Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill (First sitting)

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Monday 11th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right and pre-empts one of my questions for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about how the provisions will work in coastal communities. From my reading of the provisions, it seems that many of them work for inland communities and river flooding in particular. I would be grateful if he set out how he envisages the provisions working in an environment where there is the risk of both river and coastal flooding, especially with regard to the cost implications that he just spoke about. Clearly, the responsibility for coastal flooding is much more expensive and, with the risk of climate change, can have much bigger impacts.

As I said, the Opposition welcome the Bill. Although we have no problem with the clauses, I have a few questions that I hope will provide some clarity about how the provisions will be implemented. As is outlined in clause 1, a rivers authority established under the Bill will be a locally accountable body with the powers to issue precepts to billing authorities that will collect money from council tax payers for additional local flood management work.

I understand from the Association of Drainage Authorities that the Department is not expecting a flurry of requests for the establishment of rivers authorities. The Bill does not impose rivers authorities on local councils, so it is for those that want them to be proactive. How will that work for councils that have suffered huge cuts and might not have the in-house resource to do that? How does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome envisage rivers authorities being rolled out? Will there be additional support for the pilot rivers authorities to effectively overcome the early administrative obstacles that will inevitably come with the formation of a new rivers authority, so that pioneer projects can share best practice with the ones that follow?

How will local communities challenge and hold accountable local river and drainage authorities for their actions? It is good to hear that the majority of members of those committees will be from local councils, and so will be elected; that flow through of democratic accountability is important. On Second Reading in the main Chamber, I asked whether the Department would publish guidance on the composition of those boards, particularly on their gender balance. Having observed several such committees, they can be quite bloke-heavy—and, indeed, retired bloke-heavy—which, as a general rule, we should try to avoid when creating new public bodies. I will be grateful if the Minister or the Member in charge sets out whether there will be any guidance to that effect.

Will there be guidance on whether the heads of those authorities should serve for a fixed period, or will that period run and run? In some communities, the people who will be in charge of such bodies have also been in charge of everything else that came before. I just want to understand whether there will be accountability and a rotation of those roles. I assume that there will be the usual registers of interest to avoid any conflicts of interest, especially because these authorities will be dealing with small communities, where expertise is essential. There is a risk of a conflict of interest, so will the Minister set out how we will engineer out any of those risks at an early stage?

It seems that many of the provisions regarding rivers authorities’ proceedings in proposed new section 21D apply to local government, such as access to agendas, inspection of papers and inspection of minutes. Will there be guidance that such meetings should be open to the public to ensure full accountability, and that any private proceedings should be limited and face proper scrutiny? What input will members of the public have into the exercise of the duties of a rivers authority, especially in how the provisions in new section 21D will be implemented?

We know that there is an awful lot of experience in how to deal with flooding in our local communities, especially among farmers who have farmed land affected by flooding for many generations. A yearly flood risk management plan seems like a good option. I will be interested to see how the new bodies interact with water companies, particularly with the upstream thinking pioneered by many water companies that cover water catchment areas. A few of us in the Committee are covered by South West Water, which has pioneered upstream thinking for some time. We need to make sure that we are not setting up two bodies with slightly different agendas. That interaction needs to be there.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am a representative of Leeds, which has had significant flooding. Some of the solutions that local communities want involve upland management, which provides better long-term solutions in terms of the risks of climate change than large, built flood management schemes. However, those upland areas are in a different local authority. Rivers authorities only operate in one local authority, so I am interested in my hon. Friend’s and the Minister’s opinion on how it will work across authorities.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is worth saying that, even though the Committee has a south-west majority, those people with a south-west link, even if they represent a different part of the country, are very welcome as well.

That question relates to the patchwork quilt of responsibilities that is the underlying context for rivers authorities. How will these new authorities work with different local authorities? My hon. Friend is entirely right that we are moving to an era where we want fewer carbon-intensive end-of-pipe solutions, which are both expensive for those who pay for them and have a large carbon impact in their construction. Lower-carbon interventions, such as the re-wetting of peat bogs or the planting of more trees, are frequently required in an area other than where flooding takes place. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that.

Proposed new section 21F provides powers to acquire and dispose of property. I am working on the assumption that those powers will be deployed in the same way as local councils deploy them at the moment, with authority and judgment. I would be grateful if the Minister set that out for the record. I am interested to know whether the Minister is confident that the Secretary of State’s framework under proposed new section 21G will not inhibit the autonomy of rivers authorities in relation to how those powers are implemented.

On proposed new sections 21H and 21A, we hope that rivers authorities will be a success and that there will be no need to abolish them, but it is useful to look ahead at all scenarios when creating them in the first place, so what criteria will there be for abolishing a rivers authority? Will there be any scrutiny or appeals in relation to that? A concern from time spent observing the coalition Government is that many bodies were swept away and some of the people who relied on those bodies did not have a say in the process, so I would like to understand how that might work.

It is important, when we talk about flooding, to recognise that with the advent of additional flood planning when new developments come through, those new developments are well protected, but bringing forward flood defences for new developments sometimes means that communities that were not previously affected by flooding now will be. It would be useful to get a sense of how rivers authorities, which will look at flooding in the wider sense, will have an eye on not only the area that they cover, but the impact of their work on other areas.

We have no opposition to the clause, but I would be grateful if those questions could be clarified.

Water Industry

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. First, I thank my hon. Friend from my namesake constituency, the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). He gave a great technical speech and we all learned a lot about how we can improve the data analytics and dynamics of the water industry.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan), who made a number of important points on which I will elaborate. Most informatively, he said that we should not rely on expert academics and opinions from north London. Perhaps in this debate we will hear some expert advice from west Yorkshire that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman and the Minister can act on. Lastly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for securing this debate. He chairs the Co-operative Party with some panache. We have been waiting for this debate for some time, and I declare an interest as a Co-operative Member of Parliament.

I want to commend the publicly-owned Scottish Water, which, over the past 16 years, has managed to save consumers an average £42 a year when compared with English consumers, and is ranked as one of the UK’s most trusted companies. I also want to highlight the success of Welsh Water, as many others have. Glas Cymru, established under the then Labour Government, has managed to return £180 million to customers in the form of customer dividends, while providing £10 million to assist low-income families and individuals by offering them lower tariffs.

