Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Swire

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said no one asked him about this. My noble friend Lady Anderson and I were in the House of Commons more recently than he was, and we had a great number of letters on this issue. On the other hand, it could be that only socialist ladies get them.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

The noble Baroness may well be right, because I was in the House of Commons until 2019 and I got no letters on this subject. I was on the Hunting Bill committee when I first came into the House of Commons and I got a lot of letters about that, mainly because all the evidence was being ignored in favour of prejudice.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Swire

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I have discussed that with the Lake District national park, which is in my constituency, and I am sure that there will be other discussions in this area.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

An important point was made about the number of forms that farmers have to fill in to access funds. Does the honourble not agree that one of the most important things is ensuring the availability of reliable broadband, given that the amount of farming now done online is way in excess of the amount of farming when Clement Attlee was the post-war Prime Minister?

[Sue Hayman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that important contribution. It is disappointing that the digital roll-out came before farmers could access it. I would add that mobile connectivity is as important, because when farmers submit their application online, they are sent a text message with a code that they need to put in; if they do not have a mobile signal, they cannot continue with the application. All these things need to be considered before we move forward.

We praise all our farmers for the important role that they play in environmental stewardship. The Secretary of State talked about the fact that the food and drinks industry is such a huge manufacturing sector. It is incredibly important that we get more support for our farmers than the Bill currently offers. At the moment, the Bill offers our family farmers just a payoff, which we believe risks leaving our fields to ever larger, more intensive factory farms run by global big business.

It worries me that the vision of the UK as a leading free trade nation with low tariff barriers is completely at odds with the commitment to thriving British food and farming sectors. Combining and delivering those two objectives will be a considerable challenge for this Government, who are and always have been in favour of more deregulation and who have a blind reliance on the free market to deliver social outcomes. Labour will oppose any free trade deal that threatens existing standards: we will fight any such deals tooth and nail.

In conclusion, the development of a new post-Brexit UK agriculture policy is a seminal moment for the future of our environment, our food production and our countryside. Never has it been more important to lift our line of sight and to talk proactively about what we want to see as part of a long-term strategy for food, farming and the environment. Sustainability, above all else, has to be at the forefront of a thriving farming, food and drink sector.

It is right that we shift agricultural support for land-based payments to the delivery of public and environmental benefits, but the Bill sadly falls short in a number of areas. There is no strategy to safeguard our nation’s food supply or recognition of the importance of sustainability to reduce the reliance on imports. There is no provision for controls over production methods, working conditions, animal welfare or environmental standards in countries from which our food is imported. The Bill hands wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State but includes no legally enforceable environmental protection targets, and there is no provision for current agricultural funding to continue until 2022, as Ministers have previously promised.

This House should have had the chance to conduct proper prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill. What we are discussing here is fundamental to the future of British agriculture, and getting it right is crucial. For those reasons, I am afraid that Labour cannot support the Bill’s Second Reading, and that is why I strongly urge colleagues to vote for our reasoned amendment tonight.

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Swire

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 in my name and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Labour’s new clause 1 seeks to expand the definition of ivory to cover the species included in the convention on international trade in endangered species. Members from both sides of the House have voiced their support for the principle of extending the Bill beyond elephants. This is, after all, the Ivory Bill, not merely the elephant ivory Bill. It is not every day that an Ivory Bill comes around, so who knows when this House will have a similar opportunity to take action? Today provides a unique opportunity to enshrine protections for all ivory-bearing species, particularly those listed under CITES, which are some of those most at risk.

This broadening of the definition of ivory is not just because many CITES species are at risk of becoming endangered, but to stop the focus on banning just elephant ivory and so pushing poachers towards other forms of ivory, including hippo, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus ivory. As the Born Free Foundation has stated:

“It would be a tragedy if we worked really hard to save elephants and other species were collateral damage in the process… We recognise that the trade is entrepreneurial and will move to wherever there is an opportunity.”

