Ivory Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

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

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, despite a ban on the international trade in ivory, as we have heard today, tens of thousands of elephants are killed every year for their tusks. There has been an upsurge in poaching in recent years which has led to steep declines, particularly in forest elephant numbers as well as some savannah elephant populations. It is a tragedy. Thriving but unmonitored domestic ivory markets continue in a number of countries, while insufficient anti-poaching capacity, weak law enforcement and corruption compound the problem.

I served as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from September 2012 to May 2015. During that time, among other things I was lucky enough to play a role in the United Kingdom’s efforts to bear down on the poaching and trafficking of wildlife. Several million pounds were granted to projects around the world which contributed to this effort. We organised a conference at Lancaster House in February 2014, which has been referred to in the debate. It was convened by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and attended by both of his sons as well as heads of state and government Ministers from more than 40 countries. That conference was followed by one the next year in Kasane in Botswana, which I attended on behalf of the British Government, and one a year later in Hanoi. As we have heard, there will be another one this autumn, again in London.

Our commitment should be in no doubt, and we have made some progress. Enforcement is now better co-ordinated, and punishments have been made stricter. But more needs to be done. Consumer countries such as China and Vietnam have become engaged. Indeed, at the beginning of this year, the Chinese Government introduced a ban on its domestic ivory trade with exemptions for cultural relics. However, there is still much to do, so I can understand why the Government propose this Bill and, indeed, I welcome certain aspects of it.

I thank the Government for exempting miniatures, albeit since the Bill’s emergence from another place rather more tightly circumscribed than before. On that point, I declare an interest as the owner of a small collection of miniatures, although I have absolutely no intention of selling them. I am now chairman of LAPADA, the art and antique dealers’ trade association. Although my remarks present my own views, they are informed by what I have learned in that capacity.

The Government now propose a total ban on the sale of ivory, with limited, tightly drafted exemptions. I want to focus my remarks on three specific areas of concern. First, thousands of people will have acquired, legally and in good faith, antique items that contain elements of ivory not covered by the exemptions. At a stroke, those items will be made valueless. I would hate to think that the Government simply do not care about those people. We should bear in mind that the Secretary of State put his name to a document that admits that,

“the UK ivory market has not been directly linked to the trade in recently poached ivory”.

I have heard nothing today to contradict that.

Furthermore, in a 2016 television investigation into the trade in poached ivory, the BBC trawled through online listings of hundreds of low-value solid ivory carvings offered at regional auctions and submitted the nine that seemed the most recently made for scientific testing. Just one of them dated from as recently as the 1980s, but of course the existing law would already be able to deal with that if it was illegally poached. Traffic visited 200 dealers in London in 2016 and concluded that not one of the 3,200 items they found containing ivory was new; they therefore did not contain any recently poached ivory. Only one of the items was reportedly made after the current 1947 cut-off date for offering ivory for sale without a permit.

I could show the Minister many examples of items that would be caught by this Bill, but let me give just one: a George V silver and ivory-handled ink blotter, in respect of which the de minimis level would need to be set at 20% for it not to be caught. Since its ivory content would lie above the currently proposed 10% threshold, such items would need certification as being deemed of genuine artistic, cultural or historic significance. They may well not qualify for that, which would mean they would be unsaleable and therefore worthless and which could ultimately lead to them being destroyed. Many thousands of these sorts of items may go the same way. The Government have said that they do not want to continue to rely on the current 1947 cut-off date, after which worked ivory cannot be sold, but this could offer the key to resolving what might otherwise become a thorny problem. I urge the Minister to consider the fact that 1947 is now 70 years ago and that it is technically feasible to age and then certificate ivory.

Secondly, I want to make sure that what we enact and put on the statute book is workable and does not collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy. Take a small antique dealer with a booth in an antiques centre. He regularly takes in items from house clearances in his neighbourhood. Every single piece of furniture or small object that he buys will need to have been considered and analysed for its ivory content, however small: chests of drawers with small ivory escutcheons around the keyhole; Victorian games boxes inlaid with ivory; music stands with ivory elements; opera glasses; musical boxes—I could go on. Not only will sellers need to decide whether each item is eligible for one of the exemptions, but for each item they believe meets one of the exemption criteria, they will need to give a full description, take and upload a photograph, carefully describe and photograph distinguishing features, and explain why they believe the item meets the exemption criteria before it can be offered to the dealer. This level of detailed information and time applied might be appropriate for a historical antique worth £10,000 but not for objects that sell for £250.

