Food Labelling
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that response and echo him in sending our deepest condolences to the friends and family of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse and Celia Marsh, who both died tragically following fatal allergic reactions.
In Natasha’s case, she had been reassured that the baguette she had purchased was safe for her to eat by the lack of specific allergen information on the packaging. Unbeknown to her, it contained sesame, to which she was allergic. Celia Marsh died after consuming food labelled as dairy-free which was found to contain dairy protein.
As these cases demonstrate, it is imperative that food labelling is both accurate and complete. At present, however, UK food regulations relating to allergen information appear to be seriously lacking, resulting in entirely avoidable deaths. It is clear that we need urgent change to the current legislation.
As the Minister explained, under the current rules, foods packaged on-site before sale do not require a specific allergen label attached. Natasha’s parents have been campaigning to change food labelling laws, which they describe as having played “Russian roulette” with their daughter’s life. Will the Minister commit to amending the regulations to require all produce to be individually labelled with allergen and ingredient information, and will he ensure that such information is meaningful? It is not enough to have a default warning placed on all products, such as the unhelpful “may contain nuts” warning, which appears to be more about protecting businesses from liability than assisting the consumer to make an informed assessment of whether an item is safe for them to consume. This is a public health issue which should have the protection of the welfare and lives of allergy sufferers at its heart.
Finally, I should also be grateful if the Minister could clarify the responsibility of suppliers involved in the manufacture and preparation of food in relation to allergy labelling. Celia Marsh died after consuming guaranteed dairy-free flatbread at Pret A Manger. Although the inquest has not yet been held, I am aware that CoYo, which manufactures the dairy-free coconut yoghurt used in the flatbread prepared by Pret, disputes that its produce was contaminated.
There is a danger of blame being passed up and down the line here, which raises important questions about checks in the supply chain. Can the Minister make clear who is ultimately responsible for the content and accuracy of labelling in such cases, where a number of suppliers and subcontractors are involved? I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I echo a great deal of what the noble Baroness said. The urgency of this is imperative. The Secretary of State has been in touch with Natasha’s parents. Obviously, we want to ensure that what happened to Natasha, and her parents, wider family and loved ones, does not happen again. That is why the review will be urgent. We will be working closely with the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Health and Social Care and, as I said in the Statement, we will be communicating with the devolved Administrations tomorrow. We will look at the coroner’s report in Natasha’s case, which was received this morning. I should say that in the case of Celia Marsh, as the noble Baroness alluded to, not only is the coroner’s investigation in process but there is a legal dispute between Pret A Manger and CoYo. In those circumstances, I should not want to go any further on that case.
I assure your Lordships that, whether it is suppliers or retailers, the importance of this, as the noble Baroness outlined, is that it is a public health matter. People in this country, particularly those with allergies, should have the right information to know whether something is safe for them to eat. The FSA has campaigned on this over a considerable period. It is not only about raising awareness and issuing guidance for businesses but raising awareness among people with allergies that they must ask—because, as I said, the requirement is that all shops should be in a position to advise the consumer by signs and verbally. I assure your Lordships that we shall look at this with rigour and urgency.
Ivory Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsWednesday 12th September 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (10 Sep 2018)
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 36 would remove the defence of ignorance for those found to be in breach of the Act. At Second Reading numerous concerns were raised about how unsuspecting members of the public could accidentally flout the ivory ban. There was much discussion about selling an item found in grandma’s attic or at a car boot sale that, unbeknown to them, contained ivory. Of course some of this challenge comes down to publicity and communication. As with all new legislation, there is a need to make the public aware of their new responsibilities, and indeed progress has already been made. As we discussed, the consultation received a record number of responses, which is indicative of public and industry awareness. This will undoubtedly grow when the UK hosts the international Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference, at which the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he intends to highlight this flagship legislation. So really everyone should know the situation regarding the sale of goods containing ivory and understand that it has changed. Meanwhile the National Wildlife Crime Unit will have to focus its scarce resources very carefully. It simply will not have the staff to visit car boot sales on the off-chance of a transgression. As the unit itself has made clear, it will,
“deal with the ones who have a complete disregard for policy protocol legislation … who are deceptive, who lie and who want to make money out of this”.
While we understand the principle behind this subsection, we believe that genuine accidental transgressions of this type can be dealt with lightly through an enforcement undertaking with no monetary penalty, and that this provision is therefore unnecessary. We are concerned that unscrupulous traders could exploit this loophole so that they could continue to deal in ivory with impunity, only to feign ignorance if they are caught. We know that new elephant ivory is offered for sale and is often mislabelled as antique ivory, ivory from other species or other material altogether, such as bone. In some instances this may have been due to genuine unawareness, although deliberately mislabelling it is a well-known tactic in the illegal ivory trade. For the ban to be effective, it is imperative that any exemptions are narrowly defined and that breaches can and will be enforced. That is why we believe the defence of ignorance would undermine the intention and effectiveness of the Bill. I hope noble Lords understand the point that I am making and will support this view. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate my declaration of interest as chairman of LAPADA, the art and antiques dealers’ trade association. We have worked closely with BADA, the other major trade association.
On the face of it, Clause 12(2) provides protection against prosecution for those people who are not aware that the item they are handling contains elements of ivory. That they may be prosecuted only if it can be shown that they knew or suspected, or ought to have known or suspected, that an item was made from ivory appears to me to be reasonable. I suppose that I could see that the interaction between this subsection and Clause 35(4) could cause confusion and potentially prove unjust. As I understand it, Clause 35(4) means there is the presumption that, if a material can be proved to be ivory of any animal, it can be assumed to be the ivory of an elephant unless proved otherwise. If one takes the case of someone who genuinely believes an item to be made from the ivory of another species and not from elephant ivory, I am not sure whether they would receive the protection of Clause 12 because it does not refer specifically to elephant ivory. I wonder whether the Minister can shed any light on this point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would mean that persons could not use a defence that they did not know or suspect, or ought to know or suspect, the item was ivory. I should therefore explain why this provision was included and how it would be applied.
This provision has been included to help tackle the problem of illegal ivory items being deliberately mislabelled as another substance, such as bovine bone. It is also to protect those who fall victim of mislabelling of ivory and who, and I underline this, genuinely did not know that the item they were buying contained ivory. The purpose of the Bill is not to penalise or criminalise unnecessarily people who have made a genuine mistake. This provision also allows the police, enforcement bodies and courts to use their professional discretion when considering the most appropriate approach to deploy for individual defendants.
The issue of labelling ivory as another substance when it is sold is a common one. Illegal ivory items are often deliberately mislabelled as another substance, such as bovine bone, in order to evade existing restrictions on ivory sales. For this reason, the Bill ensures it is an offence to deal in ivory where that person knew or suspected, or ought to have known or suspected, that it was ivory. In practice, this means that, where it is clear that a person is deliberately mislabelling ivory as some other substance in order to attempt to circumvent this ban, this will be an offence. Likewise, anyone buying items of mislabelled ivory who could reasonably be expected to know it is elephant ivory will also be liable.
The enforcement bodies and courts will consider the position of the person when taking a view as to whether they should have known or suspected the item was ivory; for instance, if the person is an antiques dealer or a member of the public. They may also, for example, take into account if it is a repeat offence or if the seller deliberately mislabelled the item and then provided other information to indicate more discreetly to potential buyers that the item was in fact ivory. For example, sellers have been known to include close-up photographs in order to show the tell-tale lines or crosshatching, which are characteristic of ivory.
I will need to reflect on what on my noble friend Lord De Mauley said, but the Bill at this moment relates to elephant ivory. We will come on to further amendments that relate to the ability of this legislation potentially to extend to other species. For the moment, the Bill is dealing with elephant ivory.
Clause 12(2) is phrased to capture some instances of genuine mislabelling, where there was no intention to breach the ban and where the person could not reasonably be expected to know the item was ivory. This element of the Bill is designed to protect such people, who may be buyers, sellers or those facilitating a sale or purchase and whose prosecution I think your Lordships would accept is not what we are seeking in this legislation. I hope for those reasons the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I think that we want to achieve the same thing here. It is a question of whether the existing wording achieves what the Minister has outlined. We do not want to penalise or take to court any innocent person who is trapped in this way. That is not our intention and clearly it is not the Government’s intention. However, I do not know how you can prove that someone genuinely did not know that something had ivory in it. I have a feeling that we are trying to prove a negative here, which in terms of enforcement will be quite difficult.
Therefore, we are in the game of asking how you prove that somebody ought to know and how you prove that somebody could not possibly have known. It is quite unusual to have a get-out clause in a Bill that says, “If you didn’t know about it, we’ll let you off”. With most legislation—it might be banning smoking in cars—it is not normally a defence to say, “I didn’t know”. Equally, I find it odd that the Bill is introducing a situation where someone can say, “I didn’t know, so maybe I should be let off on this occasion”.
I think that we want to achieve the same thing; I just do not feel that the wording here delivers what the Minister is trying to get at, and I would like to reflect a little more on his response. I hope that, in return, he will listen to what I am saying because, as I said, I am not sure that this wording delivers his exact intent. Maybe there is another way through this but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment concerning the discrepancy between the maximum term of imprisonment for breaching the prohibition in Northern Ireland compared to England and Wales, and Scotland.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, this is very brief probing amendment. It concerns the discrepancy between the maximum term of imprisonment for breaching the prohibition in Northern Ireland compared to England, Wales and Scotland.
The Bill states that the criminal sanction for breaching the legislation in Scotland, England and Wales is 12 months’ imprisonment, whereas it is just six months in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that this discrepancy reflects the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a single legal system? Is the law somehow different in Northern Ireland or is this simply a drafting error? On the face of it, the current wording does not seem fair or logical. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on this probing amendment. Although I accept and respect that it is for the devolved Administrations to set their own penalties, we must keep in mind the difficulties that this will cause. As we all know, the devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland have broken down and there appears to be little prospect of them resuming in the near future. This would leave a situation where the penalties in one part of the UK were lighter than in the rest.
