Ivory Bill (Third sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

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

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have contributed to this debate. I acknowledge the intention behind the amendment to provide further definition to clause 6 on exemption of pre-1918 portrait miniatures. When the Government consulted on the ban on ivory, the evidence obtained indicated that there is no universally accepted definition of portrait miniatures on the basis of size. Furthermore, the definition of “miniature” is, strangely enough, a reflection not of the item’s size but of the technique used to create it. As a result, these items can range in size.

Our assessment is that, within the currently proposed definition, the sale of portrait miniatures is not likely directly or indirectly to fuel the continued poaching of elephants. As evidence to our consultation from the antiques sector, the public and some conservation bodies indicated, an exemption for portrait miniatures under the current definition would be proportionate and justified. The items will need to be registered under clause 10 and go through the application for exemption process described in clause 3, which states that an item must clearly satisfy the conditions for exemption or be referred to a prescribed institution for inspection. The process is sufficient for ensuring that items meet the exemption for pre-1918 portrait miniatures.

Although no clear proposal for a size qualification of portrait miniatures was put forward during the consultation, it is something that we have always been keen to consider. I thank the shadow Minister for her proposal.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

When we took evidence on this point on Tuesday, the expert, Emma Rutherford, was asked whether the frame should be included and what should actually be measured. She said that she thought it would be done by size of the ivory, because frame sizes differ. If we are to go down the path of judging something by size, is it the Minister’s view that frame should not be included and that only its contents would be measured?

[David Rutley]

Perhaps finishing the point I am trying to make will clarify the matter for the hon. Lady, and I will then go on to the point about the frames. I am grateful for the amendment, and I also note the helpful detail from Philip Mould & Company given during the evidence session. We will continue to consider this issue fully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Looking back again at Emma Rutherford’s evidence, she said that 90% to 95% of miniatures would be within the range of 6 by 8 inches. Clearly that means that 5% or 10% are outside that. We did not press her—perhaps we should have—on the importance of that. She seemed quite relaxed about the fact that most would be covered by that rule if we were to introduce it, but I think if we are to consider introducing a size provision, we need to know whether some important miniatures would be excluded, and perhaps tweak it or at least bear that in mind.

[David Rutley]

I think that relates closely to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said. We need to get the best available advice on how to define that. Important points were made about frames, and so forth, which need to be considered. We want to get the best advice and expertise available, to get the definition right, and then, as the hon. Member for Blaydon said, make the definition transparent and available to anyone.

Ivory Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

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

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I start by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It was good to hear the Musicians’ Union and the other associations that gave evidence confirm that they were delighted with the progress that has been made. I know that when an ivory ban was first talked about, they were very concerned that, given all the talk about the antiques trade and the obvious focus on conservation and animal welfare, musicians would get left out and owners of instruments containing a small amount of ivory would be overlooked. It is very good that the Government have listened to them and seem to have reached an agreement. They also confirmed that although the ivory ban was introduced in two tranches—in 1975 and 1989—they were comfortable with the fact that the ban applies to all instruments post-1975.

However, I still have a couple of concerns. I think that we will get on to one of them later, when we discuss clauses 10 and 11. It is about the fact that the registration certificate travels with the owner. So, if an owner sells an instrument, the new owner has to go through the whole process again, as opposed to the certificate travelling with, or being attached to, the instrument. I would have thought that something similar to car logbooks could be used, whereby there is just a change of name on the certificate; but we will discuss that later.

During the evidence session, there was some proposal about a blanket ban on online sales and I know the Minister would have noted that there was concern about that. However, it does not look as if anyone is bringing forward such a ban. We did not discuss it when we were considering clause 1, so I think that we are okay on that point.

However, one issue that musicians need clarifying in the Bill is whether exempted instruments that are sent abroad for repair will be allowed to return to their owner without any huge delays or additional paperwork. I think that such instruments would be at the higher end of the market. Because of their rarity, intricacy and value, they often need to be sent to other countries for intricate repairs, so it would be a real problem and a huge shame if they were to be confiscated, either abroad or on their return through customs. So I should be very grateful to the Minister for clarification of whether he has looked into that; if not, perhaps he could make efforts to address that issue in the Bill.

My other concern echoes what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said about how we raise awareness of this provision. The Musicians’ Union can obviously reach out to its own members, and if people are professional musicians or own a musical instrument business, this is something they may well hear about. However, I am concerned that an awful lot of people, including some people who may just own guitars, may not hear about it.

When Alan Johnson was Home Secretary, people praised him for having come from a humble background and having attained such an exalted position, but what he still really wanted to be was a musician and I think that Tony Blair was of the same opinion as well. Indeed, I suspect that there are rather a lot of men of a certain age who have still got their guitars sitting there, which they have had for a rather long time. [Laughter.] It is people such as that who may well be affected by the Bill, so how do we spread word about it to them?

I have a friend who is not only a musician but a guitar repairer; he has been doing guitar repairs for more than 30 years and is attached to a particular shop. He must have worked on thousands of guitars over that time, including some incredibly intricate ones. In fact, he repairs not only guitars but ukuleles, mandolins and banjos. I remember that one instrument in particular was inlaid with all sorts of mother-of-pearl and lights that flashed every time a string was plucked. That one was incredibly rare and required an awful lot of work.

What is interesting is that I spoke to him and asked, “Were you aware of the rosewood ban?” He said yes, because the shop knew about it and had stopped selling rosewood guitars; it sells fake rosewood guitars now. However, when I mentioned ivory to him—bear in mind that this is somebody who for 30 years has taken guitars to pieces and put them back together again, and twiddled with the knobs, and got vintage knobs off one thing and put it on another thing—he said, “Oh, I just assumed it was bone on the guitars that I worked on.” He had no idea that he might be working on instruments that had ivory on them. I suppose the shop will get to hear about the legislation, but he does a lot of repairs for people who just phone him up or musicians who pop in and give him their guitars to work on.

I will tell my friend about the legislation, so he will be in the clear, but how do we ensure that all those musicians who come in and out of the shop realise that they have ivory in their guitars? Obviously, that also applies to all sorts of other instruments that might have a small, perhaps not very noticeable, piece of ivory in them. How will they know what the requirements are? The registration certificate is quite complex and a lot of people will just not bother completing and submitting it, even if they are slightly aware, because they are unlikely to be caught. There will be a job of work to do to ensure that people do not fall foul of the law without meaning to.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

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

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

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

[Kerry McCarthy]

This is really about clause 11, but I do not understand why a new owner has to re-register. That does not seem to make sense. In the same way as a registration certificate is attached to a car, why cannot one be attached to a musical instrument? We have expressed concerns about people not knowing that they have got to go through this process, and it seems that this has created an awful lot more work.