I wonder whether the Government realise just how many such items will feature on this register. Where small elements of inlay are involved on low-value antiques, it is often the case that ivory does not get mentioned in sales descriptions, so if the Government have relied on online searches for “ivory”, they could well be in for a nasty shock as to the numbers of objects people will need to register.

Thirdly, I want to make sure that we do not put in place a regime which is inappropriately draconian in terms of criminalisation and powers of search and entry. Imagine a young couple who move into an old property they want to do up and discover the loft is full of cardboard boxes containing an array of old objects. They set up a stall at a car boot sale with all the objects lined up and they price at £25 a 19th-century wooden tea caddy with pale cream decorative inlay on the lid, to which they do not give a moment’s thought. A random check by an accredited civilian officer spots the box and tells them that it is almost certainly decorated with ivory, even though it amounts to probably just 5%. They are told they should have suspected it to be ivory and have committed an offence by failing to register it. Furthermore, they are reminded that the civil sanctions alone allow for a penalty of up to £250,000. Subsequently, they are fined.

This situation could easily be duplicated for countless other people who want to sell objects with low ivory content, no matter how small the amount of ivory they contain and irrespective of their value. There are thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of old domestic objects regularly bought and sold containing less than 10% ivory, for example Georgian silver coffee pots with old ivory insulators, and perhaps tens of thousands of musical instruments containing less than 20%, such as old pub pianos with ivory keys. These are objects for which the sellers and buyers will simply not make a connection between the objects and the elephants we want to save. This begs the question: should people be fined, or even criminalised, for failing to list on a government register so many relatively common domestic antiques? Should we not encourage such second-hand objects to be sold and reused, rather than abandoned?

I completely share the Government’s objective of eliminating the poaching of elephants and other rare wild animals. However, as I have said, I have grave concerns about the impact of this Bill on people who have legally acquired items that will now become valueless, about the unwitting creation of a huge bureaucracy, and about criminalising innocent people.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, there are a number of things to be welcomed in the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, including the licensing of breeding establishments, the risk-based approach to inspections, the prohibition of the sale of puppies under eight weeks old, and the requirements on advertisements of pets, although those may be tricky to enforce—I hope that the various websites are being helpful. It is vital that the regulations are applied consistently across local councils and I hope that the Government will keep their operation under review.

There remain a number of important issues that are difficult to deal with, including the breeding of domestic animals in poor conditions, and, as my noble friend Lord Black mentioned, the breeding of dogs and cats with congenital conditions such as severe breathing difficulties and eye problems, which breeds such as French bulldogs and pugs experience, due to extreme conformation. There is also the matter of the frequent import of dogs and cats bred and travelled in poor conditions, often leading to disease. My noble friend Lord Lexden spoke in detail about that.

Clearly, electronic collars should never be used for the routine training of dogs. There may, however, be occasions when, used properly and as a last resort, they can prevent serious problems, such as sheep worrying. In these cases the only viable alternative to their use could be euthanasia. The recent consultation document regrettably failed to consider options such as further regulation, a licensing system or statutory controls on the quality and specification of the devices available. If there is to be a ban, it should at least include an exemption for boundary fence systems. The use of these allows animals more freedom and greater safety, particularly near busy roads.

Turning to horse welfare, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Horse Trust. The creation of the British Horse Council is a major achievement. There have been a number of other successes along the way, from new protocols for dealing with contagious equine metritis to a tighter tripartite agreement and the Control of Horses Act. On the latter, I ask my noble friend the Minister to update us on progress, especially on enforcement.

I understand that a new statutory instrument is now planned to include both retrospective microchipping, which is essential for disease control, traceability, theft prevention and holding owners to account, and civil sanctions, as well as requirements such as the Central Equine Database. It would be helpful if the fine income could be returned to local authorities to act as an incentive to enforcement.

With EU exit ahead, there are many challenges for the equine world to help government work through, such as the movement of horses between the north and south of Ireland and, indeed, throughout the rest of the European Union. I have concerns about horses being exported for slaughter and I am frankly unconvinced by the lack of declarations thereof. Until there is full traceability within and outside the United Kingdom, it is impossible to know where exported horses end up. In the meantime, intelligence-led checks at the border and point of origin would help stop the non-compliant movement of horses out of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State announced plans last September to have the maximum prison term for an animal welfare offence raised from six months to five years, which I would welcome. In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister to tell us when and how that will be implemented.

Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations, which, as other noble Lords have said, are hugely important. My one question is this: why has it taken so long? That is a rhetorical question, not a criticism of the Government, whom I congratulate.