Those seeking to circumnavigate the law and benefit from the proceeds of trading ivory might be prepared to risk a six-month imprisonment term instead of 12 months. These are, after all, hardened criminals. It would be extremely unfortunate if the trafficking in illegal ivory and ivory products were shifted to Northern Ireland because the penalties there were more lenient. I respect completely what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, and I am sure that the Minister will give clarification—but I wonder whether the Government and the Secretary of State might consider having uniformity of sentencing across the UK.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to increase the maximum prison term for breaching the prohibition in Northern Ireland. As a result of the devolution settlement, Northern Ireland has the power to adopt practices concerning criminal justice that are different from those in England and Wales. The sentence that would apply in Northern Ireland is up to six months and is set out in the laws applying to that nation.
In England and Wales, Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which would increase the maximum sentence available on summary conviction from six months to 12 months, has not been commenced. This means that currently the maximum sentence available in England and Wales on summary conviction is six months. Therefore, the two are in alignment and thus the penalties are the same across the UK. Should the relevant section be commenced for England and Wales, the maximum available prison sentence would increase to 12 months—the Bill provides for that—and the two would no longer be in alignment. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. We were just trying to establish the facts of the case, and she has clearly set them out. Obviously we will respect the devolution package and we certainly do not want to force something on Northern Ireland where it thinks it has some control of its own in these matters. I am grateful for that clarification and need not say anything more on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I, too, have signed to give notice of opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill. I endorse the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with whom I agree totally. Like him, I have no problems with what the Bill seeks to achieve; the principle is wholly worthy. Indeed, I have no problem with other parts of the Bill either. My concern is with this clause. I do not see why it cannot be excised from the Bill leaving the other parts in place.
Given the clauses that precede and succeed it, I do not see why this clause is necessary. It confers a particular power on civilian officers and civil servants in a way that is remarkable. The Explanatory Notes seek to claim that the powers conferred in the clause are not unusual, but they cite only one example as a means of doing that. One example is not sufficient to demonstrate that this is “not unusual”. It strikes me that these are remarkable powers in themselves, which means that there would have to be a compelling case for this House to go along with them.
There is already a problem with the actual powers, therefore, but then, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, we have to look at what they are designed to achieve. Subsection (2)(a) is free-standing. It confers on civil servants the power to enter purely for the purpose, as the noble and learned Lord put it, of giving a pep talk. I would be rather amazed if even police officers wanted the power to come in and simply give one a pep talk, so to confer that power on civil servants strikes me as remarkable. It is not linked to the enforcement powers; it is simply to go in and, effectively, to seek to educate people about the provisions of the Bill.
Therefore, the power of entry is remarkable but so is what it is used for. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there are provisions in any other Acts that confer on officials powers of this sort to go in and simply remonstrate or give a pep talk to those whom they feel need to be educated. I am at a loss to understand why the clause is in the Bill, given the other provisions that it contains.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we very much welcome the interventions by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, members of the Constitution Committee and other noble Lords who have raised concerns about the status and powers of accredited civilian officers. The noble and learned Lord has done a fantastic demolition job on the provisions in the existing clause. I also welcome his overall support for the objectives of the Bill, which are indeed very welcome.
While we have argued throughout that there need to be robust enforcement mechanisms in the Bill, we equally accept that the creation of a new breed of civilian enforcers, with the widespread powers envisaged in the Bill, goes far too far. We would have hoped that providing extra resources for the National Wildlife Crime Unit would provide a more acceptable alternative to the challenge of effective enforcement.
I do not intend to say a great deal because I know that the Minister is keen to find a way to resolve these concerns. I hope that he is able to reassure us that the Government will be tabling their own amendments to bring enforcement back in line with the practice of legal enforcement using comparative situations. I therefore look forward to hearing his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Constitution Committee for publishing its valuable report, which raised some important points regarding the powers conferred by the Bill on accredited civilian officers. I place on record that I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for meeting me and officials so that we could discuss and, in turn, reflect on the concerns that he and the committee expressed. I am also mindful of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack.
The issue of enforcement is critical and I am sure that the Committee would agree that it is paramount that the enforcement of the ivory ban must be both proportionate and robust. As noble Lords will be aware, when I refer to accredited civilian officers, I am referring to the officers of the regulator, which will be the Office for Product Safety and Standards. OPSS is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It is an experienced enforcement body that currently enforces a range of regulations on behalf of the Government, including regulations on timber, biodiversity, waste and chemicals, and carbon reduction. For example, OPSS ensures that timber traders are complying with the regulations to ensure that their products are made from legally sourced timber.
OPSS also has experience of co-working with the police, the National Wildlife Crime Unit and Border Force, which will also play a critical role in the enforcement of the ivory ban so that we make sure that the enforcement is effective and that all parties are clear on their role and remit. For all those reasons it was considered to be the most appropriate regulator.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 52, 54, 56, 57 and 58 in this group. Many antiques, regardless of the materials used in their construction, can be fragile and need to be handled with care. For example, ivory is sometimes incorporated into bronze sculptures. To the uninitiated, bronze may seem a strong material, capable of withstanding a gentle knock or two. However, one important feature of bronze sculptures is the patina of their surface. Application of a sticky label in the wrong way or allowing a metal watchstrap to rub against the surface could damage it, destroying the sculpture’s integrity and thus reducing its value. Antique dealers spend a fortune purchasing professional packing services when moving or shipping antiques and the handling of antiques is a specialist skill in its own right.
A badly informed officer, believing that he is seizing an ivory item that breaches the provisions of the Bill, may treat the item casually, even before it has been properly assessed by someone with knowledge and understanding of antiques. Ivory in particular can be brittle and will not take kindly to rough handling. What we need to avoid is antiques being seized, subsequently found to be compliant and then returned damaged to their owners. This amendment is intended to place an obligation on officers to take extra care when handling the antiques that they have seized.
On Amendments 52 and 54, as drafted Clause 29 allows not just the Secretary of State but also police officers and accredited civilian officers to decide the fate of cultural property that has been seized. The factors that need to be considered in disposing of a cultural artefact differ greatly from those that apply to endangered species that do not also possess cultural and historical attributes. A seized item may well be an object of cultural significance that a museum may wish to acquire and, consequently, a decision about its future should involve the input of people possessing specialist knowledge of objects of the same type. This is knowledge that police officers and accredited civilian officers will not have. For this reason, the amendments would limit the decision about the fate of seized objects to the Secretary of State alone and require him or her to take the advice of someone who is able to provide specialist advice, such as a museum curator or art market professional.
I turn finally to Amendments 56, 57 and 58. The aim of amending Clause 31 is similar to that of amending Clause 29. In this case, it concerns the people who are granted the power to decide the fate of previously seized objects where the person entitled to the object cannot be traced. At present this power is granted to a police or customs officer, as well as the Secretary of State. For the reasons that I referred to on Clause 29, the decision should be limited to the Secretary of State alone and be taken on the advice of someone familiar with the type of ivory object whose return has been attempted. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I will make just a few brief comments in response to the noble Lord’s amendments, which seem in the main unnecessary. First, it is self-evident that the officers would take care to avoid damaging seized items. This would apply equally to the process of seizing other high-value goods including stolen artworks, with which they would be familiar. I am not convinced that the need for that level of care needs to spelled out in the Bill, given they have that specialist training.
Secondly, we have already addressed the concern about the role of accredited civilian officers, but it does not seem practical or sensible that the only person able to determine how a piece should be disposed of should be the Secretary of State. Thirdly, as we discussed earlier, we would expect a decision to dispose of an item to be taken with guidance from individuals with clear expertise in this area. Again, we are not convinced this needs to be in the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s undertaking on how these disposals will work in practice and hope that he will be able to reassure his noble friend that these amendments are not necessary.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the first amendment in this group would require police and customs officers to take account of an item’s physical nature and exercise reasonable care when searching premises under the powers in the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that officers must always have regard to their surroundings and the objects therein when conducting a search and should not wilfully damage anything. Police and customs officers have vast experience of conducting searches in many different types of premises and for a wide range of items—valuable, delicate, dangerous or otherwise. I therefore do not think it necessary to include wording to that effect in the Bill. Indeed, it may be counterproductive. For example, if it is omitted from other Bills in future involving similarly delicate items, will it be assumed that care is not needed in those cases?
The other amendments in this group remove the discretion from police and customs officers to dispose of seized or forfeited items and instead require the Secretary of State to consult an expert in ivory items before making decisions on the disposal of such items. Police forces have well-established processes for dealing with seized property of all types. In the first instance, owners have the opportunity to appeal against a seizure and therefore the item may be returned. But if the seized item cannot be returned to the original owner, there are well-established methods for its disposal.
There are many possible uses for seized items containing ivory that cannot be returned to the original owner. For example, they may be used for educational, training and research purposes, when it is in the public interest to do so. Ivory items seized by police and customs officers in recent years have been used for training officers in the identification of ivory products or donated to accredited museums or to conservation bodies for awareness raising. Zoos, for example, might display examples of illegal wildlife trade products made from endangered species.
I hope that this explanation will be sufficient to satisfy my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
“Whereas the 1989 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreed to ban the international trade in African elephant ivory; and the resolution adopted at the 2016 Conference of Parties to CITES agreed to phase out domestic ivory markets which contributed to poaching or illegal trade in ivory:
And whereas it is expedient to give effect in the United Kingdom to the restrictions on domestic trade:”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a Preamble linking the Bill to the resolution adopted unanimously by governments at the 2016 Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which called on all governments to close domestic ivory markets which contribute to poaching or illegal trade in ivory.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, this amendment would insert a preamble linking the Bill to the resolution adopted unanimously by Governments at the 2016 Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES. This called on all Governments to close domestic ivory markets which contribute to the poaching of, or illegal trade in, ivory.
Unfortunately, the government amendment introduced on Report in another place had the accidental consequence of removing the only explicit link between this Bill and CITES. There is now nothing in the Bill to make it clear that this legislation was drafted partly in response to the resolution adopted unanimously at the 2016 Conference of the Parties to CITES.