An increasing body of support shows that the Tories’ ideological obsession with privatisation, which the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) is a great exponent of, has done nothing to improve services and has only raised the cost to consumers. Water is water, whether you are English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. But under the English privatised system it is more costly, even though both Scotland and Wales have very difficult topography and are sparsely populated in large areas.

When English people turn on their taps, they pour money down the drain—except that it is not down the drain, but into the pockets of the wealthy and into the wealth funds of foreign investors in countries such as Canada, Australia and Singapore. That makes up the £6.5 billion of dividends paid out to shareholders in the past five years: the same amount of money that goes into the pockets of the people of Wales. Do we really think that is good enough? Do we really agree that in our Union there should be a two-tier system for our most fundamental services? And do we think that an individual or family should pay more for water because they live in one part of the Union and not another?

The ideological mindset of those obsessed with the privatisation agenda is such that this Government cannot see the evidence in front of their eyes. Privatisation does not necessarily, as promised—

[Richard Benyon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Sobel]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will defend privatisation.

[Richard Benyon]

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman. He and I agree on other things, but I cannot resist responding to being attacked for being ideological when I feel I am combating an ideology here. We have a system that works and it is being attacked by ideology.

On another point, of course 380 or 400 quid a year is a lot of money to people on low incomes and we have systems to support them, but for people on average incomes, compared with other costs in their lives, getting water that is 99% drinkable and of good quality and getting sewage away for about £1 a day is quite a good deal for most people, particularly if we protect the poor.

[Alex Sobel]

I was not completely embodying all the faults in the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments. To repeat his point, it is good value, but why is it better value in Scotland and Wales than it is in England? We should surely aim for best value.

At this crucial time, when living standards across the UK are being decimated and individuals and families are struggling to stay afloat, we need to reassert both sense and our fundamental obligation to the people we represent. We need to assert that the market has limits, that not everything in this world should be up for grabs, and that privatisation does not necessarily equal value for money. The market has its place as a means of exchange for goods and services, but a basic selling principle of marketisation is the offer of genuine choice, lower costs and better services. I am a customer of Yorkshire Water. The only way I can get Harrogate water is to buy it in a bottle. I cannot get it through the tap and cannot change provider as I can in other utility markets. None of those things apply to the case of England’s regional water companies, so I suggest it is time to look at the example of our Welsh and Scottish compatriots and to change our—literally—leaking system.

With no competition and no realistic prospect of withdrawing consumption, water bills can be best conceptualised as a tax, because everybody needs to have water through the tap. Indeed, other systems, such as that in Scotland, account for water within council tax. It is not a matter of theory, but of practice in Scotland. Under our system, however, there is no differentiation between households. Our flat, regressive tax hits those on low and medium incomes hardest, particularly those on medium incomes who have no redress. Shareholders skim a dividend from UK taxpayers who have no choice but to purchase water from monopolistic regional providers.

We have only to look to Welsh Water, which operates on a not-for-profit basis within the private system, to see how well a mutual approach can work. The company serves 3 million people every day and has the strongest credit rating in the industry, as we have heard from my hon. Friends, as well as sector-leading levels of customer satisfaction. Its success does not benefit a few wealthy shareholders. As I have said, £180 million has been returned to customers.

The idea that a select few own and profit from something that falls literally from the sky—something that makes up 70% of our bodies—is absurd. The arguments for privatisation of our most basic assets and infrastructure have been lost. It is not about competition, which implies choice. No, it is the same faith in the market that means people in this country pay through the nose for their gas, electricity and train travel, often receiving a worse service where it is privatised than where it is in the public sector.

Last summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley mentioned, Yorkshire Water allowed sewage to flow through the River Wharfe, which starts in his constituency and flows right through mine in Otley and Pool. As was said, swimmers in the River Wharfe had to swim through the sewage. Private companies do not face the level of accountability that the system demands.

For mutualisation to happen, the water companies must first be taken into state ownership and the shareholders compensated, and then the companies can be put into the hands of consumers. Our basic infrastructure can be truly owned by the public without the need for direct state ownership, which MPs of all parties should support. Then we come to the question of governance. Wales has a company limited by guarantee. It has no shareholders, so its corporate governance functions are the responsibility of its board, which has a majority of independent non- executive directors, and its members, around 70 individuals, are appointed following a process undertaken by an independent membership selection panel. Those 70 people are the customers: the people of Wales.

There are alternative forms of governance, with a water company in a defined geography, as we have in England, being a good fit for a consumers’ co-operative model. Consumers’ co-operatives utilise the co-operative principle of democratic member control—or, as we call it in the Labour party, one member, one vote. Most consumers’ co-operatives have a board of directors elected directly by and from the membership. Unfortunately, water in England drips with right-wing ideology, draining the public purse and rinsing out our most valuable resources, while drowning customers in debt. That money-making monopoly and the two-tier UK system must end. We must instead look west to Wales and replicate a model that brings water—the most basic of human needs—back into the hands of the public.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps he was missing during the contributions, but numerous Members have outlined the Government’s inability to liaise with Members across the House to develop a consensus. I share the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on the need to work together across this House to deal with the many issues outlined during these debates and ensure we find a deal that provides a consensus that we can all rally around. Unfortunately, we do not have a Government who have been capable thus far of delivering that. I will move on, because I know we are short of time.

I want to talk briefly about environmental and climate protections. We know that non-regression clauses in relation to environmental protections would not be subject to the arbitration procedures set out in articles 170 to 181. Instead, standards would be enforced at the domestic level and through far weaker state-to-state procedures that are rarely effective in international treaties. The political declaration, meanwhile, contains only hortatory statements regarding climate, energy and the environment that have no legal effect. How can we trust this Government to maintain domestic standards when they have taken quite an active role, shall we say, in opposing EU progress on energy and climate change?

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are now tackling air quality, and that is through the EU and environmental regulations, but the Government had to be taken to court three times. If such a health and environmental crisis engulfs us again, who will protect us if we are not in the EU? It will certainly not be this Government.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an important point. The Government’s track record has been rather deficient, to say the least. For example, in 2017 this Government lobbied for EU renewable energy and energy efficiency targets to be reduced, made non-binding or even scrapped. Is it now this Government’s position after Brexit to adopt and maintain to 2030 at least the same ambition as that in the revised renewable energy directive and energy efficiency directive? If so, how can we trust the Government to honour that position?