[David Rutley]

We can have that debate when we get to that clause. We are trying to ensure that we have a robust system, and that there is not too heavy a burden on the Government. We want our approach to be light-touch but effective. We can debate that more, and I am sure we will.

The hon. Lady asked some very interesting questions about items going abroad for repair. I did not know that happened. The exemption applies to UK imports and exports, so if the item satisfies the exemption in the UK, it will be allowed to be re-imported under the musical instruments exemption. To reiterate, the item must be registered under clause 10, and the person must apply for the relevant permit certificate under the EU wildlife trade regulations. The Bill builds on the EU wildlife trade regulations, so both need to be satisfied.

Questions were asked about Northumbrian pipes. It a great part of the world, and I know that is a strong tradition in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaydon. We are trying to create very tight exemptions, and if a Northumbrian pipe contains more than 20% ivory, it will not qualify for the exemption. That is a challenge. The point we made on Second Reading is that the item can still be played, owned, gifted, donated or bequeathed. We might be able to look at options to keep that tradition alive, but I am afraid Northumbrian pipes would not come under one of these exemptions, and it would be very difficult to have a specific one for just one category. There might be other ways in which that tradition can be kept alive for future generations.

Foie Gras Imports

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, there are traditions and delicacies in many parts of the world, but I do not think that that excuses the inhumane way in which foie gras is produced. It is certainly not part of a mainstream tradition in this country.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this debate to the House tonight. He is excellent on animal welfare issues. The decision on foie gras has already been made in this country. We have banned its production here because it is morally unacceptable and cruel, and a YouGov poll has found that 77% of people support an import ban. I think that that figure would be much higher if the rest were to actually listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the immense cruelty involved and if people realised that they were eating a diseased organ. Foie gras is a product of making the animal diseased.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I pay tribute to the work she has done on many animal welfare issues. She is right to say that this is a quite disgusting form of production. If more people appreciated the fact that they were eating a diseased organ, I am sure that the percentage of people expressing outrage at foie gras being allowed in this country would be even higher.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides five points that must be taken into account when focusing on an animal’s needs: its need for a suitable environment; its need for a suitable diet; its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; its need to be housed with—or, as appropriate, apart from—other animals; and its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. As I have said, we cannot produce foie gras in this country, as to do so would contravene those points, so let us apply those values to what is imported into our country as well.

Ivory Bill (First sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

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

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Q That is interesting because the Bill has been a long time coming and it is great that we have got this far. To knock it off course would be perverse. As we have not consulted on all the other species, would the best thing be to get the Bill through and then all of you who are experts could meet Ministers to decide which species—particulary non-CITES species—ought to be included so that we do not have other species coming on to the endangered list simply because activity has been displaced? I assume that you would all be happy to consult Ministers once the Bill is passed to get that done as soon as possible.

David Cowdrey: I totally agree with that. We have all worked so hard to get to this point to deliver one of the strongest ivory bans in the world. The initiative that has been taken by all parties and the cross-party support shown on Second Reading have been superb, and there is an opportunity to provide that protection. As we said, as long as there is that flexibility, and consideration for other species, which can be applied in future, and as long as further consultations can be held and we can have those discussions, I would agree totally with that.

Cath Lawson: Yes, WWF would be happy to engage in that consultation process, but for it to be separate to passing the Bill.

Will Travers: Just for the Committee’s interest and information, we are talking about huge volumes of trade in non-elephant ivory. I have four figures that might be helpful. From 2007 to 2016—just under a decade—78,000 hippos and hippo products were exported by CITES parties. Hong Kong imported 60 tonnes of hippo ivory between 2004 and 2014. Between 2007 and 2016—those dates again—7,000 narwhal products were exported and more than 172,000 walrus specimens were reported to have been exported on the CITES trade database. Those are not insignificant by any measure—they are enormously significant. With that kind of volume now, as we have just mentioned, the shift away from elephant ivory could put insupportable pressure on these other species, which is why we would like to see an accelerated process for that after this process has been undertaken. That is a very helpful suggestion.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q It has taken a long time to get to the stage of introducing this Bill and I would think it will be a long time before the Government return to this issue. The figures you have given on other species are startling, and you say you want flexibility in the Bill to be able to amend it. Is there a way in which the Bill could allow for, perhaps, delegated legislation or some other way to revisit the issue without having to have an Ivory Bill mark 2, which could be quite a significant time down the road?

Cath Lawson: From WWF’s point of view, I cannot comment on the legislative process but we would certainly want to see a consultation process around those species before inclusion in a Bill. That is why it needs to be a separate process.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q We know the figures and the scale of the problem, so what would a consultation be aimed at trying to find out?

Cath Lawson: Similar to the process we have gone through for the Ivory Bill, looking at the impact of UK trade on those species, and implications further down the line in terms of limiting that trade.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q I suspect that the trade in ivory that comes from those species is not anywhere near as established as that of elephant ivory in terms of antiques, piano keys and things like that. That trade would be concerned with elephant ivory.

Cath Lawson: Yes.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q So I am not sure there needs to be so much discussion about trade when it comes to these other items. Where does the hippo ivory and narwhal ivory end up?

Will Travers: In trade.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Why is it being traded? Is it medicines, or is it for ornaments?

Will Travers: My understanding is that it is genuinely an alternative ivory that is used in decorative materials. It is used in inlays and in almost exactly the same way as elephant ivory is used except less so on the whole. Less so in a large carved tusk in the shape of little elephants, for example.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Exemptions in the Bill are all for existing items—in the case of musical instruments it is pre-1975, and much earlier for antiques—so I do not quite understand why there would be a need to reconsider exemptions for items from other species, if you are saying they are being used now. I do not get the moral justification for there perhaps being a different case for items made of ivory from other species. Why is it not exactly the same case as for elephants? Perhaps Lisa can ask more coherently than me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

Q Is that something we can learn from? Would it be relevant?