An amendment of this type was specifically requested by the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation and the Born Free Foundation, which shared our concern that the link to the conference commitment had been deleted. We believe that such a preamble would strengthen the Act against possible judicial and equalities challenges by confirming that the legislation enables the UK to comply with international obligations to control domestic ivory markets under a UN-backed treaty. There are already precedents for this, notably in the original legislation to implement CITES in the UK—the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976—so this amendment would protect the Government’s resolve to comply with international treaties and strengthen their legal defence. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will see the sense of the amendment and feel able to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s amendment would insert a preamble at the beginning of the Bill to draw a link between the provisions in the Bill and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
The United Kingdom is a party to CITES in its own right and will continue to be bound by and committed to its obligations under this important convention. Indeed, the UK is a very active participant in CITES. At the last CITES Conference of the Parties in 2016, the UK played a major role in achieving strong outcomes for endangered species, which will help ensure their survival in the wild. The UK ivory ban is consistent with both CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. Under the withdrawal Act, these regulations will become part of UK domestic law. The UK ivory ban goes further than CITES and the EU in restricting commercial dealing in ivory.
Clause 35, which deals with the definition of ivory, previously referred to CITES for a specific reason—in order to limit the future application of the Bill to CITES-listed ivory-bearing species. As I alluded to in the previous group, the amendment made in the other place made it possible to broaden the scope of the Bill in the future to all ivory-bearing species, thus removing the need for a reference to CITES. No other provision in the Bill could be limited by a reference to CITES.
The Ivory Bill will apply alongside our existing obligations under CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, and therefore there is no need to reference CITES or indeed the regulations in the Bill. As is customary, the Long Title of the Bill outlines the matters covered by it. As I said, we are acknowledged as one of the strongest participants in CITES but, given the amendment introduced in the other place, we do not think that CITES requires to be cited in this Bill. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that explanation. The purpose of the amendment was to strengthen our hand in the Bill so as to avoid legal challenges that might otherwise have been made. In seeking to insert this preamble, I do not think that it was ever our intention to restrict what the Bill could achieve in terms of broadening out beyond CITES-specified endangered species. Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says. I will again reflect on his views and his response, and I will take some soundings from those who have encouraged us to put forward this amendment. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Ivory Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsMonday 10th September 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (10 Sep 2018)
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, expressed, and of course we wish him a speedy recovery.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I have listened very carefully to his arguments, but he will not be surprised to hear that, on this amendment, we really cannot support the position that he has put forward. I think that, on this issue, he has his priorities wrong because this is a debate about where our energies and our loyalties should lie. I think that the whole emphasis, the reason that we had the consultation and have this Bill before us today, is that it was felt that the previous legislation was not working and therefore more stringent steps needed to be taken to stop the trade as concerns elephants.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord is saying, but I do not see that he is doing anything to help stop that trade. If anything, he is making the situation worse.
Lord Cormack
Can the noble Baroness give one single piece of evidence where the sale of a genuine piece of antique ivory has created the problems to which she alludes?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
The noble Lord will know that that is not the issue. The issue has always been that the market is flooded with some legitimate pieces and some illegitimate pieces, and the market has not been able to distinguish between the two. This is why we have to restrict the sale of goods more stringently than we have done. That is the issue. If we introduced his date of 1918 rather than 1947, we would be back to square 1 because everyone would suddenly reclassify their ivory as being pre-1918. We would be in the same ball game of trying to distinguish between what was legitimate and what was illegitimate. The problem is of being able to date what comes on to the market effectively. The legislation as it stands has had a problem with that, which is why we are taking these further steps, so we are having a debate at cross purposes. I am trying to do something that protects elephants. The noble Lord is trying to protect inanimate objects. I think that, at the end of the day, the elephants win that argument. They are a higher priority. That was the view of the vast majority of people who responded to the consultation. I will not rehearse all those arguments; we argued them through in the Second Reading. He will know that there was a huge response to the Government’s consultation, and the vast majority of people supported tighter restrictions because they could see that, without those, elephants are being hunted down and massacred to extinction. Nothing that he is saying today is going to stop that.
Lord Cormack
I have the figures here. Of the people who responded to the consultation exercise—and incidentally, 35,000 were identical emails—99% were from three organisations dedicated to the preserving of elephants. We all agree with the elephants’ being preserved, but you do not need to ban the sale of genuine antique items to preserve genuine living elephants.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, that is not the issue. The problem is that we simply do not have the resources to go around carbon-dating every single piece of ivory on the market. That is why we have to find some way of restricting it. If not, people will put their own classification on the ivory; sometimes it will be correct and sometimes it will be incorrect. We do not have the wherewithal or the facilities to manage that effectively. That is why the Bill is before us today: it gives us a structure for managing what ivory is coming on to the market and a more authenticated version of whether it is legitimate.
I take issue also with what the noble Lord said about the consultation. Around the Chamber, there are noble Lords who represent a number of the elephant charities whose members care passionately about the issue, but if we were to ask anybody in the street what they thought the priorities were, I think that the vast majority would say that they cared more about the elephants than the issues that he is raising today. That is the reality; the noble Lord has a very niche view of it, but I think that most people care more about seeing elephants and other animals living at peace in the wild.
The issue is not whether people own ivory. The noble Lord put great emphasis on sequestration and confiscation, but that is not what this Bill is about; it is about the buying and selling of ivory. People can own all the lovely pieces that he was talking about; they can pass it down through the family, but it is only when they want to buy or sell it that it becomes an issue. The Bill does not stop people valuing, loving and caring for family heirlooms. It is only the commercial market that is under question.
There are very good reasons for our trying to put in the Bill tightly worded exemptions—we shall talk about those shortly. The restrictions have to be extremely tight and the rarest and most precious items have to be recognised and distinguished. Not all items produced prior to 1918 are beautiful or valuable. There would be that cut-off date, but to allow all ivory unrestricted circulation in an unrestricted market would skew the market and undermine the wider intent of the Bill. The very existence of such markets would encourage fraud in a similar way to that which made the 1947 date unworkable. With a free flow of pre-1918 ivory, I think that everybody would start to reclassify ivory and the whole date would become blurred.
I am summarising—I am sure that Minister will do it better than me. We had a huge debate on this at Second Reading. I did not persuade the noble Lord; he did not persuade me, and I think that we will carry on the debate as the Committee proceeds. At the end of the day, it is about priorities. As far as I am concerned, the priority is the elephants living in the wild. On this issue, the noble Lord has his priorities wrong.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, due to illness in the family, my noble friend Lady Bakewell is not present for this part of Committee, although I believe that she will be along later. In her absence, I want to intervene briefly in support of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has started off Committee in fine, eloquent style, but the phrase “coach and horses” springs to mind as a result of what he had to say. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the kind of amendment that the noble Lord is putting forward would serve only to introduce further ambiguity and uncertainty into a Bill which has been designed to make sure that we do not have the ambiguities and uncertainties of the current legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had it absolutely right: the difficulties in identifying the difference between pre-1947 and pre-1918 ivory are rife. John Betjeman disapproved strongly of fish knives—
Lord De Mauley
As noble Lords have heard, despite a ban on international trade in ivory, tens of thousands of elephants are killed each year for their tusks. It is a tragedy and every respected antique dealer would wholeheartedly agree that everything possible must be done to bear down on it. Having in an earlier phase of my life been the Minister responsible for the UK’s efforts to bear down on illegal wildlife trafficking, I now find myself as chairman of LAPADA, the art and antique dealers’ trade association and, as such, declare an interest. Although my remarks represent my own views, they are informed by what I have learned in that capacity, as well as that of a former Minister.
As with countless other businesses today, antiques are marketed and promoted online and professional antique dealers increasingly use the internet to sell antiques and works of art. Amendment 4 would be extremely unfair on some who may deal with exempt ivory. Furthermore, it is not necessary to give effect to the Bill. In addition, to underline the fact that it is unnecessary, I point out the inconsistency of exempting musical instruments from these restrictions. I take it that anyone advertising an item online who has been granted an exemption certificate, or who has registered the item under the Clause 10 provisions, would be advised to indicate the existence of the certificate or registration as part of their promotional material.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this issue today. We touched upon it at Second Reading and noble Lords have referred to the letter from the Minister that we received in response to that. The noble Lord will know that we have considerable sympathy with the arguments that he has put forward this afternoon. The online sale of items containing ivory is undoubtedly the most difficult market to police. The Committee has already heard that the worst violations of existing restrictions take place online. It is a global trade, using global communications. As the noble Lord said, the poachers and middlemen have sophisticated communication networks, including codes and jargon to conceal the real nature of the goods being traded. This is happening globally, across borders. This is why, ultimately, we need a global response to close these markets down. It is an area for the UK Government alone to be effective in doing this.
We also know that, as the noble Lord said, we have limited resources to police these sales. This issue is covered in amendments to the Bill which we will come to later. I also like to think that the measures already in the Bill and the additional amendments we propose would at least bring the legitimate UK online trade under control. The requirement for exemption certificates; the need for registration and photographs; the oversight of professional institutions; the removal of the defence of ignorance for buyers and sellers and the tightening up of enforcement should help to deliver more watertight controls. I understand the argument about proportionality and we need to bear it in mind quite sensitively.
Although I am sympathetic to the noble Lord, I wonder if, at this time, we should let the current proposals run and then use the reviews we are proposing in later amendments to the Bill—for example, working with the National Wildlife Crime Unit and border police—to assess how effective the Bill has been. That would give us the opportunity to look at whether we still have an online problem. The onus is on the Minister to reassure the Committee that this is going to be effective in tackling online trade. Otherwise, the whole Bill will be effectively undermined if all the trade moves towards there.