Of course, no deal in relation to energy and the environment would be even worse, risking chaos and catastrophe for energy, climate and the environment according to the Greener UK coalition of non-governmental organisations. As I have outlined, it is extremely irresponsible of the Government to leverage the disaster of no deal to hard-sell what is quite frankly a dismal alternative.

I will bring my comments to a close. I have outlined briefly some of the deficiencies in the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, which, in their present form, demonstrably divide the House and, indeed, Britain. They will not protect jobs and the economy. They will not protect workers’ rights, environmental or health and safety standards, and they give barely any indication of what our future relationship with the EU will look like, causing chronic uncertainty for business.

Members have a choice: do they vote for a deal that they know will make us worse off, with a huge question mark for years to come over our future relationship with the EU, or do they demand the negotiation of a better deal for Britain that will secure support in Parliament and the country? That deal can be found, but this Government have demonstrated that they are not capable of delivering it.

Ivory Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

I absolutely agree that that is nauseating. It is also nauseating that people post photographs of themselves engaging in so-called trophy hunting. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s other point, it is not really a question of whether we agree or disagree. I am attending the debate because I agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow that the importance of this issue should be recognised across the House. Of course there is no disagreement about it—I do not think it is a party political issue. Every single Member of Parliament is appalled by the prospect of elephants and other species being slaughtered for their ivory, and the Bill is an important step forward.

I visit school after school, as do all Members, and meet young people after young people, from all walks of life, who are simply sickened by what is happening. Unless we as a world wake up, these animals—whether they be elephants, whales, giraffes or any other species—will become extinct. It is all very well for us to say “It is difficult, and it is tough”, but the Bill is a step forward, so I am not criticising the Government. It is tough and difficult, but we must not be the generation that sees the end of these species on our planet.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have a degree of unity in this debate, and I think we all agree about this elephant ivory Bill, but those of us who were on the Bill Committee and who spoke in previous stages in the House argue that the protection is not the same for the other species we talked about—I mentioned the narwhal in Committee and in the House, and there is also the rhino, the walrus and others. Is it not a failure that we are not including all those species in the Bill?

[Vernon Coaker]

Of course that is a weakness in the Bill, but the Minister and our Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), mentioned—this is my understanding, too—that the Secretary of State has committed to consulting on extending it to other species. I say to the Secretary of State that this is urgent. Public consultation can take a year or two years before the Government review it. I say to the Secretary of State—I know that he and I agree on this issue, if not others—that there is an urgency about this and we have to get a move on.

I say to our own country and the world that we need to wake up. If we do not wake up, our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will say to the Secretary of State, to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, and to me and other Members here, “What were you doing? What did you do? How did you stop this?” And everybody will say, “Well, it’s terrible and awful and a disgrace.” That is not good enough—we all need to use the sickening feeling we have to demand more of ourselves and this Parliament.

The last point I want to make is that today and other days have obviously been dominated by discussions about Brexit, but our constituents often ask us what else is happening while that debate is going on. I hope that at least some of the comments made in the Chamber about the important step forward being taken through the Bill will be reported, and that some of the young people out there—whether in the school of the daughter of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, my grandchildren’s school or others—will learn that this Parliament has been listening and trying to do what we can to ensure that the great animals, including elephants, are saved for future generations.

Plastics: Agriculture

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister mentions money for research into plastic wrapping, but there is also a problem with plastic mulching. We do not know what effect plastic mulch may have when it gets into watercourses, rivers and seas, but it is a potential source of microplastics and it may also go straight into the soil. It could be a widespread problem, but there is a lack of research into plastic mulching and a lack of knowledge about its effects.

[Dr Coffey]

I had never heard the phrase “plastic mulching” before either, but I am conscious of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Elements of plastic can end up in the natural environment in different and unintended ways. Some broader research has been done into the impact of plastics, but I recognise that there is more to do. I think Public Health England has been considering the matter.

Ivory Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

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

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

We have had an important discussion of this Bill over the past few weeks. It has been a great honour to speak on something that is so important to so many of my constituents. It has also been very good to see how the House works very constructively together on occasions where there are particularly important and historic matters for us to discuss, as in this case. I am very grateful to the Government for listening so constructively to many of the points that I have made, some on behalf of my constituents and some on my own reading of the Bill, and for answering a great many of them. I will address those in the course of my brief comments.

I do not support new clause 1 because I think the Government have proposed a better way of doing this. I say that for two reasons. They have been covered already but bear repeating. The first is the fact that the Government amendment goes further. New clause 1 deals only with CITES-listed species. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) rightly raised a concern that we all have—I raised it on Second Reading—about species displacement, for want of a better phrase. The new clause, if anything, makes that more likely because it does not cover species that are not on the CITES list, such as the warthog. We need to ensure that we can go further. There is much more freedom in the Government’s approach, which is to add species whether they are endangered or not and whether they are extant or extinct. Their amendment will also cover the mammoth, which, as we have heard, is being mined, and closes a loophole whereby mammoth ivory can be passed off as elephant ivory. It is a much better way of doing this because it goes further.

Secondly, the Government’s amendment goes faster because we can deal with the matter by secondary legislation. I entirely understand what the Opposition are trying to do through new clause 1, but the big, overriding problem is the procedural one. If a challenge is raised to the primary legislation on the human rights ground, we may run into difficulty on the whole Act, and that would be a great shame. I have thought very hard about this. As a lawyer, I am naturally of the mind that I do not like legislation that is rushed through, because rushed laws are often bad laws. I would instinctively prefer that we took more time and got it right. In this case, however, there is very much a need to move quickly, given that the conference is coming up, and given all the heartbreaking stories that we have heard today and throughout the Bill’s passage, including during the evidence session.

It is very important that we make it clear that the ivory trade is no longer acceptable. It is also very important that we make it clear that Britain is a world leader on this. We have heard about the great work that is being done by the Army—I pay tribute to that—and through DFID. We can look at doing a lot more to expand that work. I very much welcome that.

For those reasons, we need to get this Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible, despite the fact that that goes against my natural instinct whereby I prefer to slow things down and take more time to make sure that there is not a hiccup further along the line. I am sensitive to the concern about everything being pushed into the long grass and the further expansion never happening, but I am very encouraged by today’s announcement by the Secretary of State that he will now be consulting on this. It seems to me that the Government have approached this in entirely the right way.