We live in a country that is hugely surveilled. I understand that there is one CCTV camera for every 13 of us. By my calculations, that amounts to 5 million CCTV cameras throughout the country. Every day we see how important they are in investigating and solving all sorts of wrongdoing, yet we have failed to get them introduced into every corner of every abattoir. It is great that 95% of animals are under surveillance but surely it is the other 5% that we should worry about because, if malpractice is likely to happen, it will surely happen in the places where people do not volunteer to have surveillance.

Therefore, this measure is very important in ensuring compliance with the rigorous regulations that, rightly, are in place to ensure the welfare of animals in our abattoirs through the inspection of their health and well-being, both in the lairages where animals are often kept overnight or for 12 hours and more, and then throughout the killing process. Your Lordships may not have been in an abattoir—they are not very nice places—but the killing lines often move very fast and it is very difficult for a veterinarian to be everywhere at once. With things moving so fast, things can happen that can go unseen. I would suggest, and it has been mentioned, that CCTV is also useful to aid training and management by those who own the abattoirs. So there are two benefits, but the benefit to animal welfare is obviously the major one.

Stunning and non-stun has come up. I do not want to labour the point, but there are breaches of regulations that can happen in both situations. These rules will be extremely important in helping us to ensure that the regulations in both types of killing process are observed. There are some particularly stringent regulations pertaining to non-stun such as standstill times after the neck cut, which must be 30 seconds in the case of cattle beasts and 20 seconds in the case of sheep. That is a long time to hold a killing line, but it is essential for the welfare of the animals, if we are to permit non-stun, that those standstill times are honoured. CCTV will help us to ensure that that is happening because it is sometimes difficult to supervise.

I absolutely share the noble Baroness’s concerns about the loss of our abattoirs. There is very much an animal welfare issue in terms of the distance animals have to go between the point of rearing and the point of slaughter. That distance should be minimised as much as possible. We are all therefore keen to ensure the financial sustainability of abattoirs, big and small, but I remain to be convinced that these costs would be the last straw. If they are critical, we must find other ways in which to address that problem, not simply give up on enforcing these regulations. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the technical costs of cameras these days are incredibly low; people are putting these sorts of cameras in birds’ nest boxes, and so on. I understand that the observation of the stored material, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, referred, is going to be done by the official veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency who are already employed. I would have thought that they would incorporate that observation as part of their working day.

In conclusion, this is a long overdue and extremely welcome innovation that we should all endorse.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I understand why Her Majesty's Government are following this course of action and I am aware of some fairly horrible cases, which means that CCTV is prima facie desirable in slaughterhouses. We are all on the same side in trying to ensure the least suffering for animals. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just said, there is nothing nice about slaughterhouses or what animals have to go through. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—he made a number of strong points. But I would just point out that not so long ago almost every rural town of a reasonable size had a slaughterhouse. From figures produced by my noble friend the Minister for my noble friend Lady Byford I can say that in 2001, Great Britain had 495 slaughterhouses. By last year that number had fallen to 320, which is a drop of 35%. The adverse effect on the welfare of animals which have to travel long distances to slaughter have been well aired. Those slaughterhouses closed down because they became commercially unviable. In many cases, it does not take much additional cost to tip any commercial operation from the black into the red. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. CCTV of the standard required is not inexpensive. You cannot just buy it on eBay. The system needs to be robust, built to last, operated in quite demanding circumstances and positioned carefully, out of reach of tampering and so on. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Cathcart said, it has to be watched, which costs money. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister what research has been done into how many of the remaining 320 slaughterhouses are on the margin of commercial viability. The crunch point for me is whether they will be tipped over the edge.

We all want a better outcome and less suffering for animals. I just hope that the Government have done enough homework to ensure that animals will not end up having to travel much further in what are often, to say the least, uncomfortable conditions, and perhaps even to countries with less rigorous rules than our own.

Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for their time and explanations regarding this SI and for his comprehensive introductory remarks. I declare my interest as a district councillor. It is now two years since Defra’s initial consultation on this important issue and I welcome moving it forward.

This SI covers a number of domestic animal welfare issues that are of great concern to the public, including the breeding and selling of animals, animal boarding establishments and, as the Minister said, the hiring out of horses. While it is essential to ensure that animal welfare is paramount, I welcome the introduction of requiring only one licence instead of the two previously needed. This is a sensible cut in bureaucracy. The Minister has provided assurances that those working in the sector have been consulted in the form of the equine, feline and canine organisations and that the Government have been working closely with them and with vets. A licence lasting up to two years instead of being renewed every year will be welcomed, as will the risk-based approach to the length of the licence and the ability for it to be given at any time during the year, not just at the year end.