I would like to think that the checks and balances are there. It may be that we have been proved wrong. I would like to hear more from the National Wildlife Crime Unit about whether it thinks it can manage within the existing constraints. If it feels it can do it, albeit it will probably need some extra resources—we are all well aware of that—then I am inclined to take it on trust at this moment. However, it is certainly an important issue to get right.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate on whether to ban certain types of exempted, and therefore legally saleable, ivory items through online channels. The noble Lord has read out much of my answer already but it does bear repeating. From the very outset, the Bill was drafted with online and offline sales in mind. The Bill prohibits all commercial activities in ivory, regardless of where those activities take place, subject, of course, to the exemptions in the Bill.
Equally, anyone who breaches the ban, be it online or not, will be committing an offence and will face the same range of sanctions, including a criminal sanction of up to five years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. There are a number of further provisions included in the Bill that will assist in tackling illegal online sales. It will be an offence to facilitate breaching the ban. Therefore, this would include, for example, a UK-based online sales forum which facilitates the sale by allowing sellers to advertise their item, make contact with buyers and accept payment.
In that example, those responsible for such online sales forums, which would include corporate bodies, would be found to be in breach of the ban if they could not show that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent an illegal sale taking place. These steps would include, for example, ensuring that the item for sale is exempt and had been registered or had an accompanying exemption certificate. We therefore expect such online forums to take all actions to ensure that they and their users act in compliance with the ban, in the same way that we expect offline channels to do the same. The Bill also prohibits the deliberate misrepresentation of ivory during a sale—for example, as bovine bone. This issue was raised by the noble Lord and it is very important. Both the seller and the buyer could be committing an offence if one or both of the parties knew or suspected that it is ivory.
Noble Lords will be aware that other items subject to restrictions, such as kitchen knives, are allowed to be traded online. Indeed, I am not aware of any item that is singled out for such a ban depending not on the legality of the sale but on the channel—that is, online or offline—through which the sale is transacted. We believe it would be disproportionate to completely ban the commercial dealing in exempt ivory items online and that it would shut off a relatively transparent means of monitoring the extent to which trading is happening online. As a noble Lord mentioned earlier, there are 2 million to 3 million items containing ivory and it would be utterly wrong to ban the sale or the legal trading of those items online. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord De Mauley pointed out, the auction houses use the online environment as a very valuable way of marketing the items they have for sale.
We agree that enforcement is extremely important. We cannot have online trading in ivory if we are unable to enforce properly. Online sales are a priority for the National Wildlife Crime Unit regarding the illegal wildlife trade. There will be much more on enforcement and funding in due course. However, this issue is so important that I will recommend that we write to noble Lords on enforcement, on what we can do in the online environment and on the resources we intend to put into that enforcement.
I turn briefly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath about roulette balls. I understand that he has been in touch with officials about this and that they have written to him. These balls will be caught by the ban but, as was mentioned, there are alternatives. I hope with this explanation I have reassured the noble Lord that we have considered—and, indeed, are considering—the matter of online sales and that he will therefore see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 10 in this group. I rather resent the implication that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I do not understand the significance of beautiful works of art. That is clearly not the case. The debate that we are having is about—and we are repeating this time and again—how we can stop the illegal poaching of elephants to create, if you like, imitations of beautiful works of art.
We take a very different view from other noble Lords who have spoken to amendments in this group who have in some way wanted to water down the application of the Bill. We believe that the current definition of,
“outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value”,
is too subjective and too widely framed and therefore too difficult to apply with any certainty. We therefore believe that we should set the bar higher and make the definition clearer. These categories were all debated during the consultation and were framed by examining global best practice in this sector in terms of how you apply and enforce these definitions. They are designed to cover items that, when sold, do not directly or indirectly fuel the poaching of elephants, so we are back to that issue again.
We are concerned that the test has been toned down, given that there was an earlier form of wording. The earlier wording talked about the “rarest and most important” pieces, which appears to have been changed to a consideration of an item’s rarity and the extent to which it appears to be an important example of its type. Our concern is that that is difficult phraseology to apply with any certainty.
It is important that we get this wording right. If we do not, there may be other consequences that do not help what we are trying to achieve. We know that the sale of items that seem to be important and the best of their type is fuelling the market in Asia by making some items more desirable. Those who cannot afford the items classified as best of their type go out and try to find imitations, which is where we come back full circle to the reason for the Bill and the need to ensure that whatever we do does not carry on fuelling the demand for newly poached ivory. Despite what noble Lords have said, there is a link between antique and modern ivory and, therefore, a need to close that market. As I have said, the exemptions in the Bill have to be rigorously defined and enforced.
Although I shall not go to the wall on this, I would expect religious items to be covered by the current definitions. I am not convinced that we need a separate category; I would have thought that the cultural definitions covered that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that he was worried about local and regional significance not being taken into account. Again, I think that the professionals assessing whether items meet the grade for an exemption certificate would be expected to take account of those local variations rather than just assuming that everything has a value only in the London markets.
Noble Lords are right that whatever we do in the UK is only part of tackling the problem. In many ways, we are only the middle people in an international trade that is passing through our country. That is why the Secretary of State is right in wanting to use the forthcoming international wildlife crimes conference as a means for the UK to put pressure on other countries. There is no point in us trying to do it in isolation; we have to make sure that other countries follow suit, as a number already have. This legislation is only part of the jigsaw, but we have to play our part in all this. To do that, we have to get rigorous, enforced definitions right. I am not sure that we have got them right at the moment and worry that there is too much room for subjectivity, but I am sure that the Minister will reassure me and others that the current definitions hold up.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friends’ amendments would widen the scope of Clause 2 to allow more items to fall under this category of exemption, while the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, strives to tighten it. As noble Lords will know from Second Reading, the Government came forward with the current set of exemptions in discussion with the antiques and museum sector.
The Bill’s intention is to prohibit commercial activities concerning ivory in the UK and the import and re-export of ivory for commercial purposes. My noble friend Lady Rawlings and other noble friends mentioned the UK’s market. Between 2005 and 2014, 31% of ivory exported from the EU for commercial purposes was from the UK; the number of worked ivory items exported to mainland China increased from 2,000 to 11,000 between 2010 and 2014, and the UK Border Force recorded 602 seizures of illegal ivory items moving into and out of the UK in the four years between 2013 and 2017.
This is the scenario in which we exist and why what we have had before is simply not good enough. I emphasise that we intend this to be one of the toughest bans in the world. We are clear as a Government that this is the right thing to do in terms of leadership. We also recognise—I feel that my noble friends in particular as owners of ivory see this differently from me—that the public interest of saving the elephant has the supremacy on these matters. However, we have sought as a responsible and reasonable Government to ensure exemptions that we think are proportionate. That is why the limited and targeted exemption from the prohibition on dealing for pre-1918 ivory items which are of outstanding,
“artistic, cultural, or historical value”,
have a rarity value and are important examples of their type is legitimate.
As has been said before, it is not the Government’s intention to affect our artistic and cultural heritage unduly. This exemption recognises that a certain stratum of ivory items are traded not because they are made of ivory, but due to their artistry or rarity. I assure both my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the Government have worked extensively with conservation NGOs and the arts and antiques sector to shape this exemption. We believe that the clause, as it stands, is a proportionate approach and any change would undermine this carefully balanced position. Indeed, the chairman of the Society of Fine Art Auctioneers welcomed the distinction our proposals make,
“between the market for ivory as a substance … and the market for works of art whose significance lies in their status as works of art, not for what they are made of”.
The criteria which must be met for an item to qualify under this exemption are intentionally narrow and will be detailed in statutory guidance. My noble friends Lord De Mauley, Lord Cormack and Lord Inglewood referred to religious significance being a key factor for consideration when determining whether to issue an exemption certificate. We consider religious significance to be a factor of both cultural and historic significance—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made—so we do not believe that it is necessary to reference it separately in the Bill.
On the rationale behind the 100 years backstop, this date has been chosen as it is in line with the commonly agreed definition of “antique” as being items that are 100 years old. It represents 100 years before the Bill was introduced. The amendment from my noble friend Lord De Mauley seeks to widen this exemption to items,
“suitable ... to the collection of a qualifying museum”.
We believe that this is too broad a definition to be included as part of what is intended to be a clearly defined exemption. It is worth noting that any accredited museum may purchase an item of ivory whether or not it meets one of the categories of exemption under Clause 9. This ensures that the decision to purchase rests with the relevant experts at accredited museums.
I repeat that the rationale behind this Bill is the need to curtail the demand for ivory that is driving the disastrous poaching of elephants in increasing numbers. I noted in my Second Reading speech and, indeed, today, that this demand is fuelled by both the illicit and the licit trade. This is what the African leaders are asking to do. It is what is coming out of the UN report. It is not a Minister just saying it. People in Africa and the UN are saying to us: “Please will you bear down on your licit trade because it is part of the problem”.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friends, but I am sure they will understand that this is designed as a narrowly drawn exemption. I am not in a position to accept the amendments and I emphasise that a great deal of attention has been paid to what are tightly defined packages of exemptions, of which this is one. I believe that the Government have produced something that is proportionate and on those grounds I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Ivory Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(5A) Subject to subsection (5B), the Secretary of State may not issue a replacement certificate in respect of an item if a replacement certificate has previously been issued in respect of the same item.(5B) Subsection (5A) does not apply where—(a) an exemption certificate has been applied for under section 3, and issued, in respect of the item since the last instance of a replacement certificate being issued,(b) the owner of the item has changed since the last instance of a replacement certificate being issued, or(c) it seems to the Secretary of State that there are extraneous circumstances that warrant issuing a further replacement certificate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a limit of one replacement certificate being issued for an item. After one certificate is issued, a further replacement certificate can be issued only if a new certificate is applied for under section 3, or if the owner of the item changes, or if there are extraneous circumstances that warrant issuing a replacement certificate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 14, on the subject of replacement certificates, because we believe that more safeguards are needed, since the Bill would allow multiple certificates to be issued for a particular item, and these could then be used to sell similar items illegally. We feel strongly that no loopholes should be allowed and that nothing in the Bill could result in unscrupulous dealers misusing these certificates. Given that the point of the Bill is to stop illegal ivory trading, and that—as we have discussed —unscrupulous people will exploit loopholes, it is important that these rules are extremely tight.
