European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I will start by taking some time to reflect on the issues that I heard about in 2016, and have continued to hear about since, while representing a seat that voted substantially to leave the EU. I completely understand the valid and sincere reasons why people on both sides voted how they did. Our area, once the beating heart of Britain’s industrial empire, has seen 30 years of deindustrialisation and rising unemployment, with our youth unemployment now two and a half times the national average. Many towns, including Leigh, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) just so articulately described, feel a sense of being left behind, of anger, of loss and of betrayal. Just six months before the referendum, our steelworks was closed by this Government, with 3,100 jobs lost overnight. So, when people were asked back then, “Are you happy with the status quo, or do you want things to change? Do you want to make Redcar, Teesside or Britain great again?”, of course they were going to vote out of anger and frustration. They were going to vote to take back control when they were told that the blame for our troubles lies in Brussels.

However, it was not the EU that closed our steelworks. The Government had no qualms about state aid when they stepped in to take a stake in the Port Talbot works just a few months later. It was not the EU that drove down our industry and manufacturing in favour of an economy based on the financial and services sectors. The EU did not take £6 billion out of public spending in the north in the past eight years, and it did not give us zero-hours contracts, a low-pay economy, austerity and food banks. However, many in my patch at that time simply said, “What’s to lose? It can’t get any worse.” The facts are clear now in a way that they were not in 2016, as there is plenty to lose and, as always, it is people in work in areas such as mine who stand to lose the most again.

The Government’s impact assessment showed that the economy of the north-east will be hit to the tune of 16%. That is not just a “Project Fear” figure; that means real jobs and real wage packets. That will mean homes repossessed, businesses going under, and personal tragedies like we saw in 2015 after the closure of the steelworks. There is no way in which I or anyone in this place who claims to want the best for their constituents should even be contemplating a no-deal Brexit, although we see the Prime Minister wielding it as a threat to steamroller her failed deal, which is reckless and irresponsible.

I want to take a moment to focus on a sector that remains a huge international asset in our area. The chemicals industry employs around 7,600 people in Teesside. We have the second biggest chemical cluster in Europe and the biggest in the UK, and it is heavily integrated with supply chains that span the English channel. Companies such as Huntsman process chemicals in Redcar and send them to Rotterdam for the next stage of processing. If there are any costs or delays, companies will just shift their entire processing operations to Europe, taking jobs with them. Chemicals cannot be stockpiled, and any delay is deeply damaging. However, it is not just a no-deal Brexit that would jeopardise that precious industry. The chief executive of the North East of England Process Industry Cluster told me that while the Prime Minister’s deal is better than no deal, any kind of Brexit will leave the crucial industry worse off.

The Government have already made one industrial site in my constituency a wasteland, and I am not prepared to risk a second when we are working so hard to get back on our feet. I cannot accept the Prime Minister’s deal, which is an historic and unprecedented concession of sovereign control. It leaves us in a weak negotiating position internationally, £50 billion worse off, and no clearer on our future relationship with Europe. The Chancellor himself told us that it will make Britain poorer. If it is not what people voted for, why on earth are we putting ourselves through this pain? We must now extend or revoke article 50 and go back to the people—this time with the truth and a picture of what the reality of Brexit actually is.

To those who say that they just want this over and done with, I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister’s deal will be just the beginning. We will be bogged down in negotiations for a decade, with a slow haemorrhaging of our power and wealth. To those who say another vote is a betrayal, I am afraid to say that the betrayal has already happened. The betrayal happened in 2016: when people were promised something that could not be done, and when they were promised £350 million a week for the NHS, the exact same benefits as being in the EU and the easiest deal in history. When a promise cannot be kept, everything that follows from it is a betrayal, and we need to face up to that and be honest.

To those who say there is a better deal yet to be negotiated, I am afraid to say there is no other deal. There is no jobs-first Brexit or sensible Brexit. This deal is Brexit. This is all there is and, after two and a half years, the public can see it is a disaster. They know it has gone horribly wrong and they do not like where we are headed. It is disrespectful to say that they have to be bound by a decision they made two years ago when they know that this is not what they were promised. They do not like the mess we are in and, like me, they do not recognise the Britain we are becoming.

Our Britain is not insular, fearful, jealous, selfish, pompous or cruel. It does not look backwards to a world that never was or blame other people for our failings. Our Britain is decent, kind and compassionate, but firm and fair. Our Britain is confident in its values and of its place in the world. It respects other nations and actively wants to stand alongside our friends, partners and neighbours. This Britain wants to have its say. I have absolute faith in the British people to find a way through where the Government and Parliament have failed. We must put this back in the people’s hands.

Ivory Bill

Anna Turley Excerpts

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

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend has pointed to my effective oratorical default, which is that I never, ever write a speech. I scribble notes on bits of paper and then get terribly confused—sometimes it is a shame and sometimes it is a blessing. In concluding my remarks on new clause 1, I was going to say—again, this militates against the need for it—precisely the point that my hon. Friend made from the Dispatch Box. He and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made incredibly clear their enthusiasm and appetite for expeditiously moving forward to include species such as the narwhal and others, which we are keen to see included.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) and I have an affection for the narwhal, which might even be described as an obsession. I think it is probably best to keep that to ourselves—we do not need to go into the whys and wherefores. However, not only have Ministers and the Secretary of State indicated the appetite to make full use of clause 35(4), but were there ever to be a change of Government—pray God that this is at such an interval that my hon. Friend and I will probably have hung up our boots—I rather get the impression that a Labour Government would also be as keen to exercise the scope of clause 35(4), so trying to put this in the Bill in a new clause is irrelevant.

In conclusion, I recognise the enthusiasm and determination that the DEFRA team have shown on this Bill. I also put on record my thanks for what I think is the unsung work of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom)—the current Leader of the House, if I have got her constituency wrong—who did so much work when she was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), because only due to circumstances beyond her control was she not able to bring to the point of delivery that which she had been involved in from the moment of conception. She should take enormous pride in the Bill, because it is something that is important for the House to do. Although there was some disagreement about pace and tempo during the Bill Committee and on Second Reading, the unanimity of view does credit to this place. Too often, it is seen through the rather narrow microcosm of Prime Minister’s questions, but when this place gets it, when it understands the need to do something, there is, I suggest, no finer example of the practice of politics. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to play a part, albeit a very small one, in bringing the Bill to this stage.

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

I congratulate everybody who has helped to get this important Bill to this point, including the many campaigners and organisations who have pushed for it over the years, and I thank the civil servants and the Clerks who have worked so hard and all those who gave their time to give evidence to the Bill Committee. It was a pleasure to be part of that Committee, and I echo the words of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare): it was Parliament at its best, working constructively and collaboratively across party lines to ensure that this groundbreaking Bill was as good as it could be.

The Bill matters deeply because the illegal wildlife trade has grown rapidly in recent years. It is now estimated to be the fourth-largest international illegal trade and worth over £15 billion per year. The illegal wildlife trade drives corruption, undermines the rule of law, threatens sustainability in developing countries and has been linked to other forms of organised crime, such as arms, drugs and human trafficking. The number of elephants in the wild has declined by almost a third in the last decade, and around 20,000 a year are still being slaughtered owing to the global demand for ivory—an average of around 55 a day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am taking a leap here, but I do not think that any Conservative will have disagreed with anything that the hon. Lady has said. It seems to me that the only real difference between the Opposition and the Government—and this is a question, not a statement—is a matter of process. The aspirations are almost identical. The Government’s commitment is to go further than new clause 1 by going beyond the CITES species, but on that there is no disagreement between the two parties. The only issue, really, is whether the Opposition are willing to trust the Government to honour the pledge that we have just heard from the Minister, but that is it. This is not about the issue; it is a matter of trust and process. Does the hon. Lady agree with that?

[Anna Turley]

Absolutely. I think the principle of trust is important, and I hope we would support the Government on that, but for me this is about timing. The issue is not whether it will happen, but the fact that it could be six months or a year before the Bill is passed. In the meantime, especially if the Bill proceeds successfully and is widely heralded, there will be a great deal of awareness about the crackdown on the ivory trade in this country. What concerns me is the knock-on effect in the next six months to a year on the trade in hippo teeth, which could be a direct consequence of the Bill. I therefore do not want any delay caused by the wait for secondary legislation. In principle, however, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are going in the same direction.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her references to my contribution in Committee. Let me also express my admiration for her elephant-patterned dress.