Alexander Rhodes: Really importantly, it is something we can learn from and it is quite good that we can learn from what African countries have been doing in relation to that. Interestingly, we paid for it anyway. In the context of Angola, for example, where we are working at the moment, a challenge fund grant is paying for a programme of legislative reform review and prosecutor and judicial training.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Returning to what you said about a ban on any sales online, would that apply just to pre-1918 items, and not to the exemptions for items with low ivory content? I am thinking particularly of musical instruments. At the moment there is an exemption for pre-1975 musical instruments. They are quite often bought and sold online. People buy guitars, for example, from online shops. Would you be happy for that to continue where the ivory is not a crucial part of the item but it happens to have ivory decoration, or an ivory mouthpiece, for example? I do not think many pianos are bought and sold online, but they can have ivory keys.

Alexander Rhodes: The purpose of this is clarity and certainty, so my preference would be for it to be straightforward. If it is ivory, you cannot sell it, and you cannot deal in it, online. To add a little context, you are right, of course. Not only are musical instruments with bits of ivory in them bought and sold online but some inlay furniture is also sometimes bought and sold online. However, it is the overwhelming minority of musical instruments or pieces of furniture that contain ivory of that kind.

My personal preference, for clarity and therefore for certainty, would be for it to apply across the piece. Of course, if it applied only to part of the piece, that would still be better certainty than its not applying at all.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q I can see that it is an easier provision to put in the legislation, but we have the Musicians’ Union and others coming in this afternoon. They may well have something to say about it. Then there are people buying and selling their own instruments. I suspect that they probably would not have the slightest idea that the legislation existed in the first place.

Alexander Rhodes: That is the opportunity of the Bill and of October. It is also the opportunity coming out of the broad consultation with musicians. We have had great conversations with them.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Engagement at the Musicians’ Union level is one thing, but it is another thing if you are talking about someone who has a vintage guitar and decides to sell it. I used to live with someone who had about 20 vintage guitars and repaired them for a living, so I know how often he decided that he absolutely had to have yet another vintage guitar and sell one of the ones that he had.

Even in the future, I do not think that he would realise that there was a ban on him putting his guitar on eBay. I would not want people criminalised for doing something like that. You are not talking about people making huge amounts of money in the ivory trade; you are talking about somebody who just happens to have a product that has a bit of ivory in it. We will ask the Musicians’ Union what they think.

Alexander Rhodes: It is a balance.

[The Chair]

Are there any further questions? Okay. If there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mims Davies.)

Ivory Bill (Second sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

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

[Mrs Latham]

That’s interesting. Thank you.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q May I just return to what the chief inspector was saying about how to prove if somebody knows it is ivory, particularly if it has been misdescribed. We have discussed in the past adding something around misrepresentation of an item to clause 1 to cover selling something that has been fraudulently mislabelled so as to avoid detection. Presumably, you would still then have the difficulty of proving that somebody had misrepresented it—that somebody knew it was not bovine bone or whatever.

Chief Inspector Hubble: Yes, we would still have to prove that they knew it was ivory and that they had then mislabelled it, knowing that it was ivory.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Adding a provision that covers mislabelling does not get us very far, unless you have absolute liability in terms of buying and selling.

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

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Bovine bone does not sound particularly appealing if you are buying something of ornamental value. Is it very well known within the business that it really is ivory?

Chief Inspector Hubble: Absolutely.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Absolutely, but it is very difficult to show that.

Chief Inspector Hubble: That is because eBay banned ivory as a listing two or three years ago: eBay was openly selling ivory and an approach was made to it to say, “This is illegal, you cannot do this.” It took the ivory category down, so now people call it bovine bone or ox bone, but clearly it is still ivory.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q You are not going to catch those people on the mislabelling; they have to have absolute liability and the burden of proof is on them. That is the only way you will catch those people.

Chief Inspector Hubble: Absolutely. In general, we do not deal with the people who will apply for exemption certificates and who will register their items and apply for permits, because they are the responsible, law-abiding people. We deal with the ones who have a complete disregard for policy protocol legislation. We deal with the ones who are deceptive, who lie and who want to make money out of this. The burden of proof has to be manageable and has to be able to be enforced, otherwise it is not enforceable legislation.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q As you said, you police this by starting with a ticking off. If somebody genuinely thought, “That looks pretty,” and bought something on eBay without thinking of or knowing the consequences, you will not come down hard on such people, will you? It will be the people who you know to be in the business.

Chief Inspector Hubble: We have to apply a proportionate response to any investigation that we undertake, based on what they are doing, what they have done before and whether they are willing to engage through an education process or a preventive measure. All those factors determine the outcome and the sanction.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q If the burden of the proof was on the person buying or selling, you would not end up criminalising lots of people who are just buying things innocently, because you could be trusted not to go steaming in with armed police officers.

Chief Inspector Hubble: Absolutely, yes.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I received a donation from the Musicians Union at the last general election and the previous one. I want to put that on the record—it has been declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I also received a donation from the Musicians Union at the last election.

[The Chair]

Okay, thank you; that is on the record. Let us move on to questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For the record, anyone, including distinguished members of the panel, can continue to submit written evidence through the parliamentary website with a reference to this Bill.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q If I may ask the musicians, my understanding is that you are both happy with the provision as drafted in the Bill. I know there were lots of discussions with the Department beforehand, so you are happy with it. Paul, you said there were two tranches of ivory bans—1975 and 1989—and you are happy the instruments between 1975 and 1989 are not included.

Paul McManus: Let me be very honest: we are extraordinarily grateful that this exemption has been considered at all. The vast majority of instrument manufacture involving ivory ceased around 1975. There was some continued use of ivory, with the other ivory that was not brought into enforcement until 1989. While it would be tempting to say “Can we have a bit more, please?”, if I am totally honest, we were so delighted with the proposal as it stood that, considering it would catch the vast majority of instruments, we did not want to appear over-zealous in our presentation to you.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q That is good of you. Can I ask about the registration requirements, which I had not quite cottoned on to? Owners of instruments would have to register them, under clause 10. If they sell the instrument on, the registration does not follow the item; the new owner has to register it. I can see that if you own a Stradivarius that is worth a fortune, you are aware of things like that. You are a professional, and that is all part and parcel of it. You have managers and agents, and all sorts of things. If you are just somebody buying and selling a guitar that you might not even realise has a bit of ivory in it, how is that going to work for the guy—sorry, or woman—who has had the guitar sitting in the corner of their room for a long time?