When this was discussed in the other place, the Minister made the point that because exemption certificates would apply only to unique peices—and therefore a limited number—there was an exceedingly low risk that a certificate, which will include a photograph, could be used fraudulently for another item. So far, so good, but this does not protect against the production of replicas, so we could end up with something that looks very similar to the photograph but is not the original item: you would have a replica item with a duplicate certificate.
Although such activity would of course be an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and subject to criminal sanctions or a custodial sentence, this may well not deter those involved in the illegal ivory trade, where we know that millions of imitation antique pieces are already floating around and making very high profits.
This is really just a probing amendment to learn from the Minister how this will work in practice and whether he can provide reassurance that there are sufficient safeguards built into the system of issuing replacement certificates to prevent fraudulent duplication of them. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I do not fully understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to limit the number of times the duplicate exemption certificate can be applied for. In the internet age, any sensible person would want to check that a paper certificate was genuine and would perhaps ask for confirmation from Defra, quoting the certificate’s unique reference code. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. If someone loses his passport more than once, I would imagine that he could still obtain a replacement from Her Majesty’s Passport Office. I am not sure why replacing an ivory exemption certificate deserves a more limited approach. Surely, whether the piece of paper is the first one issued or a second replacement, each will show the same information, presumably with the same unique reference code and image of the item. It is the fact that the item has been exempted, and that the piece of paper indicates as much, that is important.
I am not clear what misdemeanour would occur if, in error, an object owner found that they had two certificates for the same object. Whether second duplicates can or cannot be issued would not stop a criminal from attempting to produce a falsified certificate.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s amendment recognises an important issue: to ensure that we avoid any loopholes that could be exploited by those wishing to circumvent the ivory ban and continue to trade ivory illegally. I understand the concern that an individual may exploit the provision included in the Bill to issue replacement exemption certificates under the exemption for the rarest and most important example of its type. The concern is that an individual might fraudulently use replacement exemption certificates for non-exempt items, and I am clearly interested in ensuring that that is not possible. But I say to the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord De Mauley that such an action would be an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and may be subject to criminal sanctions—a custodial sentence or a criminal fine.
The Bill is clear that a replacement certificate will be issued only if the original has been lost, the original was not passed on by the original owner when the item was sold, or for any other reason that the Animal and Plant Health Agency acting on behalf of the Secretary of State considers appropriate. I reassure the noble Baroness that the process that an individual must follow to request a replacement certificate will be carefully developed with APHA to avoid any potential loopholes that could be exploited by unscrupulous individuals.
First, the owner will need to declare why a replacement is required. APHA should also be able to check the application against a database of exempt items. Secondly, a unique identification number will be included on the certificate which associates it with the exempt item. Certificates will include photographs of the item as originally submitted when applying for the exemption and a narrative description of the item. Given the nature of items exempted under this category, it is highly unlikely that there would be another item of such close similarity that it could reasonably be taken to be covered by a certificate issued for another item. Officials will be working with APHA because this is an area that we are clear on. We do not want to find any loopholes in what we do. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue, but we are very much alive to the need to ensure that the replacement certificate regime is robust and, at the same time, that replacements can be issued.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for those comments. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance. The situation that we envisaged is that there would be more than one certificate and more than one item that looked similar in the market. There would then be the problem of identifying which was the original and which was the fake. As we develop our exemption certificate regime, I can imagine that they will have some kudos abroad. They will not just be used for enforcement under our regime but could give some additional value to properties that are traded in other countries as proof of the item being of the highest quality and so forth. I would like to look a little more at the Minister’s comments, but I will not pursue this any further today so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
( ) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if an appeal has already been made against the decision to refuse an application for an exemption certificate or to revoke an exemption certificate, and the original decision was upheld.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would permit a person to appeal against a decision to refuse an application for an exemption certificate or to revoke an exemption certificate only once.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
As drafted, the Bill allows an infinite number of appeals. This concern was raised specifically by the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, which argued the case for deleting the unprecedented and unnecessary appeals provision. That is what we have tried to do with this amendment.
The amendment would streamline the appeals provisions for sales exemptions for items of outstanding artistic or cultural value. It would permit applicants a formal right of appeal against the original decision to reject an application only once. If the appeal was unsuccessful, the applicant would be able to make a fresh application, and pay the appropriate fee, if they wished an item to be considered again.
The cost of an application fee is intended to be cost neutral. However, under the current provision, if an individual refused to accept the decision that an item does not qualify for an exemption, they could effectively frustrate the appeals process with successive appeals, each of which would require detailed consideration and a response. If a number of people submitted repeated appeals, that would inevitably have implications for resources and could have a detrimental impact on other activities, including enforcement of the regime. We believe that limiting the right to appeal against a decision to only once is sufficient to protect individuals’ property rights. There are many examples across government where decisions on applications can be appealed only once, including visa applications and school places. I am sure that there are many more. Furthermore, this would avoid establishing a new precedent under UK law that would introduce a convoluted formal appeal process for what is in effect a specialised form of wildlife trade licensing.
There is no appeal system for any other wildlife trade licence issued in the UK, including those under CITES, let alone anything wider than that. We therefore hope that the Committee will feel able to support our amendment.
I have a quick comment on Amendment 16 in this group. On the face of it, I do not have a problem with this amendment. I would have thought that it made sense for appeals to be heard by someone with expertise, and it may be that the Minister is able to reassure noble Lords on this issue so that they do not feel it necessary to pursue the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I shall speak to both amendments in this group but deal with Amendment 16 first. Rightly, the Bill makes provision for circumstances where the owner of an item disagrees with the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to grant an exemption certificate. Under the existing wording, the Secretary of State could simply appoint a lawyer with no knowledge of, or expertise in, ivory artefacts in order to determine the appeal. The intention of the amendment is to make sure that the appeal is heard by someone who has expertise and experience in assessing ivory works of art. An understanding of cultural property and of the methods used by curators or art market professionals to decide on the authenticity and age of such objects would be vital skills for the appointee. He or she would need to understand the reasons for the rejection and ask all the right questions. It would be unjust for all concerned if the person appointed to this role is someone unfamiliar with the relevant issues.
I turn to Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. To my mind, refusing further appeals beyond the first appears to fly in the face of natural justice. Take an object such as one which an applicant understood had been owned by a famous person such as Admiral Nelson. At the time the first appeal was heard, it may be that the extent and quality of the evidence in the possession of the applicant to back up the purported provenance was deemed insufficient. Further irrefutable evidence may later come to light. Surely the applicant should be given the opportunity to present this information a second time.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. He has gone some way to reassuring me that appeals will have to be legally watertight and based on fact—that is very helpful. I look forward to the Minister coming back with a further report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Ivory Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsMonday 10th September 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (10 Sep 2018)
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I will speak to Amendment 31, which is purely a probing amendment. Following Second Reading, it struck me that the success of this Bill would very much depend on the take-up rate of the use of the register, so my amendment is aimed at trying to probe a bit of that. I noted that in the Bill, while plenty of powers are given to the Secretary of State to charge fees for registration, there is no duty alongside that, telling the authorities what they should be trying to do. My amendment is aimed at trying to put a bit of duty alongside the powers.
I notice that the success of curbing drink-driving in the UK has been very much driven by the fact that people in the country now expect people not to drink-drive. We need to ensure that nothing stands in the way of people developing a feeling that ivory has a special and difficult thing associated with it. Therefore, they should comply with this law enthusiastically, because it will help the problem that we have all been talking about. I do not think I can add any more.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these two amendments. I think we all accept that the cost of registration should not be prohibitive. Equally, I have to say that I think a blanket fee of £5 is unrealistic. It should not, however, be used as a money-raising opportunity, as some government fee systems have been found to do. In his letter to us after Second Reading, the Minister made it clear that the fees would be based on a cost-recovery calculation. Fine, but he went on to say that the calculation would be based on the cost of building a new IT system. At that point, alarm bells started to ring. I am sure that the Government would accept that they have a rather shaky reputation for delivering IT systems on budget.
I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure us that the cost will not be prohibitive and that it will take into account the ability to pay of a wide range of potential traders who might want to use the system, taking on board the points that have been made that they will not always be the professionals and those who are able to pay large fees.
We have referred to the registration scheme several times and I know that the Minister says that we will have further details of it, but it would be helpful if he could clarify the timescale for it. Will we definitely have more details before Report?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, both amendments relate to the fees that can be set by the Secretary of State when registering an item containing ivory. When owners register their items under the exemptions for items of low ivory content, musical instruments, sales to museums and portrait miniatures, it is only right that they pay a fee for the service provided. This fee will contribute to the cost of building and administering the registration system.
On my noble friend Lord De Mauley’s amendment, we need to be careful about setting a fee on the face of the Bill—that is, in primary legislation—as, over time, circumstances which will need to be taken into account may change and mean that it is necessary to revise the fee—in either direction.
To reiterate, the Government intend that the fee will be small and proportionate, but I cannot agree with my noble friend that a fee of £5, set out in primary legislation, is appropriate. The fee will be dependent on the cost of the IT system and its administration and will be determined in accordance with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s guidelines with regard to cost recovery. I hope that alarm bells are not now ringing. We aim for the system to be as simple to use as possible.
On Amendment 31, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I recognise his interest in ensuring that fees are not set at a rate that would discourage registration and entirely share his view. The Government are finalising the specifications for the registration system. Further details will be available in due course, but I do not have a time for them as yet. If I get one, I will write to noble Lords and advise them. Work to date has included input from a range of stakeholders, including those most likely and most frequently to use the system; for example, representatives from the Association of Art & Antiques Dealers and the Music Industries Association. We want to ensure that we understand their needs. Our aim will be to develop a system that is simple to use and cost effective.