On the question whether another Bill will be introduced, is it not the case that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which does not normally handle an awful lot of legislation, has so much on its plate at the moment, what with the agriculture Bill, the fisheries Bill and so many other strategies—the need to consider agriculture subsidies, for instance—that the chances are that this will get pushed to the bottom of the pile if it is not dealt with soon?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, and one that is close to my heart. My private Member’s Bill to increase the punishment for animal cruelty was published in December, but we are still waiting for it to come before this place. There is a huge backlog in legislation, and I think it is dangerous to wait.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I apologise for intervening again, but may I take up that last point? Subject to consultation—and it is inconceivable that those consulted would oppose the proposals; we have to assume that they would pass the test of public opinion—these changes could be introduced very quickly and easily by means of a statutory instrument. This does not require primary legislation; it would be a very simple procedure, and the measure would go through unopposed.

[Anna Turley]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but, conversely, I do not understand what his problem is with our new clause. We want to make the change here and now, and I have heard no sustained or reasonable explanation of why we need to delay.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Turley]

I will take one more intervention, but then I must make some progress.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I will not support the new clause because I think that the Government’s commitment goes further, and, fundamentally, I have no reason to disbelieve the promise that the Minister has just made. The Government will consult on extending the ban, and I have no doubt that the British people will respond to that consultation properly and positively. The statutory instrument will then be introduced. There is no reason for any Conservative Member to question what I think has been an impeccable track record on the part of DEFRA over the last year.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman is right—the principle of the Government’s amendment, which broadens the CITES endangered species definition, is important and we support it—but I do not understand why he cannot support both. They are not mutually exclusive. We would really like to press on with this today, and there does not seem to be any reason for hesitation—other than work and effort, I am afraid.

Finally, let me say something about resources. In Committee, I was shocked by the lack of resources to back up the Bill. The Border Force CITES team at Heathrow has only 10 members of staff, although it is currently dealing with more than 1,000 seizures a year. The police National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 members of staff, despite dealing with all forms of wildlife crime from deer poaching to thefts of birds’ eggs, and no funding has been allocated to it beyond 2020. I think it reckless and irresponsible for the Secretary of State to introduce the Bill without having secured or committed resources to ensure that it can be properly enforced. There is a danger that this important Bill will be rendered hollow and unenforceable, and I hope that the Government are working to address that and give us some funding commitments.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

The hon. Lady has, of course, omitted the very serious commitment, in terms of personnel and funding, that we give through the British Army and anti-poacher training, in Africa and elsewhere. She must concede that.

[Anna Turley]

Absolutely, but that is a separate issue. I am talking about enforcement in this country. Thousands of cases a year pass through Heathrow, and the police must investigate every single item that is found in a suitcase. As we heard in Committee, there must be months and months of investigation of very complex cases of a cross-border and international nature, and that requires proper resources.

I hope that the Government have listened wholeheartedly to our recommendations, but I welcome the Bill. We have worked on it collaboratively and in strong partnership, and I think that there is little in it with which any Member can disagree. It is a landmark Bill, and I hope that it will have a significant impact on not only the elephant population, but many other species.

Ivory Bill (Fifth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

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

[Sue Hayman]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 12, page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment would make the offences under section 12 strict liability offences. The defence of having taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence would remain, but the burden of proof would be shifted to the person on proving this, rather than on prosecutors proving the person knew the item was ivory.

I will spend a little longer on this amendment and go through the evidence from various witnesses. Chief Inspector Hubble raised serious concerns about her ability to prosecute if the Bill remains in its current form. She said:

“We also have some concerns that, as the Bill stands, we have to prove that it is ivory and that the person dealing in it knew, or ought to have known, that it was ivory. If you look on eBay at any given moment, you will find a number of items being offered for sale that are not labelled as ivory.”

The Minister might remember that in Committee we had a look at eBay, and it was extraordinary how many items were clearly being mis-sold. Chief Inspector Hubble continued:

“From an enforcement perspective, if someone is buying something that is not labelled as ivory, and they are selling it as something not labelled as ivory, how do I prove they knew it was ivory? With the Bill as it stands, that, for me, is a real concern from an enforcement perspective. The onus should be on them to prove that they did not know, not on me to prove that they did.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 35, Q59.]

I think that is very clear. There is no point in legislation if it cannot be enforced effectively.

Chief Inspector Hubble was then asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East whether adding a provision covering mis-labelling would help. Again, the chief inspector was clear that in order to prosecute under the terms of the Bill as drafted, enforcement officers would still have to prove that the seller

“knew it was ivory and that they had then mislabelled it, knowing that it was ivory.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 39, Q75.]

She then added:

“All the time that the burden of proof is on us to prove that they knew, that is difficult from an enforcement perspective. If the burden of proof was on them to prove that they did not know it was ivory, that would make enforcement much easier.”

Later she said:

“In general, we do not deal with the people who will apply for exemption certificates and who will register their items and apply for permits, because they are the responsible, law-abiding people. We deal with the ones who have a complete disregard for policy protocol legislation. We deal with the ones who are deceptive, who lie and who want to make money out of this. The burden of proof has to be manageable and has to be able to be enforced, otherwise it is not enforceable legislation.” ––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 39, Q76 and Q79.]

I am sure that none of us would want to pass legislation if the officers responsible for delivering it did not think that it was enforceable.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) raised concerns about the implications of the current burden of proof lying with the enforcement agencies. He said:

“The defence of ignorance in clause 12 is a real concern, particularly as it is well known that the illegal trade is fuelled by unscrupulous traders marketing ivory as a bone or as ivory sourced from other species, such as a mammoth.”

I know the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire is particularly concerned about that. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire continued:

“There should therefore be a basic sanction based on strict liability.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 104.]

When the ban on the sale of ivory is introduced, as I hope it will be shortly, if it is to have the outcomes that we all hope for, it will need to be vigorously enforced. As I said, it is no good introducing legislation unless we can enforce it vigorously. Deleting subsection (2) would shift the burden of proof and make enforcement more likely, and it would answer the request of enforcement officers.

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

I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. The evidence from the police was clear: the burden of proof is critical, particularly given how easily items are passed around on the internet. There is huge scope for people to plead ignorance.

We heard examples of ivory being called animal bone. I looked briefly at eBay during that evidence session and was shocked at the proliferation of objects listed as animal bone, when they are clearly ivory, even to my unknowing eye. It will be extremely difficult for the police to enforce this legislation. We also heard about their small teams and the cuts. The critical point is that we are making their lives more difficult. It is extremely serious when a chief inspector tells a Committee in evidence:

“The burden of proof has to be manageable and has to be able to be enforced, otherwise it is not enforceable legislation.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 39, Q79.]

We cannot in any circumstances pass legislation that is not enforceable. It is great to say that we will lead the world with our ban on ivory, forge our way ahead and set a great example. If it is not enforceable and the trade continues, we might as well pack up and go home. We know what we are here to do. If the evidence from the frontline is that the Bill is not enforceable, that is not acceptable. We have to push on that.

I would like clarification from the Minister on subsection (2), where it states

“if the person knows or suspects, or ought to know or suspect”.

Will he provide evidence of how someone “ought to know” and how that could be defined in legislation? It does not seem strong enough to me. Enforcement officers are clearly asking for a shifting of the burden of proof, and that is what is needed if we are to make the Bill remotely enforceable.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I hear what the hon. Member for Workington has to say and can understand entirely the motivation behind it. However, if she pushes her amendment to a Division, I will not vote for it. Let me explain why. I want the Committee to think about the little old lady or gentleman who works in a charity shop selling items on a daily basis. They might come into work to find boxes of stuff when someone has done a house clearance after an aunt or uncle has died. They might sell something to somebody and then it transpires that an offence has been committed because the item is made of ivory.

I do not think that in those circumstances they should be found guilty of something because they knew or suspected, or should have known. Antiques dealers with an online presence, buying and selling all sorts of products, are precisely the sort of people who ought to know or suspect. I do not think the intention of the Bill is to have lots of officials running around trying to trace every single person who is doing something without prior knowledge, and certainly not maliciously or trying to get around the law. There has to be an element of common sense and balance.

I entirely appreciate that, in some instances, that evidence gathering can present a challenge to the enforcement authorities, but it is always a challenge for enforcement authorities to gather compelling evidence to bring a prosecution or levy a fine that is beyond challenge. I understand entirely why the Government have drafted clause 12(2) in this way, because they have to strike a balance and have a bit of common sense. It is right that there is that common-sense caveat in the enforcement clauses, and I urge the hon. Member for Workington to withdraw her amendment.

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for Workington for her amendment, the effect of which would be to make the commercial dealing of prohibited ivory items a strict liability offence. The hon. Member for Redcar and other hon. Members also made comments along those lines, and I will answer some of their questions in due course.