My colleague and noble friend Lady Parminter has raised the issue of puppy farming on a number of occasions inside and outside the Chamber, and was extremely concerned that there should be adequate regulation of this often very distressing industry. Defra launched a call for evidence on the third-party sale of puppies and kittens on 8 February. This consultation will close on 2 May and we look forward to its results. We would be grateful if the Minister could give us an indication of when the results might be published.

We welcome the restriction of the number of litters that a bitch may have to one a year as a great step forward. The prohibition of the sale of a puppy—as well as kittens and other animals—below the age of eight weeks, and the need for a puppy to be shown with its mother by breeders prior to sale, will also be welcomed by those legitimate breeders and owners who have the best interests of their animals at heart. Similarly, the detailed restrictions on the size, height and type of boarding kennels and catteries should ensure that domestic animals can be left by their owners, in confidence that their pets will be well looked after during their absence.

As a local councillor, I am aware that local authorities are under tremendous pressure with budget restraints. I fully support the move to allow them to have full-cost recovery for their work in granting licences, as well as being able to raise fees for reasonable enforcement. In the past, it has not always been possible for the cost of extra work passed to local authorities to be recouped in this way. There will, of course, need to be an adequate number of suitably qualified inspectors to ensure that this legislation is properly enforced. I welcome the comments that the Minister made about the new qualification. I understand that it will take three years to meet the necessary standard and that vets on the list of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons will carry out some of this work.

While Defra is going to publish guidance, this will not be available until the regulations come into force. Does the Minister believe that this will give enough time to local authorities to be prepared to issue the new licences in an efficient and responsive manner?

I fully support the measures covered by this SI but I have one concern. Part 4 of the schedule, which covers the hiring out of horses, does not appear to cover riding for the disabled. While the regulations cover the welfare of animals in a commercial operation, they do not apply to those which operate on a charitable basis. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that if establishments which offer riding for the disabled are operating not on a charitable basis but as a business, they will be covered by this new legislation. That apart, I believe that this is a great step forward and look forward to its implementation eagerly.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I generally welcome these regulations. I declare an interest as an owner of a rescue mutt, which we are told is a cross between a poodle and a Shih Tzu. I would welcome suggestions from noble Lords as to what we should call that breed.

It must be right that puppies are not sold below the age of eight weeks. It is also right to draw the line at three litters a year. I am in favour of a risk-based approach to licensing and inspections by local authorities. In the same vein, it is helpful to avoid a backlog of inspections by operating on a basis of fixed-term licences set at any point in the year. I support the regulation of advertisements, as these regulations do, although I ask my noble friend how this will all be enforced. Are there the funds to allow the necessary inspections and monitoring of advertising? Perhaps PAAG and the excellent dog charities can help with the latter. However, what about enforcement?

I note that these regulations apply in England and I wonder what discussions my noble friend has had with the Welsh Government with a view to ascertaining whether they might do something similar. Not that it is introduced by these regulations, although they refer to it, but I have a concern about the dead hand of bureaucracy, which demands that someone who very occasionally looks after someone else’s dog, and perhaps has done so for years, should be required to obtain a licence if they are to be even modestly recompensed. Having said that, there is no excuse for poor welfare conditions for animals, and, as I have said, I generally support these regulations.

Ivory Trade

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for initiating this debate and for what he said, with which I agree. Like him, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.

Despite a ban on the international trade in ivory, tens of thousands of elephants are killed every year for their tusks. There has been an upsurge in poaching in recent years, which has led to steep declines, particularly in forest elephant numbers as well as some savannah elephant populations. It is a tragedy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said.

Thriving but unmonitored domestic ivory markets continue in a number of countries. Insufficient anti-poaching capacity, weak law enforcement and corruption compound the problem. I served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from September 2012 to May 2015. During that time, among other things, I was lucky enough to have ministerial responsibility for the United Kingdom’s efforts to bear down on the poaching and trafficking of wildlife. We were fortunate to be granted several million pounds specifically to fund projects around the world which contributed to this effort. That money was wisely and effectively spent. We also organised a conference at Lancaster House in February 2014, convened by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and attended by both his sons as well as—I think I recall—four heads of state and government Ministers from over 40 countries. This conference was followed by one the following year in Kasane in Botswana, which I attended on behalf of the British Government, and one a year later in Hanoi. There will be one again next year, again in London.

Our commitment should be in no doubt, and we have made some progress. Savannah elephant populations in parts of southern Africa are even now expanding, with almost 300,000 elephants now roaming across the sub-region. Enforcement is now better co-ordinated and punishments have been made stricter—but more, of course, must be done. Consumer countries such as China and Vietnam have become engaged. Indeed, the Chinese Government this year announced plans to ban their domestic ivory trade, with exemptions for cultural relics. However, there is much still to do.