We recognise that many items registered under these exemptions are likely to be of a lower value than those that qualify as exempt under Clause 2, so I can assure noble Lords that the registration fee will reflect that. As I have said, the Government are taking into account a wide range of opinions. I reassure noble Lords that we recognise the intent behind the amendments and acknowledge that it is in no one’s interest to have fees that are unacceptably high. I hope that my noble friend will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord De Mauley has been made tolerably happy for the moment. I am delighted about that, even if it is in a very small matter. I hope that on an equally small matter, although one with real repercussions, I can be made happy, because, as I explain in the explanatory statement:
“This amendment is designed to simplify the bureaucratic arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill”.
This amendment does not really concern elephants at all, and I hope that my noble friend—whichever noble friend responds—will be able to accept it. It provides that the certificate,
“remains valid if the ownership of the item passes by inheritance to a member of the family of the registered owner”.
I am not even asking that it should remain valid if it is given to somebody outside the family or is left in a will to somebody without a family connection.
Many such objects will be on the premises. Although I hope it will be many years before our noble friend the Duke of Wellington goes to a higher place, if the things that remain his property in No. 1 London or at Stratfield Saye pass to his son or another member of the family by inheritance, it seems quite unnecessary to have to go through the bureaucratic rigmarole again. I really hope that I will get a sympathetic response to this extremely modest—but I believe entirely sensible—proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is trying to achieve but, with the best will in the world, I am not sure that it is practical. If an item is important enough to be passed down through inheritance to another family member, it is also important that the new owner has an up-to-date registration certificate for it.
The Bill requires that if there is a change of owner a fresh application should be made to register the item. This is important because it will ensure that the registration system has an up-to-date record of the name of the owner and their contact details and so on. Without this change of ownership recorded on the register, we are concerned that confusion might arise as to who has the legal obligations of ownership spelled out elsewhere in the Bill. If an item appears on the market or if it is suspected of being a forgery, the enforcement officers will not know whom to contact to clarify the position.
I am trying to give the noble Lord something to be cheerful about but I do not think that this is the way to go about it. I do not think an automatic transfer of an item and the registration certificate would work without the associated paper trail to show the current ownership.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment is to provide that a person who inherits a registered ivory item from a family member would not need to reregister it under Clause 10, regardless of whether he or she intends to deal in the item themselves. Clause 11(2) places duties on a registered owner to notify the Secretary of State when he or she becomes aware of any relevant information relating to the registered item becoming invalid or incomplete. A person inheriting a registration in an ivory item would therefore be subject to this duty at the point he or she became responsible for the registration. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, outlined very compelling reasons. If a person inheriting or taking possession of an ivory item is unaware that the item is registered, the Government would expect that person to decide whether he or she wants to sell or hire the item and to register it accordingly.
The main point I want to reference is that we are working extremely hard with all concerned to ensure that the self-registration of ivory items will be straight-forward and as simple as possible for those expected to use the registration system. For the security of the next generation in ensuring the item is as it should be and is properly registered, I am very sorry to have to disappoint my noble friend. It is in the interest of the next generation that we have the provisions for the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, outlined rather better than I have. On that basis, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
“Verification of exempted items
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for the verification of the exempted status of an item containing ivory.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow the Secretary of State to create a verification system to enable a person intending to purchase an item containing ivory to check that it has been registered as exempt or has an exemption certificate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, this proposed new clause would allow the Secretary of State to create a verification system to enable a person intending to purchase an item containing ivory to check that it has been registered as exempt or has an exemption certificate. That is imperative to ensure that the exemption process is robust and deliverable. Defra has stated that:
“The compliance processes will enable sellers to demonstrate that their items meet the relevant exemption, and thus that their use in commercial dealing is permitted under the Bill. The processes will also enable potential purchasers to assure themselves that they are acting in accordance with the ban”.
The term “assure themselves” is interesting and seems to indicate that a buyer has less responsibility to ensure compliance with the ban than a seller. Given that the definition of dealing in Clause 1 specifically includes buying ivory, we believe that a trustworthy system needs to be available so that buyers can ensure that they are complying with the law.
There are many reasons why a buyer may need to verify that an item is exempt; for example, when purchasing an item online. A buyer may not even be aware of what a legitimate exemption certificate should look like and may seek the reassurance of an independent confirmation. We are also aware of cases involving legal CITES Article 10 certificates and fraudulent copies being used to conceal illegal ivory. Sadly, unscrupulous dealers may well attempt to contravene the ban though such tactics. At the same time, an added advantage would be that a failed verification check could bring an individual to the notice of the authorities and be used to support a prosecution.
I hope that noble Lords will see the sense of the proposals we are making today, and that the Minister will feel able to take this proposal away and come back with suggestions as to how a robust verification process could be implemented. Of course, key to that will be the infamous IT system, when it is in force, and the issue of data, data protection and access. I realise that there are more complications to this than I am suggesting, but we feel nevertheless that buyers should have the right to make those checks and I therefore beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I think that this is a most sensible suggestion. The definition of “dealing” includes buying ivory objects, so how else is a buyer to avoid breaking the law, unless they have a means of verifying either that a de minimis object has been registered, or that an exemption certificate has been issued for an outstanding one?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am pleased to hear the stages that she set out and confirmation that there will be that access to a verification system. I was disappointed in her last comment that we do not need regulation on this, which is part of what our amendment proposes. I think this is straying into the whole area of the Delegated Powers Committee report; it queried the extent to which information like this should be in the Bill rather than just being taken in the form of guidance, which I think is what she said. I would like to look at this in more detail. Again, it comes back to when we will have more detail before Report but, obviously, at the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Ivory Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsTuesday 17th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 July 2018 - (4 Jul 2018)
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Grantchester has made clear, we very much support the aims of the Bill. Action to tackle the international trade in ivory is welcome, if not long overdue. As we have heard, despite international efforts, around 20,000 elephants are killed each year for the ivory trade—approximately 55 elephants every day. At that unsustainable rate, elephants are likely to be extinct in the wild within two decades.
Our country can make a huge contribution to reversing that decline, not only through the action that we take in the UK but through the influence that we are then able to bring to bear upon others. By passing this Bill we will have earned the right to become a global voice on this issue, and indeed to use that voice to urge other countries to follow our lead.
At the heart of the problem are some very unsavoury organised criminals. The illegal wildlife trade is the fourth largest illegal trade behind drugs, human trafficking and counterfeiting, worth over an estimated £15 billion annually. Ivory tusks trade at £65 per pound on the Asian black market. It is a serious organised crime that is decimating wildlife populations, threatening local livelihoods and fuelling further criminal activity, including terrorism, with extremists using the money to fund their activities across Africa.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, pointed out, security forces believe that many of the gangs involved in wildlife trafficking are now using existing drug trafficking routes to smuggle the ivory as well. They use sophisticated techniques: they have secret codes and communications channels and are therefore very difficult to intercept. However, we have to take that challenge on.
Such gangs can succeed only because demand for highly valued ivory pieces in Asia continues to be so strong and so lucrative. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hague, that ultimately our challenge is to reposition ivory not as a symbol of luxury and wealth but as a symbol of cruelty. That is where the future lies.
Meanwhile, the criminals continue to be successful because the restrictions we have already introduced are simply not working. Recently, the campaign group Avaaz bought 109 items of ivory from 10 European countries and had them tested using radio carbon dating. Almost one-fifth of the objects were found to contain ivory from animals killed since 1990. This is illegal, following the restrictions on the global ivory trade that were put in place in 1989. Three-quarters of the items were dated after 1947. Even the highly respected auction house, Christie’s, has been fined for trying to sell illegal ivory, and there is widespread evidence of the current rules being circumvented or misunderstood.
As well as blocking routes to markets, we have to address the poverty and deprivation that drives some of the poorest African villagers to poach—a point made by a number of noble Lords. They have to be persuaded that they have a future conserving elephants and other wildlife. The value of elephant tourism is extremely high, with a living elephant in the savannah worth 76 times more than a dead elephant in the marketplace. Protecting Africa’s elephants, therefore, makes monetary sense too, but we have to get that message across. This is why we have welcomed the £44 million recently announced by the Government to invest in such initiatives as eco-guardians and the community enforcement networks to help to create alternative livelihoods.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we need to pay tribute to those conservationists and individuals who have risked and lost their lives to protect endangered species. I very much liked her suggestion that we could have a monument to acknowledge their contribution to the campaign.
I turn now to some of the concerns that have been expressed today. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and others questioned whether a continued antique ivory trade contributes to the illegal trade in new ivory. We should of course acknowledge and value the cultural significance of historic ivory products—nothing in this Bill prevents their continued ownership—but the fact of the matter is that the existence of a legal domestic market is helping to fuel the illegal trade by providing cover and reinforcing the high value of ivory across the world. We know that illegal ivory items seized by the police and Border Force in the UK have been falsely antiquated, using artificial stains or ageing techniques, and are clearly destined for the legal antique market. The two sources are interconnected. There is also considerable evidence that legal CITES Article 10 certificates have been used to conceal illegal ivory.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hague, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, have said, the Bill is not a panacea—of course it is not. However, it will make a difference and will save the lives of thousands of elephants by beginning to break up those trading routes.
For those who queried how museum quality would be judged, in evidence to the Common’s committee on this Bill the museums themselves expressed that they were confident that they could make the arrangements work, whether it is for small museums or large museums.
Other noble Lords have contrasted the 10% de minimis exemption for antiques with the 20% proposed for musical instruments. We support the 20% threshold and believe it is necessary to manage the legacy of instruments made decades ago when alternative materials such as plastic were not readily available. These instruments are not subject to the same level of commercial activity. There is no music industry trade in these instruments, but simply an ongoing series of one-to-one transactions between fellow musicians and music shops to repair, maintain and sell the instruments on to further instrument players. For professional musicians, their instruments are the tools of their trade. They are an investment in their livelihoods, mostly sold at the end of their career only to allow them to retire with dignity, not to make a profit.
My noble friend Lady Quin raised the issue of Northumbrian pipes. I think we would all like to hear them played because she has sparked our interest. I would have thought that the instrument would indeed include the bag and the bellows. The Minister might have a different view. But as she said, these are domestic, not commercial instruments. I would have thought that their future could be protected by sharing and gifting in the future.