Paul McManus: It is a challenge. As an industry, we have been dealing with the rosewood legislation that CITES brought in last year. Nearly every guitar is made with rosewood, so we have had to try to educate an entire industry that makes guitars—both here and overseas—and every musician buying or selling a guitar, about the fact that rosewood is now a protected product. It is tough; I will be honest with you.

I suspect that ivory will rise to the top in awareness quicker than rosewood did. We have had to use every communication channel we can. We have gone to special Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meetings in Bristol to educate the whole industry and take our members to it. Back to the online platform debate—to be fair, some of the online platforms have now been putting up information saying, “If your guitar is rosewood, you need to be aware of x, y and z,” as they have done with ivory. It is a challenge, but we just have to do everything we can to communicate this. There are so many platforms that people can buy and sell through.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Especially if the provision applies only if less than 20% of the product is ivory. It is not like having an ornament that is made of ivory, where you have it in your mind that it is an ivory product. If a little bit of an instrument—

Paul McManus: Every instrument will come to less than 20%. A piano is 3%, because of the total volume of the product the ivory keys are 3%. There are a few instruments, such as accordions, that will get into the double digits, but nearly 99.99% will come under 20%. It will not be a problem in the percentage; it will be the article 10 provisions that you have to—

[Kerry McCarthy]

You would think a light would go on in the head with a piano, because everyone knows that the keys are made of ivory. As David mentioned, if you have a smaller instrument in which a tiny bit of the bow is made of ivory, the issue is how that is even flagged up.

David Webster: It is difficult. You might find that on a banjo, for example, the fret board has a bit of ivory on it, or the tuning peg. As far as registration is concerned, the Bill refers to a fee for registering the instrument, to be set by the Secretary of State. We would ask that the fee be waived for professional musicians, who generally do not earn a large amount of money. They might spend many years doing various jobs, but they do not earn a huge pot. Their major investment is their instrument, and we would not want to see them pay a large fee to register it in order to be able to trade it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Do we know how much the fee would be? Has that been discussed?

David Webster: It is not in the Bill. It is “as prescribed” by the Secretary of State.

[Kerry McCarthy]

No ballpark fee?

Paul McManus: A CITES article 10 is normally about £30, but the registration might be separate from that.

David Webster: These are working musicians and the instruments are the tools of their trade. It is an important distinction. This exemption is welcome because it really does recognise that these are working instruments, tools of the trade, and a cultural heritage as well as what the musician needs in order to do their job on the world-class platforms we have in the UK.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q One of the witnesses this morning was pushing for a ban on all online sales of ivory instruments, on the grounds that people need to see them to know what they are getting. Would that cause a problem?

David Webster: I think it would cause a problem for musicians, yes. If there was a total ban on selling instruments online, you would have to travel in order to have face-to-face consultations. Musicians generally know what they are selling when they sell their instruments. An online sale facilitates musician-to-musician instrument selling, and an online ban would not help at all as far as our members are concerned.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Presumably there are not that many of these instruments around, so the chances are that they are going to be a long way from where the musician who is buying is located.

Paul McManus: Yes, and the problem is that the minute you say something cannot be done online, people get around it. You can buy a gun bag on eBay with a free gift inside it, because you cannot sell guns on eBay. People will get around it. David is right; a lot of musicians need to talk to other musicians around the world about their products. If it has been promised to a guy in America for 10 years, it will be done online.

David Webster: If it is a serious sale, they will be able to see it online and pay for it online, but they might want to actually try it out. When you buy an instrument, it is not just the instrument; it is also the ergonomic feel within the body and the tonal quality. Collectors might want to buy online and that would affect them, but the professional musician will always play the instrument before purchasing it.

[Trudy Harrison]

Q I feel that I should declare an interest as a pianist and the owner of a piano that may or may not have ivory keys—I have been doing some research, and they are not solid ivory keys but wooden keys with potentially ivory coating. This brings me to my question. You said that you believe that a 20% de minimis threshold would cover most commonly played and traded instruments, but what proportion would not be covered by this 20% of musical instruments?

Paul McManus: There are a few, and they come under antiques. We saw a lute that had nearly solid ivory plating over the whole thing, but that was pre-1947. It dated back to the 1800s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Latham]

Q How would you fund that? If people came to you with their particular pieces of ivory, or ivory as part of something, how would you fund that? There would be a cost to you. Would you think of charging whoever it is that wants it?

Dr Boström: We already have an opinions service, which is a public-facing service. Each curatorial department, on the first Tuesday of the month, has a public opinion session. We would certainly be able to offer the service through that. Whether a more robust service beyond that is needed, and what that might be, is one of the discussions that is on the table, I think.

Hartwig Fischer: In view of the importance of what the Bill addresses, I think provision should be made for those experts to give expert advice. There is an investment of time and expertise that should be covered, because it is during working hours.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q There are specific exemptions in clause 9 about acquisitions by qualifying museums, which you obviously are, which mean that you would be exempt from the prohibition. Could you give an example of where you might need to rely on that exemption for products that are not already covered by the exemption certificate? Am I right in my understanding that the normal prohibition is that it has got to be pre-1918, and has to have a certificate that it is of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical significance, but there are some exemptions if a museum is involved? What sort of product would be likely not to qualify for the exemption certificate, but be something that you would want to buy or sell?

Anthony Misquitta: As museums, we are not in the business of selling. We are not really entitled to sell. Once an item enters the collection of a museum, that is normally it. The term we use is de-accession and we have very narrow powers to de-accede. Certainly, once it is in the collection, we are not in the market to then sell it back into private ownership. Normally—99.9% of the time, and probably more than that—when it enters a museum’s collection, that is it forever.

[Kerry McCarthy]

What about acquisition?

Anthony Misquitta: An example could be a musical instrument with more than 20% ivory content, of which we have some. We have some that are almost 100% ivory.

Dr Boström: Or a piece of furniture.

Anthony Misquitta: Or potentially a piece of post-1918 art deco furniture, for example, that is of significant cultural value.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is interesting. Thank you.

[Sue Hayman]

Q There is obviously talk about prescribed institutions and qualifying museums and there has also been talk of a register of exempted items. The Secretary of State will keep a list of those registered or qualifying museums and prescribed institutions. If an institution is found to have been breaking the law, how do you see that being managed within your industry? Should the Secretary of State be able to take them off the register? Should further criminal action be taken? How would the industry look at policing itself within that category?