We all agree that the enforcement of the Bill should be rigorous, but I assure the Committee that the amendment is not required. Clause 12(2) makes provision for a person found to have breached the prohibition to demonstrate that they genuinely and reasonably did not know that the item was ivory. That could be, for instance, because they were unaware of ivory as a substance, or because the ivory in question could reasonably have been assumed to be something else.

If clause 12 offences were to become strict liability offences because of the amendment, the person accused of the offence would not be able to rely on the defence that they had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence. The strict liability offences that would be created as a result of the amendment mean that, for the offence to have been committed, there is the need only for the actus reus—the act itself—to have been committed. There is no need for the mens rea—the intention. That would mean that subsections (2) and (3) would effectively be deleted.

It is good that clause 12(2) is in the Bill, because it allows for instances of genuine mistakes, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said, where there is unlikely to be a malicious intent to breach the Bill. For instance, a member of the public might sell in a car boot sale an item they found in their grandmother’s attic without realising that the material in question was elephant ivory.

[Anna Turley]

I would like a bit more clarification on the point I raised about the phrase

“ought to know or suspect”.

When we pass the Bill, I hope the Government will share the news far and wide, because it will be a fantastic achievement. Surely everybody will think, even if they see something in their attic, “That could potentially be ivory.” Ivory is pretty distinct, and I would have thought that everybody—even a little old lady at a car boot sale or in a charity shop—would look at it, wonder what it is made of and think, “That could be ivory.” They will know, because hopefully the Bill will be widely heralded, that they ought at least to double check and find out whether it is something they should know about. I do not think the emphasis on

“ought to know or suspect”

goes far enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Whatever people’s views are, nobody in Committee is seeking loopholes. We are trying to close them down. Her point would be covered by facilitation, which we have talked about previously.

It is very important in criminal law that we establish both the intent and the act itself, which need to be present for the offence to be committed. Strict liability is the exception as only the act itself needs to be present for the offence to be committed, for example, the sale of alcohol to minors and health and safety matters. With that explanation, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way. I want to push him on what the words “ought to know” or “suspect” mean in this context. In the case of a police officer trying to convict someone, how can they prove that someone ought to know? He gave the example of someone being an antiques dealer or in the sector, in which case we can say that they ought to know, but how otherwise can a police or enforcement officer prove that someone ought to know? Public awareness ought to be sufficient, but how will a police officer be able to prove that someone ought to know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I rise to support new clause 3. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on that powerful and thorough speech. There is not much I can add; she made every point inimitably. We all heard the evidence in Committee about how overstretched the Border Force at Heathrow and the National Wildlife Crime Unit are. I come back to the point I made in the previous debate: if this Bill is to be groundbreaking and held up internationally as an example of how seriously we take this awful issue and how determined we are to stamp out the sale of ivory in this country, we have to put our money where our mouth is. That means we have to give the teams that do the enforcement the resources they need to undertake and enforce this Bill.

We heard that the CITES Border Force team has just 10 members. They carry out over 1,000 seizures a year and as my hon. Friend so clearly demonstrated, the months of work each seizure takes is hugely resource-intensive. We have also heard about how the National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 people across the whole country to undertake all the activities my hon. Friend so articulately set out. That is a very small unit.

At a time when, nationally, we have lost 20,592 police officers in just seven years and we have seen a 20% rise in violent crime, how on earth is the NWCU supposed to fight and press for its resources, when there are so many competing priorities within the police budget? We really have to take this issue extremely seriously. I wholeheartedly support the new clause because we simply cannot have this Bill, laud it and celebrate its passage unless we are going to put the money behind the teams that will make it a reality.

[Dr Cameron]

It is imperative that the new clause is accepted. We heard from the NWCU experts that the unit is a small team with limited resources for current demand, and it is unable to plan over the long term. This issue must be dealt with promptly, lest staff are lost because the unit cannot motivate them to stay. Staff in any job who know there may not be long-term funding have families and their own lives to think about, so they will move on to other roles. The expertise at the NWCU cannot be lost, particularly in making sure this Bill is enforceable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

I agree that we need to get the Bill through very quickly, because of its important purpose. However, on consultation, I have taken professional advice from the Consultation Institute, and I declare an interest because I am an associate. Its advice to me, as a professional organisation that works with different Departments, is that consultation will not necessarily delay the Bill and prevent it from being ready before the conference that we are all looking forward to in October.

The Consultation Institute does not believe that it is illegal to move forward without further consultation, but if consultation was necessary, the Government could easily devise a quick consultation of no more than 14 days, by going back to the organisations that have already shown an interest in this matter through responding to the initial consultation. That could be done very quickly; there is no reason to delay the Bill by extending that consultation. The institute would be happy to work with the Department and endorse that consultation formally at the end, so that there would be no challenge. The Government have apparently done short consultations in the past as top-up consultations to something that has already taken place, as a piece of legislation goes through.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the helpful explanation of the consultation process, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am quite confused about the point that has been pressed a number of times, that widening the scope slightly to include other animals would delay the Bill’s progress. The Opposition have tabled an amendment, which is being discussed. If we were in a world where we did not amend Bills during a parliamentary process because we had not consulted on the relevant issue from the exact outset, goodness me, hardly any legislation would be amended in this place and we would deal only with what was presented to us at the beginning of the process.

[Sue Hayman]

Clearly, we need to be able to crack on and we must not get too bogged down in consultation. However, we do not want at any stage for this Bill to be able to be challenged. That is very important. There are certain sections of the art market that wish to challenge the Bill. That is why I took that professional advice from the Consultation Institute, so that it would be happy to work with the Department to ensure that there is no opportunity for a legal challenge if another short consultation was held to allow the scope to be extended.

To return to the suggestions of other hon. Members in debates and evidence sessions, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke very strongly about the need to extend the scope. She said that this is a “one-off opportunity” to highlight the other mammals that would be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said:

“We know that this will be the only time we have an Ivory Bill before this House for many years to come, so if we are going to try to protect those species, it makes sense for us to do it now, in this Bill.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 105.]

The right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who is a former Environment Secretary, raised an important point on Second Reading. He said:

“The Secretary of State should also be able to include other ivory-bearing species not listed in the CITES appendices”,

an important point made previously by the hon. Member for North Dorset. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire went on:

“As the Born Free Foundation has indicated, there has been an increase in the purchasing of hippo and other non-elephant ivory in the UK to replace elephant ivory in the internal trade. The BFF infers that the legal and illegal trades are targeting these other species, as the Government’s focus is on elephant ivory.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 104.]

It is important to keep the focus on elephant ivory, but we must not lose sight of what else is happening.

--- Later in debate ---

It is useful to know that a joint US-Canada anti-smuggling investigation—Operation Longtooth—uncovered a significant and profitable illegal trade in narwhal tusks to the United States. In 2013, Gregory Logan was arrested in the US for offences relating to a staggering 250 Narwhal tusks, resulting in a fine of $385,000 and an eight-month sentence. The US has already tightened up on the trade, so if we do not, it might move to the UK and Europe. We need to include the narwhal in the Bill because of the existing hunting, trade and threats. I understand the concerns about having to consider the views of non-governmental organisations, but they have, across the piece, put forward evidence on the matter, and I think we can do this in short order. I am sure that we can get advice about how to move forward swiftly with a quick and short consultation on the matter.

[Anna Turley]

I, too, rise to support the very important amendment 11. A phrase that is used with medical students is “first, do no harm”, and we ought to think about that all the time when passing legislation. I have a real concern, which is backed up by evidence, that when passing legislation such as this we can have a disproportionate impact on another species. We all support the Bill wholeheartedly; it is long overdue in protecting elephants, but we should be absolutely mindful of its potentially damaging knock-on effect on other species.

I rise to speak about the noble hippopotamus in particular. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] I think everyone agrees what a beautiful and wonderful animal it is. The number of hippos in the world has crashed by 95% in 30 years, and that is widely acknowledged to be a knock-on effect of the increasing restrictions on the trade in elephant ivory. For example, in the Virunga national park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo there were 29,000 hippos and there are now just 1,300. The hippo is vulnerable and is on the red list of threatened species, and there is deep concern that it is being poached and hunted for its teeth, particularly as the loopholes close around elephant ivory. In 2014, 60 tonnes of hippo teeth were exported to Hong Kong from Africa, and from there they were sent to European countries. If the purpose of the Bill is to close markets that are driving that trade, there is clearly a strong integrated global trade in hippo teeth that has a huge effect on the species.