I have had a number of concerns about the Bill as it has gone through. Constituents have raised concerns with regard to the antique trade and those have been answered. I am grateful to the Minister for doing so, in full, and at relatively short notice. I had some concerns about the definitions aspect of clause 35. The Government’s amendments deal with those concerns because they mean that we do not have to worry about a particular species once the secondary legislation has been brought in to expand the species list further.

We can now move forward quickly with legislation that sets a positive, leading path for Britain as a nation. I wholeheartedly welcome that. I thank the Government very much for listening to all of us who have expressed concerns and for answering those concerns. I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s amendments to it.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I spent three days on the Public Bill Committee carrying out detailed scrutiny. Although we did not always agree on the detail, I valued all the contributions from Committee members, who clearly believed strongly in eradicating the global ivory trade. We have a further opportunity today to make this a better Bill.

I want to start by raising a question that I asked the Minister in Committee, but which he might answer differently today. We had a detailed discussion about musical instruments and the rule that if less than 20% of an antique musical instrument is ivory, it can be sold. We heard from the Musicians Union that many retired musicians sell their instrument collection because it is not an industry in which people have a pension. I raised the issue of guitar picks made from mammoth ivory. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that they would be exempt because they are made from mammoth ivory. However, with amendment 3, there is a potential for mammoth ivory to be covered by the Bill. That changes the status of those guitar picks. I wonder whether the Minister will give a new response to that question today.

However, that is not the substantive part of my speech. I am in favour of the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and in particular new clause 1. I will restrict my comments to the protection of other horned animals, and in particular the monodon monoceros, more commonly known as the narwhal, as I did in Committee. I do not have time to go into depth on the hippo, killer whale, sperm whale, walrus or warthog.

After returning home from the Committee, on which I served for three days, I was asked at the dinner table by my children what I had done that week in Parliament, and I said, “Have you heard of the narwhal?” My 10-year-old son immediately broke into song. Following the example of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I will allow Members to hear the narwhal song:

“Narwhals, narwhals, swimming in the ocean

Causing a commotion coz they are so awesome”.

It goes on:

“Like an underwater unicorn

They’ve got a kick-ass facial horn

They’re the Jedi of the sea.”

Who could disagree with that?

If Members were not aware of the narwhal, I am sure they are now fully clued up and join every 10-year-old in the land who has impeccable knowledge of the narwhal. That knowledge is not new, however. Narwhals were known as sea unicorns for many centuries before exploration of the Arctic, and their tusks were one of the most valuable commodities in pre-industrial revolution Britain. Queen Elizabeth I is said to have spent £10,000—equivalent to £1.5 million today—on a narwhal tusk, which was placed with the Crown jewels.

Although narwhal horns are no longer so valuable, they are valued at between £3,000 and £12,000, and a double tusk can fetch as much as £25,000. The International Union for Conservation of Nature considers narwhal hunting still to be a major issue. In Canada and Greenland, narwhal hunting is still permitted, and between 2007 and 2011 an average of 979 narwhals were hunted a year. The Inuit as a native tribe have hunted narwhal for centuries, using them as a source of both food and income. In addition to the global trade in tusks and teeth, a Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society study found that shops in Japan were selling ground narwhal tusk as a tonic to treat fever. Shop counter prices for that medicine varied from $540 to $929 for 100 grams. Numerous reports have been produced, and there is an evidence base from non-governmental organisations.

CITES, which we have heard much about today, says that the main threats to the narwhal are hunting and climate change. The majority of narwhals live in and around Greenland’s territorial waters. Export of narwhal products was banned in Greenland in 2006, but narwhal products are legally traded within Greenland. Only subsistence hunting should take place. CITES says that there is a significant trade in narwhal tusks and parts, but not sufficient data to track it. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is concerned that the hunting of narwhal has already become unsustainable. Narwhals have been over-harvested in Canada and Greenland. The society said:

“The annual hunting in western Greenland...significantly exceeded the quotas recommended by those scientific bodies of regional and international organisations charged with narwhal management.”

Laws in Greenland are being broken. Surely we should align our laws with theirs.

I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that the Inuit people are permitted to sell narwhal derivatives, including the horn, within the European Union. On one Canadian website, I could have ordered a narwhal tusk from my desk here in Parliament for around $70 an inch that could be legally sent to the European Union. There are restrictions on what can be imported without permits and penalties for contravening import rules. I thank the Minister for his letter in which he outlined the restrictions on imports from Greenland, which I deem sufficient, but he does not mention Canada, where restrictions are not so tight. I want to repeat what I asked him in Committee: will he clarify his views on narwhal horn trade from Canada?

As I have said, narwhals are also affected by climate change. While I understand the need for haste with elephants, narwhals face more than one threat, so it is important to include narwhals in the scope of the Bill, rather than for this to be covered under clause 35. Why wait when action can be taken in the Bill today?

Ivory Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Liz Twist]

I return to the furrow of cyber-crime, as I believe this is a significant issue when looking at enforcement. Last week, I asked Chief Inspector Hubble about any measures that could be added to help with enforcement. She replied:

“I would love to have a dedicated cyber-team looking at this day in, day out, with real training and a focused effort. Lots of people in the NGOs we work with are doing work around cyber-related crime. We are in the process of setting up a cyber-working group to try to pull some of that effort and interaction together and to have that group as a priority delivery group alongside the priority delivery groups we have for the other six UK wildlife priorities. That is going to be a significant resource.” [Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 36, Q63.]

Chief Inspector Hubble says that she needs additional resources to deal with cyber-crime. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on new clause 3, because it would demonstrate that we are taking on the new challenges, including those facing the NWCU in terms of the rigid timespan and a lack of certainty. I urge the Minister to think again and to accept the new clause, which would show that, not only are we saying that we are doing something but that we are putting the resources into doing it.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, rise to support new clause 3 in relation to resources. The evidence from the NWCU and the Border Force was compelling. At the moment, they are unbelievably stretched, and when I asked what would happen if the funding were not continued, it was made clear that the whole operation would effectively cease and the work would just be about disruption, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said. In another country with a similar legal basis to ours—the United States—enforcement is carried out by the equivalent of our NWCU, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, which has 383 staff. Were we to be equivalently resourced—our population is about a fifth of the United States’—we would have about 75 officers. We have 12, so it is not just an issue of retaining staff. We are at about a fifth of where we should be, in comparison with countries with equivalent laws and enforcement. New clause 3 is therefore vital if we are to do a proper and robust stock-take of where we are, and identify the resources needed to properly enforce the law that we will pass. Hopefully it will be a robust and world-leading law, but if we cannot enforce it, what point is there in having it?