Hartwig Fischer: I would be very surprised if any of those institutions breached the law. We have extremely strict procedures in place for due diligence on provenance. Before any object enters our collection, it goes through many filters and is closely monitored. My understanding is that it would be exceedingly difficult for any of these institutions to do this. It is unlikely that something like this would happen inadvertently. It would be most exceptional for something like this to happen. I am very confident that these institutions are extremely conscientious when it comes to acquiring objects.

Anthony Misquitta: There is a very strict accreditation regime for museums in this country. Accreditation is by Arts Council England. Where a museum falls foul of those very strict rules, it loses its accreditation and that is catastrophic. It loses its Government indemnity scheme, it is unable to loan to or receive loans from other museums, and its charitable status is thrown into jeopardy. There are a number of checks and balances in the accreditation regime.

I will not say that museums never break the rules, because it is a very tough climate for museums—not the likes of the museums before you, but it is a difficult period for regional museums. Sometimes they are faced with the stark option of selling an item or closing, for example. They might sell an item and run the risk of losing their accreditation, but it is not something that they would do lightly and it is devastating if they do.

It may be necessary for the Arts Council to think about adding reference to this legislation to its accreditation tests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and a number of farmers have also raised the issue with me. I would simply say that the consultation had sections on safeguarding a profitable future for farming, on fairness in the supply chain, on risk and resilience, and on investment in research and development, so there was lots on food production. I simply say that we want to change the way we farm so that it is more sustainable; not stop farming, or do work on the environment instead of farming.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I asked the Minister back in March whether he had held meetings to discuss the problems that might arise because of the overuse of antibiotics in US farming, if we were to move to trading with the US and accept its standards. He would not confirm whether he had met representatives of the Department of Health and Social Care or the Department for International Trade to ensure that we could rule out imports of meat produced in the US, which has five times the use of antibiotics that we have in this country.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met the chief medical officer to talk about the important issue of antibiotics use. We also have the O’Neill report, which set key targets for the UK to reduce its use of antibiotics, and the UK has campaigned globally through various international forums to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture.

Ivory Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State gave a long list of those he wants to praise for their involvement in this, but will he join me in praising the rangers who do the work on the ground trying to defend elephants, rhinos and other animals against poachers? It is estimated that over 100 rangers a year lose their lives in violence because of the work they do.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point: the bravery and determination of those who do this work is outstanding. In countries such as Gabon individuals risk their lives to save elephants and safeguard the animals they love in a country to which they are deeply attached, and as it goes in Gabon it goes in many others countries as well.

The hon. Lady’s intervention also gives me an opportunity to thank our own armed services. As the Defence Secretary pointed out, only last week we dispatched more trained military personnel to support the work of rangers on the ground. That capacity of a country like ours to work together and use our expertise alongside the commitment of those from African nations will help us turn the tide and beat back the poachers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much welcome the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Government have managed to introduce this 40-page Bill in a very busy parliamentary timetable but still have not found time to finalise legislation to ban wild animals in circuses? This week we have seen Slovakia become the latest country to introduce such a ban. The Wild Animals in Circuses Bill has been through prelegislative scrutiny, and it has been kicking around for years. It is a very short Bill. Why cannot we pass it now?

[Sue Hayman]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I would be pleased if the Secretary of State could announce when the Government will be banning wild animals in circuses. I am a sponsor of the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and it would be extremely helpful if the Secretary of State could bring it forward.

I reiterate my assurance that Labour will support the Ivory Bill on Second Reading, and I hope that both the Government and the House will give careful consideration to how we can strengthen the Bill both in Committee and at subsequent stages.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who has stated the Opposition’s support for the Bill. My hearty congratulations go to the real Secretary of State for introducing it.

We lose an elephant every 25 minutes, which is 20,000 elephants a year—we should all remember that incredibly simple fact. During this debate we have already lost two elephants. It is estimated that 100 years ago there was an elephant population of about 10 million, and the decline has accelerated. The great elephant census, published in August 2016, found that only 352,000 savanna elephants were left across the 18 countries surveyed—a 70% crash in numbers since 1979, when the total population stood at 1.3 million.

Encouraged by my then junior Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and Charlie Mayhew, the chief executive of Tusk, I went to Lewa when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Lewa is a brilliant example of how local landowners have created conservancies where the management of wildlife is jointly organised by local communities. The rangers, whom the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, are all working together, and the local community sees real value in the wildlife. As a result, poaching has been reduced in Kenya in the past couple of years. Lewa is a brilliant example of how, if a local community can see the value of wildlife, it will participate in its long-term regeneration.

A couple of years ago I went to the Kruger national park in South Africa. Whereas in Kenya there was a chronic lack of equipment, in South Africa there was a major general with 35 years’ experience in the South African army who had aeroplanes, helicopters and 700 brilliantly equipped rangers, but they lost four rhinos the weekend I was there. The poachers in the Kruger will move on to the wonderful, huge elephants once they have gone through the rhinos, and the reason is money. Northern Mozambique is miserably poor, and if a person can get one rhino horn out of the Kruger it will keep their community going and they will be a folk hero in their little town.

I have seen two contrasting sides to this issue. There is a big demand for this product, mainly from the far east, and the obvious answer is to grow more. I have thought about this, and that answer is simply not practical. We will never produce enough elephants or rhinos to satisfy the colossal demand. The only answer is to do what this Bill does, which is to sever the demand.

I returned from my trips and met the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend Lord Hague of Richmond, and we sat down and organised what became the largest world wildlife conference anywhere. We had great help from my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the then Secretary of State for International Development, who has sadly left the Chamber. She completely got my point about conservancies and bringing in the local communities.

Over 40 countries participated at the conference. Sadly I could not participate because I had an emergency eye operation, but the conclusion of the conference was exactly what we wanted: recognition that the illegal wildlife trade and the poaching that feeds it have, in some places, reached unprecedented levels. In response to the crisis, the London conference

“aimed to reverse recent trends of increasing illegal wildlife trade through measures to eradicate the market…ensure effective legal frameworks and deterrents, strengthen enforcement, and support sustainable livelihoods and economic development.”