Different countries are taking different steps. Uganda has banned the trade in hippo teeth, and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo the hippo is a protected species. It is vital that we take this opportunity to send out the message that we in this country do not believe that hippos should be killed or poached for their teeth, and that our view is that our legislation on protecting elephant ivory will not have a damaging impact on the hippopotamus.

I close with a quote in the National Geographic by Pieter Kat, who is a conservation biologist in east Africa:

“What we need to realise is African wildlife conservation should not be guided entirely by a focus on elephants and rhinos. Many other species are being traded to extinction in Africa, and I would to have say hippos are probably one of the most obvious examples of this.”

We need to tread very carefully, so that in doing something fantastic to protect the beautiful species of the elephant we do not have a knock-on effect on that of the hippo.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the amendment, and to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset about the risk of parliamentary sovereignty being judicially reviewed. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the Clerk can intervene in Committee to clarify the legal position, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the courts are there to reinforce the will of Parliament rather than to police it.

Primary legislation cannot be judicially reviewed. That picks up on the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar that no amendment can be made to any Bill, subject to consultation, if we have strict enforcement. However, given the fact that there is no risk of judicial review of primary legislation, and that the shadow Minister has provided a handy, quick, short consultation route, I do not see much problem with accepting the amendment.

Ivory Bill (Sixth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I feel that I have been slightly thrown into the middle here, because I was “slipped” for this morning and had not expected the Committee to have made such progress. Last week we took much oral evidence on broadening the definition of ivory beyond the tusk or tooth of an elephant to other ivory-bearing animals. It was disappointing that the consultation looked just at elephant ivory without the opportunity to consider narwhals, walruses or other animals. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire was particularly keen that mammoths should be included in the definition, although that would not come under a convention on international trade in endangered species definition, on the grounds that animals that are already extinct cannot be protected as endangered species. I suggest to the Minister that just because there was not a consultation on other species does not necessarily mean that they cannot be included in a definition.

We heard in evidence that the vast majority of trade is in elephant ivory. Exemptions for antiquities and precious items are nearly always concerned with elephant ivory; the new forms of ivory are very much secondary. There was a discussion about whether the Government would be subject to judicial review if a ban were to be implemented without consultation, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that. My concern is that although the Bill makes provision to do things by statutory instrument, we will not have another ivory Bill for a long time. I therefore want reassurance that, if we are not to widen the definition in the Bill, those consultations and statutory instruments will be brought forward as soon as possible.

With regard to ivory-bearing animals mentioned in the CITES appendices, alongside African and Asian elephants in appendix I—those ranked as most severely under threat—are sperm whales, which are already under threat from ivory poaching. In 2013 the Spanish authorities seized 250 teeth, with a combined weight of 80 kg, which would have sold online for £1,000 each to be made into carved chess pieces. Appendix II includes narwhals, a single tusk of which can sell for up to $12,500. It has been reported that there are, on average, more than 200 trades in narwhal tusk every year. Although these species may not be at such an immediate and apparent threat of extinction as the elephant, they are at risk.

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

We mentioned this morning the knock-on effect of some bans. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we have such a small Bill, focused only on elephants, the knock-on effect for other species not currently endangered could escalate their endangerment? There would be purely a knock-on effect for other species.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard that this is big business. There are organised criminal gangs involved in poaching ivory. We have seen in the past how they will move from one lucrative criminal activity to another. If the elephant trade is closed to them, which we hope it will be, they will move on and find new pastures.

I have mentioned a couple of species involved. Alongside those in appendix II there are also killer whales, hippos and certain types of dolphin. Appendix III includes the walruses. It is estimated that up to 3% of their global population are hunted and killed every year.

I want to make a final plea for the poor old warthog, which no one seems to care very much about—[Interruption.] Maybe it was discussed this morning. We have to look at why we are introducing an ivory ban. It is mostly presented as a conservation issue that threatens the survival of the elephant, which could be wiped from the face of the earth. We should look at it from the point of view that taking an animal’s teeth just for the purpose of ornamentation or to make money out of it has to be wrong, whether it is rare, precious and wonderful to look at, or an ugly old warthog, of which there are many running around. I argue that we should not hunt animals for ivory, whether they are endangered or not.

--- Later in debate ---

I also reassure colleagues that subsection (3) refers to species currently listed under CITES. In effect, this means that species listed under CITES at the time any regulations are laid will be covered. For instance, warthogs are not endangered and are therefore not listed on any CITES appendices—I have checked this meticulously. CITES does not even operate a watch list, but the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which monitors the threat of species becoming endangered, classes warthogs, very sadly, as being “of least concern”, so they are nowhere near being endangered.

[Anna Turley]

The Minister is being generous with his time, but I refer him to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East. It is important that we look at this issue through the prism of endangered species, but there is also a moral obligation. How much has that formed part of the thinking behind the Bill? We ought to be driving out poaching and the hunting of animals for the use of their body parts for culture and marketing because it is a moral imperative.

[David Rutley]

I completely understand that. I think we need to pause for a moment, though, to reflect on the fact that we are trying to make a real difference with elephant ivory. There are provisions for all other forms of ivory and I will take away the hon. Lady’s point, but it is worth reflecting on the evidence we had from the NGOs, which was that they like the ban, that it is meaningful that and it is going to make a difference. It will also set a standard for others to follow.

I am sure Opposition Members as well as the Government will reflect on these matters. We will do everything we can to make these provisions as wide-ranging and impactful as possible. As I hope I have described, we need to get through a balance test, and at the moment we do not have enough evidence to support a balance review taking place.

Should warthogs become endangered and listed under CITES, the Bill provides the ability to amend the regulations to reflect that. With my rather lengthy explanation, I hope I have addressed most of the points to be made regarding clause stand part. I say to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members that I am committed to considering whether steps can be taken to use the subsection (3) powers as soon as possible after commencement so that all statutory instruments and guidance to enforce the ban on elephant ivory are in place. However, I am happy to consider the evidence and data required for a balance review.

Ivory Bill (Third sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

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

[David Rutley]

I will seek some inspiration to ensure that the hon. Member for Workington, which is an incredibly nice part of the world—

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

I will help the Minister out, to allow the transaction to take place. I was interested by his reply. Is he essentially saying that by ruling themselves out of undertaking any transactions, organisations that have a genuine interest in acquiring something will under no circumstances be able to apply to register or purchase it, even if they are transparent about wanting it to be part of their collection? Given that only a small number of institutions specialise in the specific areas that we are considering, we may rule out some of our best museums from being able to undertake that process or purchase a valuable item.

[David Rutley]

I will first answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Workington, and I am sure inspiration on that technical point will come shortly. On ensuring that the waiver fits into the process, it will not actually be in the Bill, but it will be in the binding memorandum of understanding that we will agree and sign with those institutions. On that other technical point, I will get some inspiration shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. We are trying to do this for the elephants, so we want to ensure that our approach will provide greater transparency. The balance we need to strike is also about privacy. The technical difficulty is that these items, as we have heard, are small in number, but quite easily identifiable, so could quite easily be linked to individuals.

The approach that I would like to put to the Committee, and that we are looking to take forward, is that we will look at broad categories, which—although I call them broad—will be about specific types of items. That will help us better to track the sorts of items that will be covered under the exemption. I hope that those reassurances are strong enough for members of the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the Minister’s response, but does he agree that if we have to come back for subsequent legislation, having as much evidence as possible laid before us in the House will enable us better to scrutinise and create further legislation along these lines? I ask that particularly in the light of responses from the Government that indicate a concern just to get the Bill through and then potentially to widen the scope later on. Surely having more evidence on the success and application of the Bill will enable us as parliamentarians to improve future legislation.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We are trying to get the right balance between privacy and transparency. That is a real challenge in lots of legislation. I also point out that items that are registered, as opposed to certified, will come under clause 10. We will publish data on those items as well.

We are looking at ways of making it as transparent as possible, but the issue with the rarest and most important items is that they are more easily identifiable with an individual than items in some other categories, which is why it might be more difficult in this area than in others. I hope that explanation is helpful. We will do everything we can to try to bring transparency. We are very committed to doing that, and I will work with officials, while the Bill is in Committee and beyond, to see how we can make that more definitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

It may be, as the hon. Gentleman’s previous very kind comments may be. One never knows.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, because it would not change the focus of or detract from anything in the Bill. All it would do is provide clarification, the need for which I thought was universally accepted when we were taking evidence.