[David Rutley]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Workington was characteristically thorough, and I will do my best to answer her questions, along with everybody else’s.

The first point the hon. Lady made was about clarifying the situation on fines. Hopefully I can do that. It is important to remember, because the Bill is new legislation, how it will be structured. First, there will be criminal sanctions. For a summary conviction in a magistrates court and so forth, the fine will be a statutory maximum of £5,000; for indictable offences, the fine is unlimited. That is under criminal sanctions. The other thing to remember is that we are also introducing in the Bill—I feel strongly about this, because we will be able to put in place a wide range of measures to take care of lots of different types of breaches— a fine of up to £250,000 under the civil sanctions. There are many different tools. Hopefully that answers the question.

I think we mentioned in our previous sitting that the form of the education programme is yet to be decided, but the focus will be on raising awareness in the most relevant areas. We talked last week about how we will need to work with the music industry; we will need to work with the antiques industry as well, and with members of the public. That is where the Office for Product Safety and Standards will play an important role.

The hon. Lady talked about the very good work being done in Angola. Sentencing guidelines are generally issued in the UK by the Sentencing Council. We are delighted with the work undertaken in Angola with the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund money, but we should note that that worked within the specific circumstances of Angola. None the less, we need to learn from best practice, which I think is the point that the hon. Lady made. We agree with that in principle.

Points were raised about guidance. The Secretary of State will prepare statutory guidance for offences imposed under clause 12. That means that there will be a public consultation on the guidance, which will include getting information from NGOs. The hon. Member for Workington was keen to see that happen. Of course, that would also involve the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. All relevant parties involved in that process will want to make the guidance robust and appropriate.

Comments were made by the hon. Members for Redcar, for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, for Blaydon, and for Leeds North West—almost a full house—about the role of the NWCU. Everybody is keen to sing the unit’s praises for the great work that it does. We fully accept that we need proper funding in place for regulatory and law enforcement agencies to tackle wildlife crime. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs currently co-funds the NWCU with others, including the Home Office and the police. Decisions on the ongoing post-2020 deployment of police resources are a matter for the Home Office and individual police chief constables.

Questions were raised about future funding. Clearly, we have the IWT in mind. We want to show people that we are serious about the work that we are doing; that is very clear from the feedback from the NGOs. However, the specific, longer-term funding, post-2020, will be part of the normal spending review process, notwithstanding ongoing dialogues. That is where the more sustainable approach to funding, or the future funding, of the NWCU can be reviewed. That process will be kicking off very soon. That will be an important way of engaging with that debate and looking at the resources that are in place.

We should not forget the role of the regulator. It is easy to focus on the things we know, but we are paving the way for a new regulator—the OPSS—to come into force. The funding for the additional work it will undertake as a result of the sales ban will not be an insignificant amount of money. It is important to note that we are appointing the regulator to enforce the Bill and issue the civil sanctions, which I talked about in relation to the fines. That will constitute the bulk of the work. We are focused on criminal sanctions, but the vast bulk of the work will relate to civil sanctions. That will constitute the work that the OPSS will do. We therefore do not expect the burden on the strategic intelligence-led NWCU to increase significantly. The OPSS is designed to take out the volume of activity. Given those explanations, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister. She will not be at all surprised to hear that I have a huge amount of sympathy with what she has said, but I also entirely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire. It is good and bad fortune that the timetabling of this is slightly hog-tied by the conference taking place in London this autumn. If we are to showcase to the rest of the world our seriousness about dealing with this issue, and to use the Bill as an exemplar of what other countries can do to bring pressure to bear on the ivory trade, it is imperative that we progress the measure as speedily and smoothly as possible.

The hon. Lady has made perfectly valid points, which many of my hon. Friends made on Second Reading. She was kind enough to refer to the remarks that I made in two interventions on the Secretary of State. Notwithstanding those points, I think we should focus on trying to move this forward. However, I hope she will agree, and I hope—in fact I am almost certain—that my hon. Friend the Minister will already be casting his mind to Report stage. We often think that in Committee we raise issues in more detail than on Second Reading, but Departments still have to go away and do further thinking, research and indeed inter-departmental consultation, rather than issues being decided with the flick of a ministerial pen. I certainly hold out much hope that when we come to our debates on the Floor of the House on Report, the Minister will have good or encouraging news, predicated on the remarks that many of us have made about the scope of the clause.

For the record, I am certainly keen to see the word “only” deleted. Of course we should use CITES as a foundation for the parameters of the clause, but we should have the scope to list animals that are not endangered. I am tempted to say that we list animals as endangered only when it is too late. If we are keen to de-commoditise the attractiveness of ivory as a tradeable item irrespective of its source, perhaps in 18 months to two years we might find a diminution in the value and volume of elephant ivory, but an absolute explosion in warthog ivory, and debates on that. I am rather fond of the warthog; I do not know why. I am a fan of Flanders and Swann, who had a charming song—I am sure it is available on YouTube or somewhere—about warthogs. Perhaps colleagues could listen to it during the lunch adjournment and understand the inherent beauty of the warthog. We might have scope on Report to hear about how we could base the clause on CITES, but also bring other species not covered by CITES as endangered into the list.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire, I have an interest in seeing the Bill include mammoths. I am not persuaded by the argument that because a species is extinct, the still sellable product—the mammoth tusk—should therefore be excluded. I was grateful to the NGO representatives at the evidence stage who made the point about the need to protect and preserve the dwindling numbers of both the African and the Asian elephant. We know that there are tricksters out there who will try to find maintenance in the market for their wares, and will—I am told it is pretty easy if one knows how—convert elephant ivory into something that looks and feels like mammoth ivory. We create a lacuna in our aspiration of trying to de-commoditise ivory if we exempt mammoth ivory merely on the premise of its coming from an extinct species. My hon. Friend the Minister will be hugely relieved to know I am not a parliamentary draftsman. I simply suggest that perhaps on Report, were we to see a Government amendment moving the deletion of paragraph (b) from subsection (6), because the mammoth falls within the elephant family, that would neatly tie that up.