I am now chairman of LAPADA, the art and antique dealers’ trade association. TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring organisation, has published a survey which found that the number of market stalls offering ivory for sale had declined by approximately two-thirds since 2004, and that the number of items offered for sale had halved. No new or raw ivory was seen in any of the physical market outlets or online platforms. The Government now propose a total ban on sales of ivory, with targeted exemptions. Incidentally, I assume that the Government have an answer to those such as the US Government’s Fish and Wildlife Service, whose website says:

“We know those items created long ago aren’t threatening today’s wild elephants”.


Assuming that the Government’s ears are blocked to that point, the exemption on the grounds of historical, cultural and artistic significance seems reasonable, and, if enacted as currently proposed, should protect the interests of owners of works of art who would otherwise be deprived of the value of their possessions by an indiscriminate ban. However, the proposed de minimis exemption warrants further consideration. The question has to be: where does the cut-off level fall, and how is it to be measured? There are many valuable and precious items which it is technically feasible to date so as to demonstrate that they have had no effect on recent or current populations of elephants, but which may nevertheless have a significant ivory content.

I can show the Minister a number of examples of such items: for instance, a 1720 George I games table in respect of which the de minimis level would need to be set at 20% for it not to be caught, or an 1890 ivory inlaid hardwood Anglo-Indian octagonal table, where the de minimis level would need to be set at 50% for it not to be caught. Above those respective levels these items would need certification as being deemed of genuine artistic, cultural or historic significance, which they might well not qualify for, which would mean they would be unsaleable and therefore worthless, and which could ultimately lead to them being destroyed. That would be an act of vandalism. Unless the cut-off is set at a meaningful level, many thousands of these sorts of items may go the same way. There would also be a question over whether the Government would be breaching the human rights of those who owned them.

The Government have said that they do not want to continue to rely on the current 1947 cut-off date, after which worked ivory cannot be sold, but this could offer the key to resolving what might otherwise be a thorny problem. I urge the Minister to consider the fact that 1947 is now 70 years ago, and that it is technically feasible to age—and then certificate—ivory.

I strongly encourage everyone on all sides of the argument to respond to the consultation, which closes on 29 December, providing as much detailed evidence as they can, to enable the Government to assess the impact of the exemptions. It is vital that they are precise, proportionate and workable. If they are, the impact on objects whose significance depends not on their ivory content but on their status as works of art should be limited. However, the far more numerous ivory carvings of no recognisable artistic, cultural or historical significance, generally produced in huge numbers for a tourist market, should not fall within any of these exemptions and should therefore be banned from sale. My concern, as I have said, centres on items which fall between the two.

I will say a final word on portrait miniatures, in which I declare a personal interest, having a small collection. Dating from about 1700 until about 1900—when a celluloid substitute replaced the need for ivory—they were typically painted on wafer-thin slivers of ivory. They are numerous in British private collections and there are dealers who specialise entirely in them. I hope that the idea of an exemption for these, which would obviate the difficulty of attempting a judgment as to whether a miniature falls within one of the other exemptions when the volume of ivory is almost impossible to assess without damaging the piece, would not be too controversial. The ivory element in portrait miniatures is of no possible application to any alternative use.

I completely share the Government’s objective of eliminating the poaching of elephants and indeed other rare wild animals. However, the kind of works of art that my trade association’s members are involved in selling are unconnected with the illicit market and it would be disproportionate to prevent the sale of such works of art simply because they are associated with ivory as a substance. This point is acknowledged by those in the NGOs with whom my colleagues have been in discussion.

Agriculture, Fisheries and the Rural Environment

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for tabling a debate on this important subject. My noble friend Lord Plumb, of Coleshill, knows a thing or two about growing grass—but, as we have heard, he never lets it grow under his feet. He was always generous with his time and helpful to me as a junior Minister at Defra, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I add my tribute to him to those of others.

A pioneer of adding value to the rural product, my noble friend starting selling his Ayrshire milk direct to the public early in his career and publicised it on his waxed cartons as “Easier to digest”. An inspector from the local authority was quickly round to ask him to justify his claim. “Well”, said my noble friend, “it doesn’t say than what it’s easier to digest, does it? I mean that it’s more easily digested than, um, Ayrshire cows”. The inspector went on his way.