Both the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Born Free Foundation stated in their evidence to Members that an extension of the definition of ivory would be welcome, provided that it did not delay the passage of the Bill. During the evidence session, Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation said:

“From 2007 to 2016—just under a decade—78,000 hippos and hippo products were exported by CITES parties. Hong Kong imported 60 tonnes of hippo ivory between 2004 and 2014… Those are not insignificant by any measure—they are enormously significant.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 5, Q2.]

As I have said on the record, the Opposition are keen for this legislation not to be unnecessarily delayed, but we must also ensure that it is the best it can possibly be. There appears to have been a rush to push it through at any cost before the international wildlife conference in October, despite the advice I have been given that this is not achievable: it will not get through all the legislative stages in time for the conference. Will the Minister clarify whether the target has been to get it in place before the conference? Will he explain to the House why the Government have sought to oppose sensible and necessary amendments to the Bill on the basis of not wishing to delay it?

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

In the spirit of consensus, will the hon. Lady also take this opportunity to congratulate this Government on being the first to legislate in this area?

[Sue Hayman]

As the right hon. Gentleman will hear, I shall be doing just that later in my speech. That is a very important point, and we do support the Bill.

Will the Minister look again at the arguments the Government made against Labour’s attempts to broaden the scope of the Bill in Committee? One of the arguments was that such an amendment could be challenged under the European convention on human rights. As I said in response in Committee, this is clutching at straws, and it is directly in opposition to the legal advice that I have sought, so I want to put this argument to rest once and for all.

According to the legal advice I have taken, primary legislation can be challenged only on human rights and EU law grounds. I have been informed that in the case of human rights, the argument would have to rest on article 1 of protocol 1 on the peaceful enjoyment of property, which is also subject to a public interest caveat. On that basis, we can justify the inclusion of other creatures—such as on the grounds of endangerment —in the same way as elephants. This is the legal information and advice that I have received, and I wish to put it formally on the record.

In fact, it is arguable that the omission of other species makes the Government more susceptible to legal challenge, not less, as the Government have already recognised the need to protect other ivory-bearing species, but have chosen not to do that through this legislation. If Ministers are going to continue to push this argument, may I ask that a copy of the legal advice they have received is made available to Members in the House of Commons Library?

Despite the fact that the Opposition feel that these other ivory-bearing species could legally be incorporated in the Bill, if needed, we have, in the spirit in which this entire legislative process has been conducted, listened to the concerns set out by the Minister in Committee, and we have revised our original amendment into new clause 1, to address the concerns that the Government raised in Committee. New clause 1 would simply mandate the Government to introduce secondary legislation on other CITES ivory-bearing species within a 12-month timeframe. Given that the Government have said that they understand the merit of widening the scope of the measure to include other species, it should not be a problem for them to commit to doing so in the Bill. New clause 1 would allow a consultation if necessary, while at the same time ensuring that secondary legislation is introduced and that the issue cannot slip off the agenda indefinitely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Hugo Swire]

New clause 2 has some merit, but it seems that it simply requires the Secretary of State to report within 12 months. It says nothing about an annual report on what the Government are doing to help to combat the trade and what targets have been achieved. Why have the Opposition alighted on a single one-off report?

[Sue Hayman]

The new clause was tabled after we looked at what has happened since China banned ivory in January. Everyone was very excited about that, and believed that it would have a swift impact on ivory poaching. The evidence before us shows that more than six months on, it has not had very much impact. Rather than sitting here being very pleased with ourselves for introducing an ivory Bill, which I am sure we will do, we need to make sure that what we produce is effective in the communities where ivory is being poached. The idea of having a report in 12 months was to see whether what we are doing is having more effect than the Chinese ban. If not, the Government would have an opportunity to review the legislation.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

Indeed, the logic of what the hon. Lady says is that these things take time to have an impact. A one-off report in 12 months might not truly reflect the changes that the Government’s legislation will have in, say, two to three years. An annualised report is something worth looking at.

[Sue Hayman]

If the right hon. Gentleman would like an annualised report and would like to discuss with the other place how that can be pursued after he has supported our proposal, I am sure that that is something that can be considered.