The shadow Minister knows I hold her in very high regard. With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, we live in a litigious age where lawyers grub around for every shilling and halfpenny—not my hon. Friend, of course, who stood primus inter pares at the Bar. However, one or two look to advance a case in order to make a little money.

I slightly challenge the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I heard what the hon. Member for Workington said, but were we, at the stroke of a ministerial pen in Committee, suddenly today to include in an Act of Parliament species that had not been consulted on, that would make the Government open to the potential for judicial review. While the direction of travel as set out clearly in subsection (4) might not be perfect, it is to be welcomed.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to interventions about a real appetite to see a widening of the species included under the Bill, to be dealt with by delegated legislation, and all of us who are serious and focused on this issue—there is no division on that in the Committee—should feel that is the way to go. However, on the inclusion of mammoths, I hold out hope. It may be overly simple to delete subsection 6(b), the requirement for extant species on the day on which the Bill is passed—there may need to be concomitant knock-on amendments to other clauses—but that would clearly bring mammoths within the scope of the Bill. As a helpful way forward, we should consider basing the Bill on CITES but not restricting ourselves to that.

If the hon. Lady presses her amendment to a vote, I will, with regret, vote against it. My strongest drive may not have been that if I were not persuaded of the responsive tone of both my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State on the broadening and deepening of the clause. My strongest imperative is to be able to send a clear message to other legislators in October. Therefore, it may be regrettable, but on this occasion our main focus must be the timely progress of the Bill.

[Alex Sobel]

I rise to support amendment 11. I will restrict my comments to the narwhal as I do not have time to go into depth on the hippo, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus. Narwhal were known as sea unicorns for many centuries before exploration of the Arctic, and their tusks were one of the most valuable commodities in pre-industrial revolution Britain. Queen Elizabeth I is said to have spent £10,000—equivalent to £1.5 million today—on a narwhal tusk, which was placed with the Crown jewels. Although narwhal horns are no longer so valuable, they are valued at between £3,000 and £12,000, and a double tusk can fetch as much as £25,000.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature considers narwhal hunting still to be a major issue. In Canada and Greenland, narwhal hunting is still permitted, and between 2007 and 2011 an average of 979 narwhals were hunted a year. The Inuit as a native tribe have hunted narwhal for centuries, using them as a source of both food and income.

Numerous reports have been produced, and there is an evidence base from non-governmental organisations. CITES has said that there is a significant trade in narwhal tusks and parts but that there is not sufficient data to track it. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is concerned that the hunting of narwhal has already become unsustainable. Narwhals have been over-harvested in Canada and Greenland. The society said:

“The annual hunting in western Greenland…significantly exceeded the quotas recommended by those scientific bodies of regional and international organisations charged with narwhal management.”

Narwhals are significantly impacted by climate change. While I understand the need to make haste with elephants, narwhals face more than one threat, so it is important to agree to the amendment to include narwhals in the scope of the Bill.

I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that the Inuit people are permitted to sell narwhal derivatives, including the horn, within the European Union. There are restrictions on what can be imported without permits, and penalties for contravening import rules. Will the Minister give us some more information about that and about how we will deal with the issue if we do not agree to the amendment?

Ivory Bill (Fourth sitting)

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 14th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Has the Minister considered the position of a local regional musical instrument, the Northumbrian pipes, which are peculiar to Northumbria and the surrounding area, including my constituency? A number of pipe-makers have expressed concern about how they can preserve and continue the tradition of Northumbrian piping, given the current provisions. Clearly there is the question of the percentage exemption, but there is concern that recently made pipes, which were made legitimately in accordance with the legislation at that time, might fall outside the limit.

The pipe-makers have submitted evidence. Has that evidence been considered, and are there any measures that could assist them? It is a great local tradition. I should say that the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society has made it absolutely clear that it does not wish to do anything that would undermine a ban on the sale of ivory or disrupt the legislation. Its members told me that they reuse ivory from things such as old billiard balls. That was perfectly legitimate when the pipes were made. I just wondered whether any consideration had been given to that.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has caught my eye that the definition of musical instruments includes plectrums, which are obviously widely used, particularly by professional musicians, to play guitars. A plectrum is a very small item, and there is quite a strong trade in mammoth ivory guitar picks or plectrums. One website that sells them says:

“Due to the density of the material, Mammoth Ivory picks produce a nice, bright, strong tone without the harshness of metal picks, especially on acoustic guitars.”

We heard from the Musicians’ Union that musicians spend their entire careers gathering such instruments, including plectrums, and then sell them upon retirement. It is not a profession that comes with a pension, so that is part of their livelihood. The Bill indicates that the volume of ivory in the instrument needs to be less than 20%. I would like some clarity from the Minister regarding whether that would include plectrums. Mammoth ivory plectrums are entirely made of ivory. Would the trade in mammoth ivory tusks—obviously, mammoths became extinct more than 10,000 years ago—completely vanish or would the effect be that people would have to sell plectrums with guitars? The plectrum could form part of the guitar, and then the volume of ivory would be less than 20%. Sometimes legislation can have unintended consequences. I am interested in that particular one.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I echo my colleagues’ comments about how important it is that we get the clause right. Musicians’ livelihoods can often be insecure and short term. Often they rely on their instruments to carry out their trade, business and livelihood. Also, in the long term, those instruments are often their pensions and investments. They are tools of the trade. It is vital that we get this absolutely right for a crucial industry.

We had a long discussion this morning about museums and the qualifying bodies that give advice to the Secretary of State, and that will be able to undertake the registers. I fear there is a bit of a gap. If a musician, who is not an expert in ivory, has a number of guitars or plectrums in their bedroom and they are concerned that they are made of ivory, to whom to do they go to ask whether an item is covered? As colleagues have said, we do not want to catch people who have no intention of breaking the law but who are unaware of it. Is there somewhere people can go for advice pre-emptively to ensure they are not falling foul of this new law?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment, but I believe that it would add an unnecessary and disproportionate requirement to the registration process. The clause establishes the compliance regime that must be followed by the owner of an ivory item who wishes to deal in that item under any one of the exemptions. The registration process already requires a description of the item and a photograph to confirm the distinguishing features. From responses to the consultation, we understand that the majority of commonly played and traded musical instruments and accessories, such as pianos and violin bows, are less than 20% ivory. We also believe from the evidence we have received that it is reasonably easy to assess with the naked eye whether an item is 10% or less ivory by volume. Indeed, we believe that it is easier to assess against a 10% threshold than, for instance, a 30% threshold.