Also from the conference came the Elephant Protection Initiative, set up by five African countries, and only today I got an email with the latest update—that 18 African countries have now participated in the initiative.

That was all good, and we were world leaders at the time. Other countries then got ahead of us. President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced that they would introduce complete bans, and America did so in June 2016, with pretty tough exemptions. China, I think remarkably—this is a real credit to the Chinese Government—took decisions that have closed down whole factories. At the time, a Chinese Minister told me that 34 designated factories would shut and that China intended to shut down its whole ivory trade and manufacturing process by the end of 2017. In 2016 the French also brought in a near complete ban, with tight provisions on trade. We made the right announcements, but we did not actually take action. Meanwhile, those bans have had a significant impact on the value of ivory. It was about $2,000 a kilogram, and it is now about $700 a kilogram.

Our party promised a complete ban in our 2010 manifesto and, in effect, a ban in our 2015 manifesto. Lord Hague and I had not given up at that point, and we worked with non-governmental organisations such as Stop Ivory, Tusk and the Born Free Foundation. I also held meetings with representatives of the antiques trade; the chairman of the British Art Market Federation, Anthony Browne; the chief executive officer of the Association of Art & Antiques dealers, Rebecca Davies; and the secretary-general of the British Antique Dealers’ Association, Mark Dodgson. We came up with a text that they would have been happy to put in our manifesto, which reads as follows:

“As hosts of the 2014 London Conference and the upcoming 2018 London Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference, we will continue to lead the world in stopping the trade in illegal wildlife products, which is responsible for the poaching that kills thousands of elephants, rhinos, tigers and other species, negatively impacting livelihoods and security. In response to overwhelming international opinion, expressed at both the CITES and IUCN meetings held in 2016, we will proceed with our commitment to introduce tighter legislation to close the domestic ivory market with appropriate exemptions covering objects of artistic, cultural and historical significance. We will further commit to support the range states of species impacted by illegal wildlife trade, in particular for elephants, rhinos and tigers and will continue to oppose any call for resumption in trade of products from these species.”

When we see the number of people who have signed the petition and who have reacted, we see that had that been in our manifesto, the result of the election a year ago might have been different. It is a great pity that that was omitted from our manifesto. I really believe that what the Secretary of State has brought forward today does honour that jointly agreed statement, and it should encourage a speedy passage for this Bill.

Let me give a crude summary of where I think the antiques trade is at the moment. I think it admits that the Bill, as drafted, is tighter than it would like, but it can live with it. Anthony Browne has written to me, saying:

“Our primary concern now is that the Government’s exemptions should not be made more restrictive by amendment during the bill’s passage through Parliament.”

That is a very helpful statement from the antiques trade. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who has sadly now left his seat, the Two Million Tusks report discovered that only 1.49% of lots for sale in auction houses contained ivory. Given that the total antiques market is worth about £9.2 billion, we see that we are talking about a round of drinks and the trade can probably manage without that business, although this should not be tightened up further.

I am fully aware that other Members are keen to speak, but I wish briefly to mention a few amendments that the Secretary of State might like to consider in Committee. It is obvious that exports, especially those to the world’s largest illegal ivory markets, are our most direct contribution to the global trade in poached ivory. An approximate analysis of the impact of the ban as proposed in the Bill is that about 25% of currently traded ivory items will fall under the exemptions. The UK exported about 35,000 ivory items to Asia from 2010 to 2015, which means that even with the exemptions in place, exports would still have totalled more than 8,000 items. That would mean the UK would still have been among the highest exporters of antique ivory in the world, even on the basis of the proposed ban.

The overriding concern is that the sale of such important items to markets in Asia fuels ivory’s desirability in the minds of consumers. Most people will of course not be able to afford to buy the rarest and most important items that this exemption is to cover, but seeing those pieces being acquired by people in their country will reinforce ivory as a luxury commodity that people wish to own, fuelling desire for items that are affordable, many of which are likely to be fakes from newly poached ivory. The exemptions in the Bill must therefore be incredibly rigorously defined and enforced.

As a start, I wonder whether the Secretary of State would consider having an annual register of how many items exemptions have been issued for under the historical, artistic and cultural definition each year, with a full description and pictures of each item. Such an annual register would be publicly available, and it would demonstrate the commitment that this exemption is for the rarest and most important items only and would allow public scrutiny.

Let me make a few brief suggestions as to how to improve the Bill. Clause 3(1) would be greatly improved if it were to specify documentary evidence to support the application and establish the legality of the ivory item, including age and provenance, as well as proof of identity and the owner’s address. Documentation will not always be available, but the lack of documentation would be a factor in the assessment. This applies in particular to online sales and exports. I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide a little more detail on how he thinks these regulations will apply to online sales, where we know flagrant cheating takes place. The declaration provided for in clause 3(1)(d) should include confirmation that the dealing complies with the convention on international trade in endangered species, or CITES, and the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations, or COTES.

The exemption certificate specified in clause 4(1) should also include the name of the owner, given the reference to an exemption certificate being issued to a “different person”. In general, a new owner of an item subject to an exemption certificate should be required to register their ownership, whether on a prohibited dealing or not, so that a record of ownership is maintained. That will help the register. On clause 4(5), more safeguards are needed on issuing replacement certificates. An item could have several replacement certificates, which could be used to sell items illegally. Under clause 4(5)(b), how could someone legally acquire an item but not obtain the certificate? Careful attention to the numbering system might resolve that issue. On clause 6, we need a clarification of what a “portrait miniature” is—we need a definition.

Importantly, on clause 9(5), the exemption does not apply to items that consist “only of unworked ivory” and therefore excludes tusks. I understand that that is the opposite of what was intended. This is the only reference in the Bill to unworked ivory, and specifying it in this provision calls into question what is meant in the rest of the Bill. Those words should therefore be removed.

The defence of ignorance in clause 12 is a real concern, particularly as it is well known that that the illegal trade is fuelled by unscrupulous traders marketing ivory as a bone or as ivory sourced from other species, such as a mammoth. There should therefore be a basic sanction based on strict liability.

