Bearskin Hats: Queen's Guards

Debate between George Howarth and Jeremy Quin

Monday 11th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting me, but I will get there. There is a long record of examining the alternatives, stretching back to when other parties were in government.

In response to the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), let me be clear: bears are never hunted to order for the MOD. Bear pelts used for the Queen’s Guards’ ceremonial caps are sourced exclusively from Canada precisely because it is a regulated market and a declared party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. A CITES permit is required for the export of pelts from Canada to the United Kingdom. Provincial, territorial, federal and international laws also provide strict trade regulations to protect against unlawful trade in black bears, both within Canada and internationally. The pelts required are by-products of legal and licensed hunts, which are authorised in Canada by provincial and territorial governments.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned that the total number of bearskins acquired in 2020 was 120—I have it down as 107 in 2020. The hon. Gentleman might be right; my numbers are by financial rather than calendar year. We acquired 31 bearskins in 2021. In response to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), I have put that into perspective. In other words, any reduction in the number of bearskins procured by the MOD would not have any meaningful impact on the Canadian conservation and population management policy. However, I appreciate that there is a point of principle that goes beyond that.

We are also very sparing in the acquisitions that we make. Individual soldiers do not possess their own hats; they are cared for and shared within the Household Division. Despite their constant use, every effort is made to carefully prolong the longevity of each ceremonial cap. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire is concerned that the caps do not last; actually, they usually last for more than a decade and some have been in use for as long as 60 years. They are carefully looked after as treasured items.

None of that is to say that we would not be perfectly willing to embrace a faux fur material that is up to the job. The Department has already made it clear that where suitable, affordable and sustainable alternatives to animal products exists, they will be used. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Barnsley East, referred to the faux fur used in the smaller busby hats, worn by the King’s Troop of the Royal Horse Artillery; those hats do not need to be worn with such regularity or all year round, in all manner of demanding conditions. The bearskin caps are taller, broader, made of longer fur and inherently weightier. They must also retain their distinctive shape and appearance for far longer durations than required of many other items of ceremonial wear.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I think the Minister confirmed, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), that the Government are open to the possibility of a sustainable and viable option other than real fur. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and others can demonstrate that such a product exists, would the Minister be willing, subject to costs and all the other considerations that have to be taken into account, to switch to that product?

[Jeremy Quin]

Absolutely. As I said at the outset, we are not wedded to the material used but we are wedded to this iconic symbol of the British Army. If there is an alternative that works, it will be taken seriously. Affordability, sustainability and other criteria are important, but whether the other material works is key.

Aircraft Noise

Debate between George Howarth and Jeremy Quin

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate. He, like me, has many constituents who live in rural communities, where the lower ambient noise makes the experience of aircraft hugely oppressive.

Gatwick is surrounded on three sides by areas of outstanding natural beauty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, the impact of Gatwick on the otherwise tranquil environment of large swathes of both of our constituencies is immense. In such conditions, noise can be experienced over a wide field—some 3.5 to 5 miles either side of the aircraft. The concentration of noise in quiet environments is not properly recognised by the existing standard industry metrics, which measure noise over 24 hours. In some parts of my constituency, the rate of take-offs has resulted in a relentless wall of noise, which is a pressing problem for my constituents.

I wish to focus on the issues that are being experienced right now, but, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, no debate on aircraft noise would be complete without a reference to runway expansion. If the Government were to go against the clear recommendation of the Davies commission and make what to my mind is the wrong decision on runway expansion, the number of flights over my constituency would double to up to 560,000 per year. Aircraft movements would become more concentrated on existing flightpaths, and two new flightpaths would be created over Copthorne and Crawley Down. The villages of Rusper and Copthorne would be taken within the standard noise contours for Gatwick. Rusper would be overflown by more than 300 easterly arrivals a day to the southern runway and more than 300 westerly departures using two routes from the same runway. Warnham and Slinfold would experience 150-plus concentrated departures per day, and Billingshurst would be affected by the massive increase in aircraft approaching both runways. The list goes on. I will not mention every single village in my constituency that would be adversely affected, because they all would be.

As the Davies commission pointed out,

“Knowing that aviation noise will be limited to certain times of the day is very important to many people.”

That is something on which I have common cause with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias). With that in mind, I am horrified that Gatwick’s post-expansion proposal is to operate both runways for take-offs and landings throughout the day, offering no period for respite—not even during the night. Night flights are incentivised by Gatwick’s charging structure. That is a nightmarish vision of the future.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) so eloquently set out, the present has its own severe problems. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, I welcome the independent arrivals review that was established by Gatwick. That shows its awareness of the very real concerns of many residents. I hope that the proposed noise management board will maintain that focus and be given real teeth so that it not only brings together stakeholders but makes a genuine impact.

As Gatwick considers its response, I ask that it addresses certain key issues. I have sought and received assurances from the airport that the impact of departures on communities will be taken into account when it determines its position on arrivals. Although the review focused on the latter, rather than the former, it would be wholly unfair and incongruous if attempts to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise were made without a proper appreciation of both arrivals and departures on residents.

The proposed wider swathe for arrivals from the west should result in a fairer distribution of aircraft impact. However, that will not be the case if air traffic control simply allows pilots to come in consistently by the shortest possible route. That will result in a heavy concentration of flights over a small area of my constituency, which is already severely adversely affected by departures. I understand that negotiations on that point are ongoing between Gatwick and NATS. It is an issue on which my constituents want cast-iron guarantees.

I am disappointed that night flights, which hon. Members have already spoken about, were excluded from the Gatwick review. Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I look to the Minister for reassurance that the consultation on night flights will be forthcoming this year. On technical innovations, I again look to the Minister to support the principle that noise modifications should be made on time and be effective. As mentioned earlier, Gatwick has a sunset date of the end of 2017 for A320s to be fitted with noise modification. The success of that depends on defaulters being subjected to severe penalties for non-compliance.

Finally—I again look to the Minister on this point—I am saddened that a more innovative approach has not been taken to stacking. As the Minister also has responsibility for shipping, he is more aware than most that we are an island. Could not a way be found to stack aircraft out to sea, rather than, as at present, over residential areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I call Caroline Spelman. I ask you to bear in mind that I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am.