Anyone who registers an ivory item will have confirmed to the best of their knowledge that the item in question meets the relevant category of exemption, and will have submitted information or evidence about it—photographs, for example. Spot checks will be carried out on registered items by enforcement and compliance officers to confirm that they are exempt from our ban. If an item is being used commercially, regulators or the police may check to confirm that it is registered and compliant, and may take appropriate action if necessary. Given that explanation, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Alex Sobel]

In the US, President Obama introduced a ruling similar to the one we seek to make. The United States Grammy organisation, which has a role similar to that of the British Phonographic Industry in the UK, has published useful guidelines. The US Fish and Wildlife Service supports musicians with looking at the ivory content of their instruments, because there is a similar 10% de minimis rule in the US. The guidelines mention bagpipes, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is interested in, and keyboards. There is also a 200-gram limit. Bagpipes, keyboards and pianos are the sorts of items for which there is difficulty working out whether they meet the criteria. Will the Minister look at that good practice in the US?

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is clearly seeking to find ways to assist with getting judgments right in what can be quite difficult circumstances. I think it is fair to say that, from the evidence we heard and certainly from the submissions to the consultation, the enforcement agencies believe that this is a proportionate approach, and that it would be much more difficult if gram weight, for example, were used. The volume basis is a much better way to move things forward.

It is difficult to specify a method that fits all items well. The hon. Gentleman is obviously more of an expert on the US system than I am—I cannot even pronounce the name of the agency he referred to. It was refreshing and encouraging to hear in evidence that the 20% threshold will work for the vast majority of musical instruments, and that the enforcement agencies feel comfortable that that is a way to take the process forward—notwithstanding the unique issues with Northumbrian pipes, which we will talk about separately.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

We are. We are fleet of foot, that is for sure. Some of the questions are quite interesting.

As we are talking about lots of different issues at this point, I want to go back to the comments from the hon. Member for Leeds North West, to bring it together. The musicians sector has said that it is broadly happy with the 20% exemption. Particularly for pianos, the vast majority are definitely going to fall within that exemption, so that will be fine. The US has a different arrangement, but our enforcement bodies were very clear that they did not want a weight measure. It just made it more difficult. Just so we are all clear, the US body is called the US Fish and Wildlife Service—I thank my officials for that.

A very good point was raised about resources. Obviously, public finances are always under scrutiny and we need to make sure that they are being best used. The National Wildlife Crime Unit is jointly funded by the Home Office and DEFRA and will be funded up to 2020, and there are ongoing conversations about that. Future funding decisions about such bodies will be for the Home Office, and the Home Secretary has said he is working on those matters. We should also not forget that we have the regulator involved.

[Alex Sobel]

The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of Law Enforcement is similar to our National Wildlife Crime Unit. I discovered that it has eight regional offices and a national office, and 383 staff to undertake the same work as our 12 staff in the National Wildlife Crime Unit. Obviously the US is a much bigger country with a population of 300 million, but the resources are way in excess of those available to us to do this role. We should look at the stark difference between us and the US.

[David Rutley]

We will seek to learn lessons from them. We are getting a regulator and a new system in place here. It was very clear that the witness who we had in front of us from the National Wildlife Crime Unit was a very committed individual. We need to figure out how we can best move this forward. In the spirit of this free-flowing Committee, let us get on with it. We will learn as we go a bit here. I am sure there will be further challenges and further learning as we move things further forward.

On new clause 4, as I said in my speech, we do not believe that there is any need for further information on provenance regarding the registration process, as clause 10(1)(b) requires a description of the item and its distinguishing features, which will include details on its provenance and age. That is available in the registration process.

Ivory Bill (Third sitting)

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 14th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sue Hayman]

The amendment is about further provision for exemption certificates. Under subsection (5), we are looking at a particular concern to do with potential abuse of replacement certificates, which came up a number of times in evidence. Proposed new subsection (5A) limits the Secretary of State, subject to a number of exemptions under proposed new subsection (5B), to ensure that we do not end up with a situation in which a lot of certificates are flying around the place.

The issue was raised in Tuesday’s evidence sessions by the chief executive of the Tusk Trust. He expressed his concerns and said that more safeguards were needed for replacement certificates because, as things stand, an item could have several replacement certificates which could be used to sell similar items legally.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have the case of a constituent who is trying to get a second replacement passport. The stipulation is that he has to go to the Home Office for an interview, to verify his identity and why he needs a second replacement passport, and to provide his documentation. That is to prevent passport fraud. Surely the same conditions should apply to replacement exemption certificates.

[Sue Hayman]

It is really important. We heard an awful lot during the various evidence sessions about how the UK is one of the largest markets in the legal ivory trade. A knock-on effect of that, however, is that we help the illegal ivory trade, simply because of how the whole trade operates. We therefore want to clamp down on the illegal ivory trade and on the ivory trade in this country, because we need to ensure that we leave no loopholes and that nothing in the Bill could be abused by unscrupulous people. If we are not careful with the replacement certificates, as my hon. Friend said, it is possible that more than one replacement certificate could be issued for one item over a period of time and then used to sell on a third item.

IFAW was also concerned about that, stressing that more safeguards were needed to issue replacement certificates, because in theory an ivory item could have several replacement certificates issued over a number of years, and unscrupulous people might use such a certificate to sell similar items legally. Given that the whole point of the Bill is to stop illegal ivory trading and the poaching of elephants, we need to ensure against any such opportunities for unscrupulous people. Any replacement certificates must be issued rarely and with due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

On that generational point—[Interruption.] I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me, as I am reinforcing her point.

[Sue Hayman]

I thought you were going to say my “age”!

[Alex Sobel]

No, no—the point is about metric against imperial measures. Parliament first debated metrification in 1818, which is the period when many portrait miniatures were created. We finally had Government policy agreeing metrification in 1965, but as we know, it was not fully implemented in shops until 2009. We should not be looking here at the same sort of timescale to get metric measures for ivory portrait miniatures. Doing that here and now would be much simpler than wrangling over it for the next 200 years.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the benefit of his extraordinary knowledge and wonder whether he has thought about joining the V&A staff in the future.