[Anna Turley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Earlier this week, we heard powerful evidence that the sizes are pretty similar, pretty standard. The amendment would cover 90% to 95% of portrait miniatures. The witness we heard went so far as to say that putting this in the Bill was “very sensible”. That is a direct quote, and it is high praise indeed for some of our legislation to be described as sensible. I think that this provision is the way forward. It is very difficult to see any objection to having it in the Bill.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right: the expert said that this would be a “very sensible” thing to do. I hope that the Minister recognises that the amendment is designed to support the Bill by making it generally more effective and giving owners of items a better understanding of exactly what kind of exemption certificate they should apply for, so that the process can move forward much more smoothly.

Ivory Bill (Fourth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

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

[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?

[David Rutley]

Hon. Members have raised some very interesting points, some of which I had not anticipated. They were good none the less. We are up for the challenge this afternoon.

On the very good question about broader education, it is clear that lessons were learned from the listing of rosewood last year about how to communicate effectively with the industry, and how the application of restrictions can be brought into force more effectively. As a result of that, DEFRA is working to ensure that we have better contact with the musical instrument industry through a number of different forums, such as the quarterly CITES stakeholder liaison meetings. Clearly, we need to build on that in our preparations for moving forward with the Bill once it has received Royal Assent. We are planning a programme of awareness-raising, aimed at working with the relevant sectors that will be affected by the ban. The new regulator—the office of public safety and standards—will have a job of work to do to raise awareness and work through compliance issues. It will need to set out clearly what the provisions are and how to comply with them. Steps will be taken to address those issues.

The hon. Member for Bristol East made an interesting observation about certificates and registration. Unlike registration, the certificate will be valid for only a single change of ownership. Registration is very different from the certificate. That will mean that the compliance arrangements will be a lot clearer, because the person will have to re-register for each transaction. That is different from the “rare and most important” category.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I rise to speak to new clause 4. I want to express my concern about resources. What we heard in evidence this week gave me serious cause for concern. I was shocked that the CITES Border Force team at Heathrow has only 10 people and that the National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 people, given the existing scale of the problem, which I think was 1,000 seizures per year. They will have an awful lot of work to do when the Bill is in force.

This is not the place to make political points, but resources are critical to the Bill’s success and we all know the pressures there have been on police budgets in the current climate. It is therefore imperative that the relevant bodies have the resources they need to enforce this law, for it to have any value whatsoever.

[Sue Hayman]

New clause 4 would establish a record of any item’s provenance. Items to be exempted are, as we know, the most rare and most important of their kind. When such important items are sold, whether privately, individually or through an auction house for museums or galleries, their provenance would tend to move with them so that the purchaser has confidence that the item is genuine and knows who bought it before and where it has been stored or exhibited.

The idea is for the Secretary of State to make arrangements so that persons applying for an exemption certificate under clause 3 or registering an item under clause 10 could associate the item to which the application or registration relates with previous registrations or exemption certificates. Where an exemption certificate has previously been issued in respect of an item or an item has been previously registered and the Secretary of State is satisfied that that is the case, the exemption certificate would also record previous exemption certificates issued and registrations made in respect of that item. In particular, it would include relevant dates so that any certification or registration follows the item. The Minister has made it clear that registration is for the item, not the individual, so it makes sense for the history to move with the item as it goes through any future registrations or exemptions.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stressed the importance of ensuring that an item’s provenance can be guaranteed, and that is what the new clause tries to achieve. It would provide security for future owners, who would have full details of an item’s history in this area, as is normal for many items sold or within the art world. It would also helpfully flag up any replacement certification. It may also be helpful in trying to counteract any fraudulent behaviour regarding multiple replacement certificates. If those previous certifications followed the item, it would be very clear if there was a particular item for which a number of replacement certificates were being requested. I ask the Minister to consider the value the new clause could bring to future owners of the items we are talking about.

Ivory Bill (First sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

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

[Robert Courts]

Yes, clause 35(2) would clearly allow the Secretary of State to bring forward delegated legislation. Can I focus on one other thing you said? That is to include ivory from an animal or species not, for the time being, covered by that subsection. You mentioned non-ivory-bearing species. Did you mean non-elephant?

Will Travers: I am sorry; I meant non-elephant ivory. I have mentioned warthog. At the risk of upsetting people who are concerned about a very small amount of Aboriginal use of walrus, that is really important, but so is mammoth ivory. We should at least be aware of the volume of mammoth ivory in trade. Recall that this is in trade. I have the import figures for the United States. They keep a close record of all mammoth ivory in trade, and I will just give you three years. This is only mammoth ivory carvings—there are lots of different categories— but in 2013 there were 5,049 mammoth ivory carvings and 773 tusks. In 2014 there were 19,335 carvings and 338 tusks. In 2015 there were 7,822 ivory carvings and 120 tusks. That is a not inconsiderable amount of trade in an ivory product that, in marketplaces in the far east, is definitely a surrogate for modern elephant ivory.

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

Q I was very struck, David, by the points you made about organised criminality and how the trade is currently undermining communities and Governments. What the Bill will do for us in the UK is great, but how can we ensure that the measures we take here get right through to communities? How can we support them in transitioning away from dependence on poaching? How can we ensure that there is no adverse impact on some of those local communities? Is there anything missing from the Bill, in terms of obligations on our Government, that would enable us to help communities through that transition, to tackle that organised criminality on the ground and to ensure that some of the most deprived communities in the world are not damaged?

David Cowdrey: Those are all excellent points. The Bill will clearly close down markets in the UK. The more markets we close down, the more we deprive people of money and income. The price of raw ivory that was publicly for sale was $2,200 per kilo. After China introduced its ban, it went down to $1,100 and then down to $600. It is now about $450. There has been a massive devaluation in the price of raw ivory, making it a less viable option. Such things are incredibly useful.

With regard to help for communities, on Second Reading there was an interesting discussion in which Members talked about how some of the Department for International Development’s budget might be used. We have to consider a holistic approach. The communities are not isolated from poaching, and the impact of poaching on communities is not isolated from the illegal wildlife trade; they are joined up and hand in hand. There are good opportunities that exist with our overseas development budget to take a more integrated approach to delivering holistic aid and support and anti-poaching measures, to help build communities and tackle corruption.

The support with efforts through the DEFRA challenge fund grant, through DFID and the FCO’s interaction with other communities is also important. It needs to go hand in glove. This is a complex situation that you cannot just wave a wand or a Bill at. It is all part of a jigsaw that really helps, but our overseas aid is another part that we could potentially re-examine and look at, to provide better integrated aid.

Cath Lawson: The WWF would very much endorse that position. I do not think we need additions to the Bill, but we are supportive of wider conversations about looking at overseas aid for ecosystem-based funding, and looking at bigger-picture landscape approaches to some of the critical habitats where the illegal wildlife trade impacts on the survival of certain species.

Will Travers: I endorse everything that has just been said, and I totally understand that when it comes to spending the £13 billion or so a year in our DFID budget, in most cases we must be risk averse. However, for this sort of issue—I used this term before when I talked about it with Justine Greening three years ago—we need a sort of adventure capital fund. We need a modest amount of money with which we try innovative, new things on the ground or with partners, and try to deliver something that will change the game on the ground and speak to all the issues that have been raised, such as secure ecosystems, secure livelihoods, alternative livelihoods and food security at landscape level. Sitting right in the middle of that can be conservation. If the brief is whether we can make conservation work for communities and people, I think the answer is yes, but it needs not insignificant—although not huge—pump-priming to really get it going. That is where DFID, which is a completely different entity from the one we are talking about right now, could have a major role.

David Cowdrey: I agree about some of the technical developments and initiatives that the UK can take. I mentioned fingerprinting earlier, and across Africa most countries do not even have an electronic fingerprinting database. When we are dealing with international criminal syndicates and gangs, countries are not capturing the information, and they do not have the capability to share it with neighbouring countries. These are transnational crimes. We must consider how we can develop these countries in a way that provides practical enforcement and really helps them to develop.

We can help to defeat these international criminal syndicates, and simple investments that can be done through development grants or a challenge fund are really important. A national fingerprinting database for a country could cost as little as £60,000. Look at that as an investment and a way to help tackle corruption and crime, including not just wildlife crime but crime and terrorism. That has a massive impact across the world. In tackling the illegal wildlife trade, we must consider some of those simple enforcement measures that can make a game-changing difference on the ground for those countries.

[Mrs Latham]

Q You mentioned Hong Kong and the fact that China is implementing this measure quite strictly. You also mentioned mammoth. I understand that in Hong Kong ivory is being passed off as mammoth tusk. Obviously the mammoth are dead—we are never going to save the life of a mammoth—but should we consult on a ban on mammoth ivory as well as on those species that might become extinct as a result of not being included in the Bill? If in Hong Kong, or anywhere else, people can say, “It’s all right; this is a mammoth tusk,” and sell it, does that not create the loophole that those who want to make money are looking for?