I now turn to some areas where we would like to see improvements in the Bill and we will explore these in Committee. First, as has been said, the Bill has a narrow focus on elephants. It ignores the poaching of hippo and other non-elephant species for their ivory. Broadening the definition of ivory is necessary, not only because many other CITES species are at risk of becoming endangered, but to prevent a narrow focus on elephant ivory pushing poachers towards other forms of ivory. For example, the black market’s insatiable demand for ivory has already turned towards hippos, which offer a cheaper, and, in many ways, easier, ivory option. Hippos have declined by 12% to about 100,000 in the past decade with the rise in demand for hippos’ teeth threatening the mammal with extinction.
In the other place, the Minister was sympathetic to these concerns, but argued the need for a further consultation to satisfy the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights. We have never been persuaded of this argument and indeed have legal advice and advice from the Consultation Institute that contradicts that. Nevertheless, we are pleased that the Secretary of State has now announced a further consultation to extend the provisions in the Bill to include hippo, walrus and narwhal ivory. But the consultation is not due to start until this Bill receives Royal Assent, which will be some time towards the end of October. I do not understand why this consultation cannot start now. If it did, it could be completed before Royal Assent and perhaps included in this Bill. Can the Minister explain why the Government are unable to publish the consultation before the Bill is passed?
Secondly, we believe the exemptions to the ban on sales set out in the Bill should strike a balance between being robust and proportionate, but we share concerns that the scope of Section 2 as drafted is too wide. To this end, we will be pressing the Government to ensure that only the,
“rarest and most important items of their type”,
are granted exemptions. That was a phrase initially used by the Government which has now been replaced by a broader exemption as defined in the Bill. We will revisit that definition.
In addition, we will argue, as other noble Lords have mentioned, for an annual register of items that have been exempted to be published to ensure transparency and public confidence in the ban. We will also be looking for assurances that the registration and certification schemes are not open to abuse. That is important because, as we have heard, legal CITES Article 10 certificates have been used to conceal illegal ivory.
Finally, we believe it is vital that the UK has the right level of funding and enforcement powers in place to enforce the ban. The National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 members of staff, including administrative staff, to cover the entirety of its work across the UK, and its funding is due to expire in 2020. So we hope that the Minister will be able to give us greater assurances about longer-term funding.
We will be seeking more powers to tackle online cybercrime where so much of the illegal trade continues to flourish and we hope that the Government will be able to give us further assurances on that. If not, I am quite attracted to the proposal put by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for a complete ban on internet trading, which may be an easier option.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed their expertise to the debate. We will seek to improve the Bill in Committee, but I am pleased that so far we are developing cross-party support for it, and ultimately I hope that we will achieve unanimous approval of its overarching objective of ending the illegal poaching of elephants.
Rural Areas: Public Services
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling this debate and to all noble Lords who have contributed their expertise today. I particularly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, who made a powerful case for tackling the issue of poor broadband and the contribution that doing so could make in bridging the gap between town and country. I know from the messages he is hearing from others around the Chamber that his words were very well taken. We look forward to campaigning with him, even if it involves a march down Whitehall in future on this issue.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—and I think to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—that, perhaps rather foolishly, I am going around Yorkshire in a campervan this summer. Indeed, I am booked to stop off in Richmond, so I am very grateful to her for suggesting all the tourist sites I can visit when I stay there. I hope that all your Lordships will pray for good weather when I am in the process of making that trip.
This is a really important issue and, as we discussed in last Monday’s debate on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, one that has been rather neglected by government. As a number of noble Lords have said, this was not helped by the closure of the Commission for Rural Communities, the reduced access to independent research and the lack of a strategy to implement rural proofing across other departments. The result is individual cuts and closures of public services, which are not measured to assess their combined impact on the viability of local communities. It is fair to say, from the debates both last week and today, that Defra is on notice that it must up its game on this issue. I hope that the Minister hears those comments.
By any measure, rural communities are struggling financially at the moment. They face a double whammy of higher council tax bills and fewer public services. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Harris, all talked about local government funding. In its response to the Government’s 2017-18 provisional funding settlement for local authorities, the Rural Services Network said that rural areas would lose over 31% of their central government funding while urban areas would lose only about 22%. It concluded that the proposed settlement risks,
“crippling public services in rural areas”,
and forcing local authorities to raise council tax to a significantly higher level than in urban areas. Does the Minister share my concern that these charges will hit rural communities hardest, when they are most in need of those public services?
The charges will penalise some of the poorest in our rural communities. It is tough for working people trying to bring up families in the countryside today. Average annual wages are more than £4,500 lower than in urban areas, and the gap between the two has grown by £1,000 a year since 2010. Employment opportunities tend to be low-skilled and low-paid, with limited opportunities for advancement. At the same time, rural areas contain a disproportionate number of older people, as noble Lords have said, with those aged 65 and over comprising 23% of the rural population—well above the 16% figure for the urban population. So does the Minister agree that these demographics are bound to place additional pressure on declining public services?
There are consequences for these trends, and I shall focus on a few examples of the way that they impact public services. First, as has been said, there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in rural areas. The latest IPPR report shows that rural housing is less affordable to local people than in most urban areas, with families in rural areas spending 31% of their income on rent, while rural houses to buy are around £19,000 above the average for England. Only 8% of housing stock in rural areas is classified as affordable, compared to 20% in urban areas. This exacerbates rural poverty and deprivation. It is also contributing to the exodus of economically active young people, creating further terminal decline in our communities. Does the Minister therefore agree that we need a specific strategy for rural homes with a ring-fenced rural grant to build new affordable homes, perhaps supported by a rural living rent based on local earnings? Does he also agree that local authorities should have the discretion to suspend the right to buy, greater powers to limit second homes and empty homes, and greater powers to specify a proportion of affordable homes as part of planning consent?
Secondly, as has also been said by others, the decline of rural bus services is having a devastating effect on those who live and work in rural areas. Young people are particularly affected, with more than 60% of pupils being unable to reach a secondary school by public transport, and access to further and higher education being restricted and requiring longer journeys. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made the case that this is not just about education; it is also about young people having access to youth services and social facilities. This is not helped by the absence of statutory concessionary travel schemes for those aged over 16.
However, this is a much more widespread problem. Working-age people are forced to own a car even if they have low incomes, as that is the only way to get to work, while reducing bus services can of course have a devastating effect on elderly people, who have relied on public transport in the past. The closure of village shops, post offices and cash machines can leave older people effectively stranded and isolated, with implications for their health and well-being. We debated these issues at length during consideration of the Buses Bill, but many of our proposals fell on deaf ears. Does the Minister now agree that the provision of bus services should be looked at in a holistic way with reference to their full impact, rather than on a cost-driven basis and purely as a chance to save money? Does he agree that those commissioning bus services should consider the economic, social and environmental benefits to the community, rather than just focusing on the lowest-cost option? Does he also agree that remote rural communities should be able to delay the cancellation of bus routes to give them time to seek alternative funding sources where they provide a demonstrable lifeline for a local community?
Access to local health services is another huge challenge for rural communities. The campaign group Rural England found that only 56% of rural households have reasonable access to a GP surgery by public transport or walking. This access is getting worse as older GPs retire and younger ones cannot be recruited to replace them, leading to surgery closures. Often, access is limited to outreach surgeries with limited opening hours. Given that rural areas are expected to have the highest proportion of ageing populations, with people living longer, the squeeze on local health provision is bound to lead to poorer care and worse health outcomes. What steps are being taken to address the shortage of GPs in rural areas?
These are just a few examples of the decline in public services in rural areas. We could say the same about the decline of village schools or village halls, which have previously provided an important service in holding communities together. While front-line services decline, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and other noble Lords have said, people need to have good broadband to take advantage of internet banking, retail services and job opportunities, but so far it is failing them. Given that rural service users stand to gain so much from access to online services, what further steps are being taken to get broadband suppliers to prioritise investment in rural rollout?
We know that farmers are having a tough time too, with delays to rural payments and increased global competition putting pressure on their profits. The uncertainty of Brexit adds new worries about the distribution of future subsidies, access to markets and labour availability, which could further undermine the stability of rural communities. Can the Minister update us on what is being done to reassure farmers that future EU markets for British food will be retained and that permanent and seasonal EU workers will still be available to work on the land? I look forward to his response.
Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement today. Of course, the White Paper is a long way from the Secretary of State’s promise to the fishing communities that we will gain control of our waters on day one of Brexit. Instead, we have to face the reality that the UK will remain part of the common fisheries policy, but without a direct say in its rules, until the end of 2020. Indeed, the Secretary of State himself had to admit that this represents “a sub-optimal outcome” for the fishing industry.
This White Paper represents one more step in letting the sector down gradually because, despite all the talk of a brighter future beckoning, the future of the UK fishing industry will remain embroiled in complex EU and international negotiations for years to come. It is simply not possible to operate on a unilateral basis as an independent fishing state; everything has to be agreed with our neighbours and with our future markets, unless we are prepared to risk conflict and uncertainties on our marine borders.
The future of the customs arrangements will be key to this and we have to await the details of how the Government’s proposal to the UK will be specified and applied in the future. This matters because 70% of what we catch we export, and 80% of the fish we eat we import. We export nearly 350,000 tonnes of fish to the EU alone so, despite the Secretary of State’s theatrical ripping-up of the Prime Minister’s proposals, somewhere along the line there has to be agreement on a future trade relationship with the EU. It is vital that we preserve the UK’s access to low-tariff exports and imports of fish, so we await with interest the signs of white smoke from Chequers this weekend because the long-term future of our fish markets relies upon this.
The White Paper seems to fudge this issue by claiming:
“Fisheries will be a separate strand of our future relationship with the EU”.
Can the Minister confirm whether our exports of fish will be subject to the same customs rules as all other food products negotiated as part of the EU package? Does he accept that access to our fishing rights could be exchanged as part of a bigger bilateral or multilateral trade deal, which could make a mockery of our bid to take back control of our own waters? Can he clarify the future status of foreign fleets which purchased the fishing rights originally allocated to UK fishers? Can he also confirm that the fisheries Bill will cover the full range of outputs from the industry, including fish farming and fish processing?