Ivory Bill (First sitting)

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Q In terms of how you believe this new policy, when law, will change the ivory trade, what do you believe the contrast will be with policy in other countries, most notably the policy in the United States and China? Do you think the law as it will be applied in the UK will have more or less of an impact? What results do you think this will have, when law, compared with other countries?

David Cowdrey: For me, in relation to the legislation and its global impact, introducing one of the toughest ivory bans in the world will establish us firmly as a global leader. In Europe at the moment there are discussions about an ivory ban; on Second Reading there was a discussion about how our ban should act as a template for the European one. It gives us a good opportunity to push for a European ivory ban equal to, if not stronger than, the one we are introducing in the UK. Globally, that will have a massive impact on closing down those markets and the trade that is currently going from Europe to south-east Asia.

Concerning the United States and China, China is implementing its ivory ban very strongly at the moment and doing a very good job. It still has further to go; Hong Kong will be closing down in 2022, and we look forward to that because there is still trade going on legally there. The United States also has its ban, which is doing very well, but it has a federal law and state law, so it is much more complex to interpret. The UK could provide the template for the rest of the world.

Will Travers: I agree with everything that has just been said. I will point out that the UK does not have anybody whose livelihood depends on ivory, whereas in China there were individuals whose livelihoods depended on the ivory trade. China has taken that resolute decision, notwithstanding the fact that people’s livelihoods to a degree depended on it, to move out of it. That is important. It is complex in the US, as has been said, because of the federal and state situation, but the US has also taken resolute actions. The UK, having proclaimed that it would take action quite some time ago, is now in a position to reassert itself as a leader on this issue, not only on our own domestic front, but in the investment we make in supporting African countries in their efforts to tackle illegal trade. Just this morning, there was notification of another seizure by the Kenyan authorities in Mombasa.

It will be one of the toughest. It might not be the toughest—I believe that Taiwan, for example, has a full ban, which is coming in in very short order, with no exemptions and no compensation—but we will certainly be up there.

Cath Lawson: I very much endorse what has already been said and reiterate the point that with the October meeting of the illegal wildlife trade conference, the passing of this Bill would put the UK in an incredibly strong position to advocate to those countries that have yet to make commitments, particularly the neighbouring countries around China, where we risk seeing a knock-on effect of China’s ban.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q You are talking about other countries implementing bans; you have mentioned China, the USA and Taiwan. Are those bans elephant only, or do they cover other types of ivory?

Will Travers: As far as I am aware, they cover only elephant ivory.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q You mentioned the upcoming conference in October, and said that, if passed, this Bill will put the UK in a global lead position. Of itself, what contribution would you assess that the Bill will make towards deterring poaching, and how much of that deterrent is contingent on other countries following suit in a similarly clear and robust way?

David Cowdrey: For the October illegal wildlife trade conference we have a global stage. Senior politicians and Heads of State will come to the UK, and announcing that we have on the statute book an ivory ban that is one of the toughest in the world will be critical as part of that global leadership. As for acting as a deterrent, we know that closing down markets alone will not stop the illegal ivory trade—it is an illegal trade and we need good enforcement measures to go alongside it. We have opportunities with the illegal wildlife trade conference regarding our own law enforcement. The National Wildlife Crime Unit is funded only until 2020, and that funding must be renewed and become permanent if we are to show global leadership in acting as a deterrent and having the correct law enforcement. The CITES Border Force team is our frontline of defence at Heathrow, and they are conducting training all over the world. When staff leave or posts become vacant they must be renewed because we must maintain that capacity to act as a deterrent.

As organisations, we invest—as do the UK Government —in anti-poaching work on the ground. This is not just about closing down markets or legislation; this is about enforcement and feet on the ground doing that anti-poaching work. It is a mixture of measures, but with this Bill the UK can show that global leadership of taking the right steps in the right direction. We know that the Government are also investing in a lot of work overseas by having troops going to Malawi, training rangers, and other overseas investments.

Cath Lawson: We very much endorse that. To ensure that the impact of the Bill is realised there must be sufficient effort to raise awareness of it, and sufficient support resource going to the implementation of enforcement. We must particularly seek long-term funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit.

Will Travers: Yes, I would agree with all that, and I want to show the Committee something that may help understanding. The question was about what the Bill’s impact on poaching will be, and it is hard to make a direct correlation. However, we can have a direct impact on other aspects that relate to poaching. I am holding a piece of ivory and it looks antique to me. It obviously looked antique to half a dozen ivory dealers who looked at it and said, “Yep, that is pre-1947. We would be happy to sell it”. We had it DNA tested, and it is from about 2000. It is a modern piece of ivory—well, the ivory is from 2000 but the carving was done later. This must have come from an elephant that was poached in the past 20 years. The Bill will help to deal with that, and that is a direct link to poaching. It is very important.

Investment in wildlife law enforcement in Africa is really important. It is about boots on the ground, but also about agencies that prosecute people. It is about legal systems and ensuring that deterrent sentences are indeed just that and are effective, and that people do not get off with a slap on the wrist. It is about ensuring that law enforcement officers are properly trained and can carry out their duties effectively. The African Elephant Coalition includes 30 countries with African elephants that have worked together, united, to try to deal with this issue across international borders. I am sure future speakers will talk about the countries of the Elephant Protection Initiative, which are coming together under a common agenda.

My final point is that we need to step up and think about investment in a slightly different way. In my view, there is a common linkage with our clear objectives in overseas development, which are to deal with poverty and to provide opportunity. Those are also based on healthy and secure environments, including wildlife environments. Many of the ecosystem services that the poorest people in Africa depend on come from protected areas. If we are not investing in the protected areas where elephants and other species live, we are not doing a great service either to the species we wish to protect or to the people who live literally downstream from those protected areas.

David Cowdrey: One of the points that has been mentioned is that the Bill is about not only law enforcement but deterrence. There is an opportunity here to introduce a set of sentencing guidance for courts in the United Kingdom, to provide that information to magistrates and judges when prosecuting cases. We need appropriate sentences to be given for the crimes at the end of the day. Having the Bill on its own and having law enforcement is one thing, but we need good sentencing guidance to ensure that appropriate sentences are given.