Cath Lawson: It is certainly something that we would be comfortable with. I mentioned an amendment earlier. At the moment the Bill includes CITES-listed species, but mammoth, as an extinct species, are not a CITES-listed species and never will be. One option would be to remove that caveat in the existing legislation, but that could be part of a later consultation process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Latham]

So us doing something like that would set a further example to the world.

Alexander Rhodes: Without a doubt.

[Anna Turley]

Q Some of the concerns we discussed, particularly with the first panel of witnesses, were about consultation and timeframes. I appreciate your point about losing momentum. Given that the only time we took previous action on ivory was in 1989, nearly 30 years ago, who knows how long it will be before we get another ivory Bill through? These things do not come along very often, and it could be several years. Is there not an opportunity here and now to broaden the scope as the Bill goes through? If the only barrier is consultation delay, is there anything in the consultation that we undertook for the Bill that would not apply to the other species? In amendment 8 we talk about broadening the scope to elephants, killer whales, narwhals, sperm whales and walrus. Is there anything in our consultation or in its outcome that would not apply to the species referred to in the amendment, and that would result in the concept of closing the markets not being relevant?

Charlie Mayhew: I am certainly not an expert in parliamentary process and the legalities of this, but if there was a way of extending the reach of the Bill to include those species without delaying the process, and without there being a threat of judicial challenge from any area, then we would all love to see that happen. Perhaps the issue really is where that challenge would come from if you were to extend the Bill to the other species. Representatives from the antiques trade will be coming in later today, and although I am not an expert in the area of antiques, I am not sure that they would object to hippo or walrus being included, because I suspect that their interest is in antique elephant ivory. I might be wrong on that, but it would be worth investigating. The point here is that we do not want to see anything that delays the progress of the Bill. The international momentum on the issue is very real, and we do not want to do anything to slow the process down, not least because we are losing 55 elephants a day to this illegal activity.

[Simon Hoare]

Q I think a consensus is building between you and fellow witnesses, and indeed beyond the Bill Committee, about the desirability of extending the definition. I note your caveat about the importance of not delaying, given the pressing timetable of the October conference. My understanding is that clause 35(3), which sets out the statutory instruments process, could deal with that. Given a choice—I think the answer to this is yes—would you prefer the Bill to go through cleanly as printed and then to have an expeditious delivery of statutory instruments? My understanding is that the need to consult on the inclusion of species that have not been consulted on could lead to a judicial review, thereby delaying the passage of the Bill, its implantation and trying to achieve what we want. Is that broadly your understanding as well, or am I off-beam?

Charlie Mayhew: Yes, I think that is broadly right. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary, who has taken a very keen interest in the issue, are anxious to have the Bill on the statute book—or very close to being there—when they host the international leaders here for the conference. Otherwise, we would find ourselves in a potentially embarrassing situation in which China will have stolen a march on us—thankfully, actually. It would put us in a rather weak position as the host of the conference if we say that we have not got our own house in order prior to the conference.

That is the balancing act here. As I have said, I do not know whether legally you have to have a consultation period in order to expand the remit of the Bill, but after listening to what has been said, that might or might not be the case. As I said earlier, where would the challenge come from if you were to expand it? We need to find that out.

Alexander Rhodes: I agree with that position. However one expanded it, it is important to leave clause 35(3) in, in order to be able to add further species over time, if necessary, even if the initial list was expanded in the Bill itself.

Ivory Bill (Second sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

Q To come back to Lisa’s lines of questioning, the future of the National Wildlife Crime Unit is uncertain—it could close in March 2020. What would the implication be for the enforcement of the measures in the Bill as it stands if the funding were discontinued? What pressure would that put on Border Force and how would the police deal with the Bill?

Grant Miller: Our ability to take cases and offenders before the courts would be impacted on greatly. We would be pushed into going out to each constabulary, looking for a supportive senior manager to take on an investigation on our behalf. If we were not able to find that, our activity would be just to disrupt and seize, and the threat would just continue. We share intelligence—we are very much a data-driven organisation—to get our targets and to know where we are working. If we do not get that feedback, ultimately we will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

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

Q We have heard a lot today that this is an international crime that crosses many borders. How do you operate with police forces and other border organisations around the world? Will the Bill support you in doing that? How much of an impact will your lack of resource have on your ability to work with those throughout the market around the world?

Grant Miller: We work very closely with Interpol, the World Customs Organisation, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the CITES Secretariat. In October last year, I took the chair of the Interpol wildlife crime working group, a global executive that co-ordinates and provides advice to the Interpol environment directorate on our activity. We are very well connected.

I am delighted to say that during the London conference on 10 and 11 October, we will host the Interpol wildlife crime annual conference, from 8 to 12 October. It will probably bring together in the region of 90 countries, to work through a five-day workshop along with civil society and academia, to develop intersessional projects that Interpol can work on to tackle the illegal wildlife trade. We are well connected.

We deliver training on behalf of the World Customs Organisation, in Operation INAMA, which is an African-based operation that assesses an organisation’s capacity to enforce the controls against the illegal wildlife trade. Border Force contributed heavily to its design and it is now moving on to the fifth country where the assessments will be delivered. Last month, 90 countries took part in a global operation called Operation Thunderstorm. Its results are embargoed until 20 June, but I can share with you that ivory exports from the UK were targeted, and we had some great successes. Those investigations are still ongoing with the National Wildlife Crime Unit.

[Anna Turley]

Q Are you reliant on the ability of forces abroad to provide you with evidence so you can bring these offences to prosecution?

Chief Inspector Hubble: Our role is to collate intelligence for people who are living outside the UK, and to disseminate it through appropriate channels to relevant countries. The National Wildlife Crime Unit sits on a number of working groups with Europol and Interpol to target the illegal wildlife trade. Last month, I went out to Vienna to speak at a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime conference on how corruption facilitates the illegal wildlife trade. We work very closely with Border Force in delivering training in other countries to try to get that message across.

[The Chair]

Order. The microphones seem a little low today, and some colleagues are saying it is difficult to hear. May I encourage everybody to project and to articulate clearly? I am sure that will not be a problem for colleagues. A little louder, please.

[Anna Turley]

Q Apologies—I have my back to colleagues when I am facing this way. My final question is a very practical one. How many members of staff do you have in your teams, and how many cases have you taken through in the past year?

Grant Miller: Border Force has a team of 10, and last year was our best seizing year. It was not good for civil society. In excess of 1,000 seizures were delivered during the year, across all commodities.

Chief Inspector Hubble: I have a team of 12. I have four investigative support officers working on the ground, supporting police forces, two analysts, three intelligence officers, one indexer and an office manager. I do not have the figures to hand for how many investigations we have been involved in, but every seizure that comes from Border Force will come to us. We also work across six of the UK wildlife crime priority areas. CITES is one of those priority areas, but we have a significant remit outside CITES, looking at domestic wildlife. Bats, badgers, bird of prey persecution, freshwater pearl mussels and poaching all sit within UK strategic priorities at the moment, and our work is split between all those areas.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q I think people watching this at home will be utterly amazed that there are only 10 and 12 people in your organisations fighting this, given the huge impact you are having, and that the funding for such small organisations after 2020 is still in doubt. I want to ask a question about how you are going to work with the regulator on this, but an awful lot of people will be amazed at the work you do, so I want to thank you for that.

The Government have said that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be the responsible regulator. How do you see your respective organisations interacting with that new regulator in this respect?

Grant Miller: We would look to engage with it very early on. In the UK, we have a body called the CITES priority delivery group, which brings together all the actors involved in this, and we would certainly look to invite it to sit on that. The contribution it can make is through intelligence. If it identifies goods that may be imported or exported, it must get that intelligence to us to enable us to target better at the border. Having another organisation involved in the fight adds more strength. We are looking at developing our productive relationship with it.

Chief Inspector Hubble: We would be keen to establish protocols very early on. The Bill gives it the authority to inspect premises and apply for search warrants. We are keen to ensure its activities do not jeopardise ongoing enforcement operations, so it is key that we all link together to ensure that, if we are looking at the same people, we have a targeted, focused approach to dealing with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

Q This question is directed to the antiques sector and the music sector represented here. How many of the items that are sold go directly to the far east?

Mark Dodgson: We have looked at some of the figures from CITES; they have a database of exports of ivory. For example, in 2015 there were 1,200 CITES licences issued for items containing antique ivory going to China and Hong Kong.