We welcome the emphasis in the White Paper on sustainable fishing and the need to learn from the latest scientific evidence. We will need to continue to share research evidence with other EU fishing nations and beyond. It does not make sense to create a separate research capacity when so much more can be achieved by working collaboratively. So can the Minister say what steps are being taken to safeguard our access to EU institutions that provide expert advice on the maximum sustainable yield and total allowable catch data, so that we can fish sustainably in the future in the knowledge that we are relying on the best scientific advice? Can he also say what further steps the Government intend to take to safeguard habitats and species in the “blue belts” of the seas and oceans surrounding our island? Does he agree that we should be even more ambitious about protecting our seas by creating national maritime parks?
The Minister will also know that the devolved nations, particularly the Scottish fishers, are keen to have greater control over the local coastal waters. Can he confirm that the new UK framework for fisheries is making good progress? Can he also confirm that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have had an input into the White Paper?
Finally, the White Paper recognises the wider implications of any new deal on fishing to coastal communities. These represent some of our poorest communities, with high unemployment and low wages. Jobs in the fishing sector are in decline and the workforce is ageing. It is important that they have a genuine input into the White Paper to ensure that future government priorities will genuinely help to nurture and revitalise their lives and their communities. It is also important that the EU workers who work in the fishing sector will have their interests protected. Can the Minister explain how the debate around the White Paper will reach out to these communities, to ensure that their concerns are genuinely taken into account? How will the Government measure success in revitalising these communities that are desperate for further resource and investment? I look forward to his response.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and welcome the publication of this important White Paper. The shores of our islands have some of the most prolific fishing waters in the world and it is vital that not only are fish stocks protected but that the numerous industries and businesses that rely on a constant supply of fish are supported and protected. This includes not only large fishing fleets but smaller, family-owned vessels, not only the small, iconic smokeries but also the larger processing plants. It is our duty to provide a mixed economy around our coastlines that depend on a healthy marine environment, free from unnecessary bureaucracy and free from plastics.
I note the Secretary of State’s commitment to end the dominance of foreign vessels in our waters and to support our own fishing communities across the country; I welcome that statement. I have only two questions: what discussions have so far taken place with the devolved Administrations about sustainable goals to be shared across the UK? Secondly, is the Minister able to ensure ongoing access to the EU labour force that supports the sustainability of the vital seafood processing sector? I am encouraged by the general thrust of the White Paper and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Water: Bills and Executive Remuneration
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of increases in customer water bills and levels of remuneration paid to water company executives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, average water and sewerage bills fell in real terms from £420 in 2009-10 to £395 in 2017-18. Bills will continue to fall. Ofwat expects a further average reduction of 5% in 2020-25. The Government support Ofwat’s action to increase transparency of executive pay and bonuses, which must be based on better services for customers.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that water bills have risen by 40% above inflation since privatisation and nearly 2 million will need help to pay their water bills by 2020. Despite poor levels of customer service, water company bosses are paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses, with CEO pay averaging £1.2 million. Some of them are paid twice that amount. At the same time, water companies are hiding behind complex financial structures and offshore havens to avoid paying taxes. The Secretary of State has been critical of the water companies, but what is he actually doing on the ground to make sure that profits are focused on better preparation for weather extremes, not just paying excessive bonuses to the few?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s question is extremely timely. Only today, Ofwat published a summary of the changes to the upcoming price review process, which were discussed with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who agrees entirely with Ofwat’s actions. It will require companies to share the benefits of high levels of debt finance with customers, ensure that performance-related executive pay rewards genuinely stretching performance —which benefits customers—and be transparent about dividends and explain how they relate to costs and service delivery to customers. If necessary, we will go further.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Committee Report
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and everyone on the committee for what I felt was a powerful and well-evidenced report. I was impressed with the depth of analysis in many of the witness statements, both written and oral, underpinned by their description of the reality of the journey that they had been on in trying to stay true to the principles of the Act.
I read the report with a growing sense of loss and frustration at what could have been if the political drive and the resources had been available to implement the Act in line with its original vision. It was, of course, a Labour Government who introduced what was considered at the time to be ground-breaking legislation, which rationalised rural and environmental bodies to create Natural England. It was also a Labour Government who created the Commission for Rural Communities and, indeed, the Sustainable Development Commission and a number of other environmental bodies, which were all doing extremely valuable work but were killed off by the coalition Government in what I would describe as an act of environmental vandalism—but enough about that.
What is clear from the contributions from noble Lords to this debate is that, while we should acknowledge our failures—and we all have them—we should also learn and resolve to build something better for the future, and I think that is what the committee’s report is about. That is why, like other noble Lords, I was so disappointed at the Government’s written response to the report. To say that it was defensive is an understatement. I would have liked to have seen much greater acknowledgement of the weight of verbal and written evidence that the committee had taken time to assemble, rather than the rather dismissive tone that the Government’s response adopted. As noble Lords have said, that is not the style of the noble Lord the Minister, and I hope that, when he responds to the debate, he is able to engage more constructively with the well-argued recommendations in the report.
Let me turn to the specific points in the report. First, as a number of noble Lords have said, the report addresses the impact of Brexit on how the Government can be held accountable for their environmental promises and policies. We debated that issue at length during the course of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and we were pleased that, eventually, the Government moved some way towards addressing our concerns—concerns which are echoed in this report. I hope that the Minister can now agree that it is vital that the new proposed watchdog is independent, accountable to Parliament, financed by more than one department, tasked with providing environmental scrutiny, able to deal with individual complaints and able to take the Government and other public bodies to court when rules are broken.
I raise this issue again because, as my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Rooker and other noble Lords have said, despite the progress on the EU Bill, the Government’s actual consultation document on the role of the green watchdog is woefully inadequate. In essence, its role is defined as advisory to government, with little room for independent intervention or action. So I hope the Minister can assure the House that the Government’s thinking has moved on since the consultation document was published. In addition, the habitats and birds directives require EU member states to report on the measures they have taken to implement the directives, including the conservation status of habitats and species. Does the Minister agree with this report’s recommendation that the Government should mirror those reporting requirements post Brexit?
Secondly, the report analysed in some detail how Natural England is performing its role. In particular, it raised concerns about the degree to which Natural England is independent from government and whether it has a distinctive voice. It was interesting to compare the oral witness statements from Andrew Sells, the chair of Natural England, and some of his senior staff, who were quite candid under questioning about their real concerns, with the rather anodyne written briefing that they subsequently sent to us all. It felt that, once again, they were under pressure to moderate and play down their concerns. What is clear, as they fully admit, is that they are facing significant funding challenges and are not able to operate at a scale that would enable them to reverse the decline in biodiversity.
This is a huge challenge for us all. As the report points out, between 1970 and 2013 56% of UK species declined, with 40% showing strong or moderate decline, and with our decline in the UK being greater than the global average. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what practical steps are being taken to intervene and reverse this decline, given that Natural England does not feel that it has the resources to do so. I know that the Government lay great expectations on the subsequent publication of the 25-year environment plan—I am sure the Minister will say that in his response—but it was produced in January of this year, and it is now July. Time is going on. That report has lots of ambition but few detailed plans, and we are still waiting for some measurable metrics. For example, the report talks about producing a biodiversity strategy by 2020. That is pretty much an indication of a lack of urgency, as is the aim to consider delivery options for the nature recovery network over the next two years. That obviously has to happen before that network can be implemented. All this time the clock is ticking and the decline in biodiversity continues. I hope the Minister is able to address the need for greater urgency on this issue in his response.
The report also provides substantial evidence that the current duty in the Act that public bodies must “have regard to” conserving biodiversity has proved to be ineffective. Of course, the phrase “have regard to” is a meaningless concept. It simply means that you have to prove that you have thought about it and you can then decide to ignore it. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and other noble Lords that the wording needs to be tightened. The report comes up with helpful suggestions on this. I was shocked to read how little consideration local authorities gave to this requirement or how little it was understood. The reform of the National Planning Policy Framework is a helpful start but the duties on biodiversity go further than this. I was sorry that the Government gave so little credit to the committee’s recommendations on this. They say that,
“the government does not accept that the duty lacks clear meaning”,
and that they would like to see more evidence that changing the wording would lead to better outcomes. My challenge back to the Minister is to look again at the evidence that the current wording is being disregarded on a widespread scale, and to embrace the opportunity to take the simple steps for improvement that the committee proposed in its report.
Finally, on rural communities, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke passionately and very convincingly about the current failings in both policy and independent research. The report goes into some detail about the institutional failure that has led to the interests of rural communities not being given the priority they once had. As noble Lords have said, there is a real danger that the department is simply being overwhelmed by other pressures. Obviously the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities is part of that, but there has clearly been a wider neglect. The result of this, as noble Lords have said, is that the indices on rural poverty, education provision, healthcare, transport, rural housing and other public services are all going in the wrong direction.
I can imagine how alarm bells must have rung in the department at the report’s recommendation that responsibility for rural policy should transfer to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and that the responsibility for rural proofing should transfer to the Cabinet Office. To be honest, I am not sure what I think about that. Historically, all too often we have snatched at organisational solutions to avoid addressing the more fundamental questions of policy priority and leadership. In the current climate there is indeed a danger that we will transfer that function from one department without the resources to deal with it to other departments that, similarly, do not have the resources to deal with it. While I have heard all the comments from around the Chamber on this issue, a great deal more thought needs to be given to it. However, I agree that the report was compelling about the failure of the current Defra response to these challenges. My noble friend Lord Rooker also made a powerful point about Defra’s desire for control at all costs, regardless of the public interest. These issues need to be addressed.
I say again to the Minister that I hope that in his response today he will be able to avoid the complacency of the Government’s written response, acknowledge that there is a problem, and convince us that the message of this report has been heard loud and clear and that genuine action will follow. I look forward to his response.