We have heard about my noble friend’s glittering career with the NFU and in the European Parliament. He served as President of the latter from 1987 to 1989, the only Briton ever to do so; how we could do with him there now. Among his other achievements, he was knighted in 1973—incidentally earning himself, in view of the butter and beef mountains of the day, the soubriquet “Sir Plus”. He has held most of the senior positions related to agriculture in this country and in the EU, holds more honorary doctorates than Nelson Mandela and has a chest full of medals to compete with a Chief of the Defence Staff from countries as far apart as Germany and Tonga—not bad for a chap of whom a headline in the farming press once read, “Henry will never be president. He’s too nice a chap”.

While acknowledging its shortcomings, my noble friend has always been a staunch supporter of the European Union. He is truly international. He has grandchildren married to an Argentinian and a Zimbabwean, and one living in Australia who is to marry a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Another is living in Singapore. As he said, the Plumbs get around. He has 18 great-grandchildren. The Government could do well to engage the Plumb clan in promoting British trade in a post-EU world.

I declare my interest as an owner of farmland and residential property. Much of what I would have said today has already been said. Like my noble friend Lord Plumb and other noble Lords, I am concerned to enable our farmers to keep farming and maintaining our countryside in a world after CAP. After 2022, I would expect the Government to prioritise for support those farming in the most difficult conditions, such as hill farmers. To the extent that we can support agri-environment schemes elsewhere, we should—but I cannot see the UK continuing to pay much by way of basic farm payments, the loss of which would of course place a lot of farmers in financial difficulty. So we need to help them to help themselves—the more so if, in a free trade world, tariffs are reduced, thus letting in food imports to compete and bring prices down. The positive flipside of that is that it will benefit consumers.

To deal with this, farmers need technology. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to update us on progress with the agritech strategy. My noble friend Lord Plumb made a substantial contribution in this arena as well. His foundation, mentioned by my noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lady Byford, awards grants and, importantly, mentoring to people aged between 18 and 35 with a great idea in agriculture. Started in 2012, the foundation already has a good spread of successful graduates.

We also need to foster more diversification. Although it is not an option for everyone, one of the most straightforward is to develop, for example, redundant farm buildings for residential or commercial use. There are things that the Government and local councils could do to make this considerably easier. Residential landlords are treated as little better than criminals by both the national and local tax systems, and a spider’s web of rules applies to them. If the Minister would like me to, I can come and explain some of my thoughts to him. As we heard at Questions this morning, there is strong concern about bad landlords, particularly in urban areas. I understand that, but I urge the Government to keep in mind that such people are in the minority and that to ensure an adequate supply of housing we need properties to be made available for renting.

Life is not meant to be easy and I am afraid that I do not think it is going to be for farmers. They need our help as we emerge into a world in which they will need to be brave and resourceful. We need to be there for them.

Farming: Impact of Brexit

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, including that I am a farmer and a beneficiary of the CAP schemes. I apologise for intervening in the gap. I had my name down for this debate yesterday but by this morning, miraculously, it had disappeared—perhaps the Whips’ Office knows something that I do not.

I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on tabling this debate. In particular, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his translation to a full-time Minister at Defra—a very well-deserved one, if I may say so.

As has been the tenor of the debate today, many are concerned about the direct financial effects on farmers of the potential loss of subsidies arising from the departure of the UK from the European Union. It is surely unlikely that Her Majesty’s Treasury, once it is given back the ability to decide how UK taxpayers’ money is spent, will maintain, for example, the basic farm payment at anything like its current level. It seems to me that there is a good case for making payments in return for something, such as benefits to biodiversity or the maintenance of land in harder-to-farm environments. The Minister will know that we, like most farmers around the country, are on the edge of our chair waiting to hear what will eventuate.

There are important nuances, too, such as what happens between now and the end of the current CAP scheme in 2020, as well as the bigger question as to what happens thereafter. People need time to plan and to avoid a hard landing, such as that experienced by the New Zealand farmers when subsidies disappeared. There is a lot to be said for a gradual adjustment.

How will famers survive, especially as many of them continue to face problems that have little or nothing to do with the EU and more to do with the commodity nature of their product, the structure of their respective market, currency volatility, the weather, and disease and so on? Farmers are, if nothing else, resilient. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the supermarkets. The help of customers, suppliers and government, especially in producing the CAP replacement settlement, will be essential.

Today, British farmers produce about 62% of our food. That means that there is considerable scope to do more. To do that, technology will be vital and diversification will be important.

I have one final word on the replacement for the CAP. Assuming that the total amount of cash available reduces, it will be more important than ever to get this right. It is an opportunity for a complete rethink about whether we could achieve something better on biodiversity. What do we really want to achieve? Should we be emphasising creatures and plants which, although rare across Europe outside the UK, are comparatively common here? Should we be favouring bird species, for example, which although rare in the EU, are relatively common outside it? These, like many other critical questions, will need to be addressed. I hope that my noble friend’s department has the expertise that it will need.