Now, you need to bear in mind that the United Kingdom has—well, it was the second, and it is now possibly the third largest art and antiques market in the world. So, in the context of such a large entrepôt market and also in the context of so many cultural objects being repatriated to the Chinese—their ceramics obviously being the key one there—that number is actually not particularly surprising. I do not know specific figures for other countries.

Anthony Browne: What has happened generally in the art market in recent years is the rise of China as a major buyer for all sorts of works of art, so it is not particularly surprising that Chinese buying has had more of an impact in recent years than it had in the past. To some extent, it reflects that. It also reflects the fact that our history has meant that an awful lot of these objects that originated from China and Japan, and that came here, are finding their way back again.

Paul McManus: For our sector, it is practically negligible. I mean, we have nothing organised in collecting this to then sell it on anywhere. This is just individual musicians, as we said earlier, or the odd music shop here or there, but it is all sold within the UK—nearly all of it—because it is just a consumer-driven thing over here.

Emma Rutherford: For portrait miniatures, there is no market at all in the far east; there are no collectors there.

Mark Dodgson: Actually, that is quite an interesting point, because we find that there are a lot of western cultural items that contain ivory, or that are made entirely of ivory, that are of no interest to the Asian market. They are predominantly interested in their own cultural items.

[Anna Turley]

Q The Bill refers exclusively and specifically to elephant ivory. What would be the impact, if any, on any of your organisations or your processes if that definition were broadened to be elephant, killer whale, narwhal, sperm whale or walrus ivory? I will start with the antiques industry first, if I may.

Mark Dodgson: I think it is slightly difficult to give a quick answer to that one; we would probably want to speak internally about it. However, I have worked at the British Antique Dealers’ Association for more than 20 years, and my own experience is that I have not seen those materials—those items from those animals—incorporated in many objects. There is the concept of scrimshaw, but generally speaking—when I was watching the online broadcast of the earlier sessions, I heard someone suggest that ivory inlay from, I think, hippos was used in antiques. I have to say that in my experience, I have not come across that. I have asked a few people about that, and they are not aware of it.

Anthony Browne: I have nothing to add to that. No, I think I would concur with that. Ivory is the ubiquitous substance in the arts of the past, definitely, rather than these other substances.

Emma Rutherford: In portrait miniatures, it is elephant ivory and no other type.

Paul McManus: From our point of view, since synthetic materials came in, pianos have been coated with synthetic materials. The most another type of bone might be used for is repairing an old ivory key that had broken, but if that became banned—well, we would use something else.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Q May I address this, please, to Mark Dodgson and Anthony Browne? I think that some people have raised concerns about the fact that the accredited civilian officers in clause 17 are, at present, entitled to some quite swingeing powers to enter premises, search, check and all that sort of thing. Do you have any concerns about the scope and nature of those powers?

Anthony Browne: Yes, there are concerns, and I am glad you have mentioned this. The legal advice that was given to one of our members—I am very happy to make it available to the Committee—is that giving these powers to civilians is most unusual indeed, if not unprecedented, except where public safety considerations are in prospect.

The representative from the police who gave evidence earlier referred to their usefulness in making people aware of the legislation. We do not have an issue with that. The police and customs officers’ powers of entry, search and seizure are entirely in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so again, we have no issue at all with that. We do have very serious reservations about the powers of seizure and so on, both in clause 17 and in schedule 1. I am not a lawyer, so I am somewhat out of my depth if I get into a detailed conversation about this. However, we have a memorandum that I am very happy to submit for consideration, if the Chair would find it helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

Q Do you feel that the classifications are clear enough for there to be a unity of assessment?

Dr Boström: Absolutely. I think the basis from which we all begin is as one on criteria. There might be a difference of date—1540 or 1545, for example. Some scholars like to get into the details, but I think difference would be more on that basis than on the general principles that we would abide by.

Anthony Misquitta: The Waverley Committee decides on whether an item qualifies for an export licence. I am not aware of the extent to which they differ in their views when they consider whether to allow a licence, but I think their procedures are robust. I envisage that, whatever committee is chosen for the purposes of ivory, it would adopt a similar framework and governance to the Waverley Committee, which I understand is effective.

Dr Boström: It is very effective in its checks and balances and decision making by committee on the advice of an expert.

[Anna Turley]

Q I want to draw your attention to the exemption under items of high artistic, cultural or historical value in clause 2. Do you think that definition is robust enough? As experts, are you confident that you have the criteria for that definition, given that you may be asked to give advice to the Secretary of State on passing an exemption?

Dr Boström: Yes, I am. I believe that, as Anthony has outlined, it would be rather like the way we act as expert advisers to the export licence committee through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, based on the expertise we have among all the national museums. These export licences are shared across museums according to the expertise in place, so it would be absolutely directed to those experts in ivory—ivory carving or musical instruments—and the expert would pronounce on that. I have no doubt that the expertise would be in place.

Hartwig Fischer: Museums are responsible for collecting only what is really significant to deliver their mission, and we all have limited space. I think the criteria are robust and we can work with them because we have worked with them all along. It would be the ambition of any curator or museum person to get just what is really significant for the collection—that is to say for the public in the end, and for future generations to learn about the past.

[Liz Twist]

Q I want to ask about prescribed institutions. Is clause 2(5), on the use of prescribed institutions, tight enough as a definition? If not, would you suggest anything to tighten it?

Dr Boström: I would say that that ties in exactly with the way that the export licence procedures have prescribed institutions, experts and advisers. I imagine it would be largely along the same lines, so that seems perfectly reasonable.

Anthony Misquitta: As Antonia has mentioned, there needs to be a degree of flexibility in the definition, because depending on the nature of the object—musical instruments would be different from furniture—a different set of experts will be required. I would therefore welcome a degree of flexibility, and some guidance—I hesitate to say further secondary legislation—from DEFRA as to how the prescribed institutions shall be constituted on a case-by-case basis would definitely be helpful.

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

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I am sure that all Members here share my desire to see the highest possible standards of animal welfare in the UK. Indeed, as a dog owner myself, and someone who has pushed recently for changes in legislation on animal cruelty, this policy area is close to my heart, and I am glad of the opportunity to speak briefly on this topic today.

Every week, I receive letters and emails from constituents concerned about the welfare of animals. We are a country of animal lovers and the strength of feeling on this issue is huge. When cases of the mistreatment or abuse of defenceless animals come to light, they are emotive and shocking, and people are right to ask what can be done to prevent similar cases occurring in the future. These cases remind us that Parliament has a key role in keeping animals safe in England, and that will be true regardless of the outcomes of negotiations on leaving the European Union.

We must stay one step ahead of these abusive practices by looking at ways that we can raise standards. There is no room for complacency, and where there is evidence of wrongdoing occurring within the system, and there is scope to tighten legislation, then it must be addressed. Our understanding of the behaviour and needs of animals is constantly changing too, and it is good to see this instrument attempt to update regulations to reflect that. It shows that we must always have this issue on our minds, and we can always do better. I am pleased to see that this instrument has been brought forward after a successful public consultation and has taken into account quality, evidence-based submissions on how the current licensing arrangements can be improved. We have some of the best animal welfare charities in the world, and I am very proud of the work that Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and others have done to feed into this work.

I am satisfied that there are a number of sensible and timely reforms to the system within this instrument, and many measures that are non-controversial, and ought to be non-partisan. There are however some concerns. This instrument brings welcome new standards of good practice and addresses concerns around problem areas. I will wait to see the results before cheerleading, but it is welcome that the Government have made specific reference to the rise of online sales of pets, where there is a danger, as with all online activity, that regulation cannot keep up with fast-moving trends. There has been much work by animal welfare organisations and others through the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to improve the standards of animals advertised for sale via online websites. It is a positive step forward that this instrument will now enshrine that work in law, making it applicable to all licensed individuals wishing to sell their pets in this way, regardless of the platform that they use.

I would like to highlight a point mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax and for High Peak, which is that these regulations must not lead to overworked local authorities. The impact on public confidence in the licensing process and on the ability to deliver licensing will be severe. The current application process for licensing puts pressure on businesses and local authorities by limiting licences to a calendar-year framework. Therefore the introduction of licences issued for a fixed term, set at any point in the year, is an eminently sensible measure that will prevent a backlog of inspections and paperwork at the end of the year. Local authorities are already under strained financial pressure to deliver services as it is, and working to ease this pressure is an important part of making the system work.