The Secretary of State should also be able to include other ivory-bearing species not listed in the CITES appendices in clause 35(3). As the Born Free Foundation has indicated, there has been an increase in the purchasing of hippo and other non-elephant ivory in the UK to replace elephant ivory in the internal trade. The BFF infers that the legal and illegal trades are targeting these other species, as the Government’s focus is on elephant ivory. Given that the total number of hippo in Africa is only about 25% of the figure for the elephant population, a ban must be careful to ensure that it does not unintentionally place these species under yet more pressure. It would therefore be sensible to specify hippos in the Bill now, rather than to have the delay of putting through a statutory instrument later.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about extending this provision to other species. Subspecies of hippo, warthogs, walruses and whales are all in the CITES appendix of endangered species, so the approach being taken does not seem to make sense. We know that this will be the only time we have an Ivory Bill before this House for many years to come, so if we are going to try to protect those species, it makes sense for us to do it now, in this Bill.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support and I totally agree: if we have the option to put this in, which the clause gives us, we should just get it in the Bill. We know that there will quickly be a diversion to hippos if we do not provide for that.

I am fully aware that others want to speak, so I come to my last point, which is about enforcement. I had interesting negotiations with our current Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary about funding the national wildlife crime unit, and I am pleased to say that that funding is to run until 2020. We would like a strong, firm reassurance from the Minister that this legislation will need enforcing and will need the right level of expertise. The wildlife unit is absolutely brilliant; it is located just south of the river, in a strange suburb where there is a large, redundant Russian tank. For those who cannot find it, I should say that it is painted in party colours. I recommend going to see the NWCU, however, as it does fine work. We need clarity that it will be beefed up and properly resourced for the future. On the same grounds, the CITES Border Force team at Heathrow needs sufficient levels of manpower and resources, as they will be our frontine of defence against illegal imports and organised criminal activity coming into the UK.

The London illegal wildlife trade conference is back on 10 and 11 October. With this Bill, we have a wonderful opportunity to regain our leadership on this issue. How quickly can the Secretary of State get this Bill, which we all support, through its parliamentary process and on the statute book? I will support the Bill this evening.

Fur Trade

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It is always difficult to present the results of an e-petition, particularly when so many people want to intervene. He did a sterling job. I also thank the more than 109,000 people who signed the e-petition. That shows the strength of support across our constituencies for a ban on fur sales in the UK.

In my view, we should avoid all exploitation, abuse and slaughter of animals where we can. Fur farming is just a tiny part of that.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Sadly, too much of the fashion and beauty industries rely on cruelty to animals. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter what, cruelty and suffering cannot be the price of fashion?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree. Thankfully, we have made great strides in recent years in banning cosmetic testing on animals. I am not totally averse to all animal testing. People might assume that I would be averse, but I would make an exception in cases of important medical research where there is no alternative. However, people can live without personal vanity and frivolity. There are sustainable, ethical alternatives on the market for clothes, cosmetics, household products and other things that have not been banned from animal testing. In such cases we ought to be pushing for progress. That is why I am speaking today. Although I would like to see far more progress across the board in terms of animal exploitation and cruelty, I am happy to be here, supported by colleagues who are also in favour of a ban.

As we have heard, fur farming was banned in England and Wales in 2000, and in Scotland two years later, on the grounds of public morality. The fact that imported fur produced using the same methods is still allowed is fundamentally illogical and surely immoral too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has dealt with the legal position. I tabled a lot of questions at one point about foie gras. Why, if we banned it in this country on the grounds of public morality, could we somehow accept that it was fine for the French to do it and send it over here for people to have in their Fortnum & Mason hampers? There is a strong legal case for us banning it even if we do not leave the European Union.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Surely the reason that there is so much cross-party support behind this motion is because we all feel so compassionate. It is not the details of what happened. It is just a feeling of compassion that makes us all support what the hon. Lady is saying.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I totally agree. That is why so many people signed the e-petition. I would like to see people’s compassion extending to other animals, such as farm animal welfare, but I will not go there today—we would have substantially less consensus.

A lot of our fur imports come from countries that have lower animal welfare standards than the UK has, even before we introduced the fur farming ban. In some countries, the standards are simply non-existent. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I am a member of, has just conducted an inquiry into fake faux fur, where people are misled into buying real fur when they think they are buying cheap faux fur. We heard about the conditions on some of the fur farms in other countries.

The idea of ethical fur farming, even in countries which purport to be high-welfare, has been shown time and again to be a complete fiction. A recent investigation by the Daily Mirror into Saga-certified fur farms in Finland found morbidly obese foxes that had been grossly overfed and selectively bred to have large folds of skin so that they would produce more fur. This kind of breeding causes an array of health problems for the foxes, including poor reproduction, metabolic disorders and even DNA damage, which cannot easily be identified by the brief visual inspection required for a fur farm to become certified. One awful symptom seen repeatedly is foxes having bent and malformed feet, which occurs due to their forced obesity. That is hugely painful for the animals and severely impedes their mobility, sight and ability to breathe. There is a parallel with how birds are force-fed for the production of foie gras, which leads to their inability to lift themselves off the ground because they are so obese.

This is not just happening on one rogue farm on a bad day. A year later, the Daily Mirror went back and found the exact same conditions. Unfortunately, rather than the animal welfare charities cherry-picking the worst examples of fur farming, I have been told that the only cherry-picking taking place is filtering out the most graphic injuries and deformities. Investigations have recorded incidents of cannibalism, infanticide and severe, untreated wounds. Instead of a so-called humane death, there are reports of animals being beaten and stamped to death, and of some even being skinned alive.

Even if we do not look at those worst-case scenarios, the best condition that animals on a fur farm can hope for is to be kept for their whole life in wire-floored cages, which are thousands of times smaller than their natural habitats, while being denied basic behavioural needs such as hunting or swimming, with no mental stimulation and constant stress from being in unnatural social groups and situations, before being killed by gassing or electrocution. No one could argue that that standard of life for an animal on a fur farm constitutes a good or happy life.

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare stated as far back as 2001 that the typical cage in fur farms—not just the worst cage, but that used most frequently—

“does not provide for important needs of foxes”

or mink. As a result, abnormal behaviours are far from unusual. In fact, they are “widespread”.

The UK’s ban on fur farming was introduced only after our Farm Animal Welfare Council spent years gathering evidence, eventually concluding that fur farms are simply unable to satisfy even the most basic needs of the wild animals kept in them. It explicitly stated that it was not possible to safeguard the welfare of animals kept on fur farms.

