place? Can we expect to agree new draft guidance? When can we do that? When will this be consulted on? When can we expect it to be implemented? There are a number of concrete issues and I hope the Minister will follow that up in writing after the debate.

I wish to end by returning to the time when the 2005 Act went through and the actions of the Labour Minister, Alun Michael, for whom I had great respect as a Minister. His original outline of the religious, charitable and political exemptions emphasised that they were necessary to protect human rights and political expression. He said:

“The purpose of the exception is to ensure that the human rights of individuals and their legitimate political and democratic activities are not affected by the provisions. By allowing the exemptions, we protect the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.—[Official Report, Commons, Clean Neighbourhoods and Environmental Bill Committee, 20/1/05; col. 143.]

This shows that, contrary to the localism argument used by Defra, exemptions are necessary to protect the rights of different groups. It was not all left to council’s discretion.

Surely grass-roots cultural expression needs to be similarly protected. It makes cultural, social and economic sense and I look forward to further discussions with the Minister. I ask the House to give this small but significant Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Environment: Leafleting

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the impact of restrictions on leafleting under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 on cultural and community events.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was amended in 2005 to enable local authorities to control litter from free literature. If a litter problem exists, authorities may introduce controls in designated areas to make it an offence to distribute material without consent. Exemptions exist for political, charitable or religious purposes. Defra has no plans to amend this legislation. Authorities should work with the community and local businesses to minimise litter problems before imposing restrictions.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, over a third of councils now restrict leafleting and some charge exorbitant amounts for a licence. The Minister will be aware that many local theatres and clubs have been very badly affected by these restrictions, with dramatic reductions in their audiences. Should this traditional civic freedom not be protected? Will the Government consider introducing a new exemption for cultural and creative activities, and not treat these leaflets as no more important than a crisp packet or burger wrapper?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I understand the noble Lord’s interest in seeking to preserve community arts and activities but I emphasise that this is a discretionary power that I would expect local authorities to apply in any way they wish, even within a particular zone. Local authorities can give their consent to any group or any event at any time.

Elephant Poaching

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We certainly cannot be confident that smuggling and the poaching of ivory are currently under control. The Government take very seriously the threat to elephants and other wildlife from smuggling and the international trafficking of wildlife products. Richard Benyon, the Minister responsible, announced last year that the illegal trade under CITES, in particular the trade in elephant ivory, is a UK wildlife crime priority for the National Wildlife Crime Unit.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Space for Giants, the wildlife charity. I heard what my noble friend said about a common position with the EU, but are this Government having direct conversations with member states to ensure that the EU votes as a bloc to prevent those further ivory sales?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is exactly the purpose of the negotiations that Defra is engaged in at the moment. The meeting to be held in three weeks’ time is very important and we want to have a common position, which indeed will protect elephants from the threats that they face from poachers.