I believe that the inclusion of an earned recognition principle into the licensing system is a good step to incentivising good behaviour, and can potentially alleviate burdens on local authority time. However, we must be careful that this is a measure to drive up standards, and is not used to circumvent proper inspections when local authorities are under particularly difficult time and financial constraints.

I will support this instrument, but I want to finish by asking the Government questions, some of which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has mentioned before. How can we be sure that local authorities are sufficiently ready for the implementation of these regulations before the 1 October deadline? What steps will the Government take to support local authorities struggling with the implementation? Has there been any consideration of setting up a national unit of inspectors that could alleviate the burden on local authorities, and also help to provide much-needed animal welfare standards expertise for inspections?

Animal Welfare

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention; she is an excellent Select Committee member. She makes the point about getting that link; when finding cruelty to animals we should make much more of a link to investigating what is happening in the home, to see whether there is much more going on than just the cruelty to the animal. We must open our eyes to what is happening. Most people look after animals very well, but of course those who do not can be incredibly cruel, and we need to tackle that.

I was surprised and disappointed that the Government rejected the recommendation for a higher maximum sentence of five years, and I again ask the Minister to go back to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to see whether we can get it increased, because six months is too low.

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

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has also had a conversation with the Government Whips, because on 24 February we considered the Second Reading of my Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill, which would have increased the sentencing period to five years, but unfortunately it was objected to by the Government Whips. I hope he is putting pressure on them as well.

[Neil Parish]

I certainly talk to Whips, but whether they listen is another matter, of course—although I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) listens to every word I say. The hon. Lady makes a serious point, however; it is not good to talk out such Bills, as there is a legitimate reason for increasing the sentence. If we took a straw poll of all MPs, irrespective of their party, I am sure the vast majority would agree that the sentencing is too low at present; we have to find a method of increasing that. I accept that the Government wanted to come back with some other ideas, and I would be very happy to listen to them, but the sentencing period must be much more than the current six months.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and all the EFRA Committee on securing this debate and on their excellent report. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to speak about increasing sentences for animal cruelty because, as I have already mentioned, my private Member’s Bill specifically addressed that issue. I was disappointed not to have a debate on Second Reading on 24 February and that the Conservative Whips objected to the Bill in the dying seconds. I will now make the speech that I would have made on Second Reading.

We in this place owe a change in the law to those that cannot speak, that cannot defend themselves and that suffer abuse, violence and cruelty by the hands that are meant to feed them, care for them, protect them and love them. I introduced my Bill on behalf of Baby the bulldog and Scamp the dog.

Baby the bulldog was held aloft by Andrew Frankish at the top of a flight of wooden stairs before he repeatedly threw her down them as he laughed. Baby’s neck was stamped on. She was thrown to the floor with force, over and over. Her small chest was jumped on with the full body weight of one of the Frankish brothers. The younger man said, “See if we can make it scream any more. We should throw it down the stairs by its ears,” before he picked her up against the wall, head-butted her twice and then threw her down the stairs again.

Baby was tortured and beaten by those who were supposed to care for her. The whole horrible ordeal seemed to be for the brothers’ entertainment—for fun—as they filmed themselves laughing on a mobile phone. Baby should not have had to suffer such horrific abuse, but she did and was put down shortly afterwards.

When the evidence was found, by chance, two years later on a mobile phone card dropped on a supermarket floor, we might have expected Baby finally to have justice. Thanks to the hard work of the police, the RSPCA and all those who gave evidence, the brothers were convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to her under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but she was let down once again by the law. The two brothers received a suspended sentence, six months’ tagged curfew and £300 in costs. No one can feel that the justice system did its job that day.

On researching how the two brothers could have received such an impossibly lenient sentence for a vicious and premeditated assault, I was astonished to find that the maximum sentence for any form of animal abuse is just six months’ custody. Incredibly, the maximum sentence has not changed since the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which was essentially introduced to make it an offence to overload or override animals pulling loads on the street or in pits. The law is lagging a century behind.

Under the last Labour Government, the issue was meant to be addressed by the 2006 Act, which made provision to increase sentencing to imprisonment of up to 51 weeks but, incredibly, the provision was never enacted, so people can inflict any degree of cruelty on animals and still receive a maximum of only six months’ imprisonment. The public rightly find that hard to understand or accept as appropriate.

After the incident of the Frankish brothers came to my attention, I decided to try to amend the law to ensure that sentences fit the crime in such cases and was pleased to present my Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill. But during the progress of that Bill, there was another horrific incident in my constituency that has made the case for a change in the law even more pressing. A small dog named Scamp was found buried alive in woods near Redcar on 19 October, with a nail hammered into its head.

On 22 February, 59-year-old Michael Heathcock and 60-year-old Richard Finch, both from Redcar, pleaded guilty to offences under the 2006 Act, but they were sentenced to just four months. They will probably serve just eight weeks in prison, which is not enough time for reflection, punishment or rehabilitation.

The people of my constituency have been horrified by those cases, and it is important that I pay tribute to their response. After hearing of the Frankish brothers incident and that of Scamp, they held vigils for the animals, with hundreds of people coming to lay flowers and light candles. They sent their message loudly and defiantly. There are also plans to build a dog park to the animals’ memory.

The perpetrators do not represent our community. People in Redcar are decent and kind. I know many passionate animal lovers, and I meet wonderful dog owners as I walk my dog on the beach or in the Eston hills. But my constituents are angry. They feel that the criminal justice system is letting them down, which is why I am speaking here today.

On researching my Bill, I was shocked by the number of horrific cases I came across. I read of a dismembered cat left on a war memorial, of 20 ducks strangled with cable around their necks, of boiling liquid poured on a puppy and of a mutilated Shetland pony. Surrey police recently instituted Operation Takahe to try to find the person believed to be behind the theft and mutilation of more than 200 cats. The list of horrific attacks goes on and on.

The RSPCA receives and investigates thousands of complaints about cruelty to animals each year. It received 143,000 complaints in 2015, and 1,781 people were successfully prosecuted, yet only one in 10 convictions presently results in a prison sentence. We do not treat such crimes with the weight they warrant. I urge those who think that the crime of abusing defenceless animals is worth less serious attention than the abuse of people to look at the evidence, predominantly from the United States, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned earlier. The evidence reveals a startling propensity for offenders charged with crimes against animals to commit other violent offences against human victims. It finds that pet abuse is concurrent in 88% of families under supervision for the physical abuse of their children.

In the UK, a new academic study—the first of its kind in Europe—by researchers at Teesside University has also identified a link between animal abuse and domestic violence. The study of young people in eastern Europe found that violence breeds violence. Adolescent males who have experienced domestic violence either show displaced aggression against animals or progress to committing violence against family members. Because abusers target the powerless and lack the ability to feel empathy with their victims, crimes against animals, spouses, children and the elderly often go hand in hand. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home. Like their parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the only individual more vulnerable than they are: an animal.

The findings point towards a worrying cycle of abuse in society if violence is not addressed or properly challenged, and increased sentencing is just one tool we need to break that cycle.

We would be forgiven for thinking that, as a nation of animal lovers, we should expect to be leading the way on these issues, but I am afraid to say that we are in fact lagging behind many other countries. The Northern Ireland Assembly recently increased the maximum penalty from two years to five years, and it should also be noted that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where more serious animal welfare offences can be tried in a Crown court. The Scottish Government recently committed to reviewing penalties under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. If we look around the world, we see that the maximum penalty for animal cruelty in Australia is five years, and in Germany it is three years. A maximum of six months here in England and Wales, decided by a magistrates court rather than a Crown court, seems derisory.

Such woefully inadequate sentences must be addressed if the punishments are to fit the cruelty inflicted on animals. My Bill sought to increase the custodial sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years, and if we are to continue declaring ourselves a nation of animal lovers, it is about time we showed it by sending out the message that we take animal cruelty seriously.

I wish to thank the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the League Against Cruel Sports for their support for Bill. I also wish to thank my community in Redcar and Teesside, who have shown their compassion and their love for animals in the way they have responded to these terrible acts and in their support for my efforts to change the law. I also pay tribute to the EFRA Committee for its work on this and on today’s debate.

Finally, I want to say a word about Baby the bulldog and the dog named Scamp, because it is in their name that I seek to change the law. We will probably never know the full cruelty and torture these silent and defenceless animals endured. We can only begin to imagine the pain they experienced and the fear they felt. We cannot undo the suffering done to them, but we can show one another that this kind of cruelty has no place in our communities and that such depraved behaviour will face the punishment that it deserves. I welcome today’s debate and urge the Government to put right the injustice by changing the law on animal cruelty sentencing.