Forest Holidays: Forestry Commission Stake

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the Forestry Commission’s stake in Forest Holidays and to ensure that in the event of a sale by the majority shareholder they would not lose all management control of any future development.

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

My Lords, the control the Forestry Commission has over developments by Forest Holidays is exercised through the arrangements in the legal framework agreement between Forest Holidays and the Forestry Commission, rather than through its shareholding in the business. Any change in ownership would not change the level of control exercised under the framework agreement and as landlord.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, concern about the future of our public forest estate continues, and the Answer of the Minister does nothing to assuage the fears that there are at the moment or the anxiety over the nature of the relationship between the Forestry Commission and Forest Holidays. What is the process for approving new and existing sites? Further to that, why does there not appear to have been any competitive tender process when Forest Holidays was restructured through a joint venture in 2012?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Forestry Commission has to approve of any new sites for this activity, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, which is a reasonably common requirement. In practice, Forest Holidays is unlikely to be able to progress a site if it does not have the full support of the Forestry Commission. Forest Holidays also has its own site selection criteria, which exclude any site where there are significant environmental constraints.

I spoke to the chairman of the Forestry Commission today, and he confirmed that only a limited number of sites are available within the public forest estate.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the Forestry Commission from 2001 to 2009. As the House may know, there have been two joint ventures with the Forestry Commission and Forest Holidays, one on my watch in 2006 and a later one in 2012. Will the Minister confirm that, on the first occasion, it followed full parliamentary procedure, had the approval of the Treasury and went out to full competitive tendering?

As regards the second venture, will the Minister assure the House that if the private sector investor decided to sell its share, the Forestry Commission would not be forced to sell the commensurate share at the same time?

[Lord De Mauley]

I can confirm most of what the noble Lord said. The terms under which the current joint venture operates are very much the same as for the original joint venture. If the controlling interest is sold, the Forestry Commission may be required to sell its interest in the company by the buyer, including the Forestry Commission’s stake in the business. The sale would not change the controls set out in the framework agreement and the site leases.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my entry in the register of interests. Public access and amenity are obviously most important, but they are not the only consideration. When it comes to marketing, will the Government ensure that the Forestry Commission does not intentionally undercut private owners and producers?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, although that is slightly wide of the Question, I think I can none the less confirm what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, when this Question was first put down, I had no idea what Forest Holidays was, but I have been looking into it, and the more I do so, the murkier the whole business seems. It appears that, since the framework agreement in 2012 and the new joint venture companies having been set up, pieces of the forestry estate have effectively been handed to venture capitalists to pursue log cabin developments. The questions that need to be asked are: first, are the public getting value for money for that through the forestry commissioners? There are arguments that they are not. Secondly, is it true that the forestry commissioners are not exercising their powers effectively over such developments? Thirdly, how far will this go? Is it the intention that Forest Holidays will expand substantially, using cheap Forestry Commission land and taking over some of the national forestry estate for its purposes?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as I said, I discussed this matter this morning with the chairman of the Forestry Commission. As he said, the reality is that only a limited number of sites are available within the public forest estate, principally because much of the land is either ancient woodland or SSSI or protected in some other way.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, what can be done about the wild boar in the Forest of Dean eating lambs? Might this not be dangerous to people on holiday?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, that is an interesting question. It is important that we retain visibility of the trees as well as the forest. Primary responsibility for management of feral boar lies with local communities and individual landowners. This means that local land managers are free to control wild boar as they see fit, as long as that control is carried out in a humane and legal manner.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the Forestry Commission in England is to be congratulated on the significant rise in the number of people visiting our public forest estates, not least as it is against the background of a recent report which suggests that the number of people visiting rural areas has slightly declined. It shows the huge value that our population puts on both the social and economic benefits of the forest, as well as on the environmental benefits because of carbon capture. Have Her Majesty’s Government made any assessment of the possibility of increasing the total amount of public forest estate to enhance those benefits even further?

[Lord De Mauley]

We have not given particular consideration to that, although the House will be aware of the background and the report of the Independent Panel on Forestry. It is important that we continue to increase the amount of woodland cover generally in the country. That is under way, principally funded through the rural development programme.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister answer the second part of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere? If the private sector sells its share, does the Forestry Commission have to do likewise?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I did actually answer that. There are circumstances in which the Forestry Commission’s share is sold with that of the majority shareholder.

Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the draft orders laid before the House on 15 December 2014 and 21 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th and 21st Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 21st and 23rd Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 4 March.

Motions agreed.

Lake District National Park Authority

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the intention of the Lake District National Park Authority to sell areas of land in the Lake District.

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

My Lords, national park authorities are independent bodies and, as part of their responsibilities to review their services and assets, it is right that they consider the sale of land, enabling the proceeds to be reinvested to enhance the national park. The Lake District National Park Authority owns less than 4% of land within the national park. As with all our national parks, who owns the land is not the determining factor in its beauty or value to the public.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, Stickle Tarn, Coniston Water, the River Derwent. Are we really selling off treasured public spaces—some of the most beautiful land in Britain—to fund the building of visitors’ centres? Will not the Government intervene to stop this?

[Lord De Mauley]

As the noble Earl knows, the Government have no powers to direct national park authorities to dispose or not to dispose of a particular piece of land. Furthermore, it would not be right to intervene, because they must be allowed—and, indeed, encouraged—to take responsibility for their own affairs. To put it in context, the eight sites offered for sale total 59 hectares, equivalent to 0.6% of the Lake District National Park Authority’s land holdings.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the turn of this side; I live there. Is it not shocking that parts of the national park—one of the most beautiful national parks—have to be sold off as a result of government cuts? Is there not a problem that, in a further sale of the land, the Lake District planning people might well give a more relaxed permission in order to get half the money? Is it not rather unhappy that we are doing this at all? Surely we should adamantly say that the Lake District is not for sale to the highest bidder.

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with much of the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s point, but the national park has assured me that this is not about cuts. It routinely reviews its assets and makes disposals where appropriate so that the proceeds can be reinvested into the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of other properties. It is worth saying that between 2007 and 2010—three years during which the noble Lord’s party was in government—it made sales totalling £1.9 million. In the five years from then, sales have totalled £1.8 million.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am sure that we all wish the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, many more happy years in one of the most glorious parts of England. However, is not what really matters here the integrity of the landscape and that there are no further incursions into its tranquillity? Can my noble friend assure us that whatever transactions take place, both the integrity of the landscape and its tranquillity will be preserved?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I can confirm that none of the protections afforded to the land by virtue of being in a national park is affected by a sale.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, there has not been a very satisfactory process here. The national park authority made the decision to sell these pieces of land in secret. People discovered it only when an advertisement appeared in the Westmoreland Gazette, giving them precisely one month to make bids. Surely there should be public debate about which of the 168 pieces of land owned by the national park authority should be sold if it has to sell any. Once it decides to put some forward, there should be consultation of a sufficient length of time to allow community groups—such as the Langdale Valley Association, which wants to register Stickle Tarn as a community asset—to be consulted. This takes time. Will the Minister have words with the national park authority to ask it to withdraw these proposals for the moment, to give time for public consultation and for the Langdale Valley Association to prepare its bid?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I know that my noble friend is intimately involved in these matters. I assure him that I have obtained confirmation from the Lake District National Park Authority that it recognises the legitimate interests of stakeholders. It has consulted and continues to consult widely in a number of ways ahead of any final decisions. That includes liaison with parish councils, public notices advertising its intention to invite offers for some of the properties, direct consultation with a number of neighbouring landowners and so on.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I have spent most of my life living in the Lake District National Park, which formed the greater part of my former constituency. Can we have an assurance that there will be no interference at all with existing rights of way? What is the position on the maintenance of those rights of way and bridleways which the national park carried out previously? Can we be assured that the new private owners will maintain them to the previous standards?

[Lord De Mauley]

I can absolutely assure the noble Lord that there will be no lessening of rights of way. Indeed, in one instance, there will be an improvement in rights of way as a result of these sales.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I find this whole process and practice deeply shocking. I was not aware until quite recently that this could be done. As has been said, the Lake District is a glorious part of our country. These public spaces are for all the people of our country. I understand that the Lake District National Park has cash-flow problems but I baulk at the idea that this land can be sold, notwithstanding what has happened in the past. What would happen in the case of this land being sold, then resold at a profit? Would the Lake District National Park get any of the benefit? Secondly, I again ask the noble Lord for an assurance to this House that this plan will not—indeed, cannot—lead to any change in the planning restrictions on the land. Such a special area must be protected.

[Lord De Mauley]

I can assure the noble Baroness on her latter point that there will be no change to the planning restrictions on that land. On her former point, I hope that noble Lords heard what I said earlier. The Government have no powers to intervene over disposal or otherwise of land. It is not for central government to know about retained rights over the land going forward.