Even more distressingly, research has shown that the environment of fur-farmed animals is so impoverished and alien to their natural behaviours that it is impossible to rehabilitate them. Fur farming is causing animals to have permanent brain dysfunction through sensory and motor deprivation during development. This dysfunction can be genetically transmitted from mothers to their offspring. Why do we continue to allow this industry to flourish through allowing millions of pounds’ worth of imports and sales into the UK? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, why is it seen as okay to outsource the cruelty overseas when we do not see it as an acceptable practice in this country?

[Giles Watling]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is correlation between exporting cruelty elsewhere by importing fur and live exports, where we grow animals in this country, then pack them into crates and take them overseas where they can be abused?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would be more than happy to support the hon. Gentleman in calling for a ban on live exports. At the moment, I understand there is a ban on animals being taken overseas for slaughter, but not for fattening. That seems to me to be a strange distinction. Surely we ought to be stamping out the exporting and transporting of animals in inhumane, cramped conditions.

I want to briefly mention the evidence we saw in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Some people might argue that it is up to individual members of the public to exercise choice as to whether they want to boycott products that contain animal fur or shops that sell such products. Humane Society International’s recent investigations have shown that mislabelling of real fur as fake fur, or fur products having no labelling at all, is rife on the high street, whether by active disregard or innocent oversight. Complex, multi-country and subcontracted supply chains mean that shops often just do not know what is in their products by the time they arrive in the UK.

I was reassured by the evidence from the likes of Amazon, which seemed truly committed to trying to stamp out real fur sales. It talked about tightening up a lot of processes. Obviously it was trying to put the best gloss on that, but I felt it was genuine in its desire to address this.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I sought to make this point earlier, but I will make it again. We must not and cannot absolve the retailers from their duty of care. It is absolutely vital that people understand that this trade is revolting and that they should have no part of it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is exactly why the Select Committee took evidence from the likes of Amazon and Camden Market. A lot of these items are found on market stalls, but they have also been found in shops such as Boots, Tesco, FatFace, Groupon, House of Fraser and Missguided—well-established chains that need to get their own houses in order. Some of them had explicit fur-free promises, which they need to live up to.

I reject, too, any claims from the fur lobby about its “Welfur” mark. On two occasions—once at the APPG on animal welfare, and once when the fur lobby gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—I have heard that a cruelty-free version of fur is on offer, but the fur trade is a cruel, ugly business, no matter how it is dressed up and marketed, and no matter how glamorous the end products or the people who might wear them are.

I implore the Minister to take heed of this debate and to recognise that it is indicative of much wider public support for a ban. He is a great enthusiast for Brexit, so whether or not we are allowed to do it under current rules, I hope he sees it as something that we can do in future.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

I am a very new MP—I am only a year in—but more than 200 people in Lincoln responded to the petition, so it is the single biggest issue since I was elected. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many MPs, it has had a huge response?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes, and that is often the case. I had 500 emails about puppy farming, which was an earlier iteration of the campaign. I should say hello to Marc from that campaign, who is in the Gallery yet again—he is here more often than I am.

Let us stop outsourcing this cruelty and introduce a ban on all fur imports as soon as possible. It is the humane, moral and right thing to do, and it is something that the public want us to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate, which is sponsored by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I thank him for his constructive, thoughtful and comprehensive exposition.

By way of preamble—that is never a good way to begin a sentence—in recent weeks and months, I, like others, have spoken in this Chamber calling for a United Nations ban on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals. I have spoken on puppy smuggling, puppy farms, the ivory trade and a range of animal welfare issues. My constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran care deeply about them, as do people right across the United Kingdom. They are hugely important to our constituents. We are a conglomeration of countries—a political union—that cares very deeply about animals.

This is an auspicious day in Scotland, because today we become the first country in the United Kingdom to enact legislation banning the use of wild animals in circuses. I sincerely hope that other parts of the UK and Europe follow us.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Lady makes a pertinent point. I have been told so many times that we cannot introduce a unilateral ban on wild animals in circuses because the EU would not let us, yet we hear that many other countries have done so—Slovakia did so this week. Clearly, being in the European Union was being used as an excuse.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I do not want to wander too far away from the focus of this debate, but we heard today that there might be issues with banning fur sales while we are still in Europe. We need to be careful about finding reasons not to do things. We can always find 100 reasons not to do something, but if the political will is there, we should make a greater effort to do what needs to be done.

As we have heard, fur farming has been illegal across the UK for a considerable time. That ban happened as a response to the public simply making it known to politicians that fur farms were an affront to decency that simply could not and would not be tolerated any longer. Consumers across the UK have been leading the debate, as they often do when it comes to ethical choices, particularly in relation to animal rights. Each year more than 100 million animals around the globe are killed just for their fur, either through being trapped in the wild, which accounts for about 15% of those killed, or from fur factory farms, which account for about 85% of those killed.

The animals farmed for their fur—most commonly, but not exclusively, mink—are wild animals. They are held in the most appalling and unnatural conditions, as was set out clearly and chillingly by the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Clacton (Giles Watling), for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Animals are held in appalling conditions until they are eventually killed for their fur, usually by gassing or electrocution. Those trapped in the wild are most commonly caught in leg traps. Some animals chew through their own limbs to escape and others are left for days until the trapper returns and kills them by stamping or kneeling on them, taking care, of course, not to damage the animal’s pelt.

The sale of fur in the UK has been in steady decline over the past 30 years or so. I am no fashion icon, Mr Davies, as you can probably tell, but fur products have become distinctly unfashionable in many quarters. As I have said, consumers are way ahead of us in Westminster. They have made an ethical choice and have been turning away from fur over the past 30 years, although the volumes of sales are still very disturbing, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) pointed out—I thank her for her powerful speech.

We know how consumers feel and we see the evidence in our inboxes. I do not often say this, but the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is absolutely correct. The trade is simply not needed. A ban on the sale of fur products is important to keep those loathsome and vile products out of the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity here to begin to wash the blood from our hands. As we have heard, other countries will follow. The question that Parliament has to decide—I know the Minister is listening carefully—is whether it wants to lead or whether it wants to follow. The change is coming. The question is how quickly we implement it.

The earlier comment made by the hon. Member for North Dorset was correct: we must deal robustly with ruthless operators in the supply chain who, when we have a ban, will try to pass off real fur as fake fur. We must make sure we are ready for that.

As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) pointed out, it is not good enough to wait for international welfare standards to improve and simply make the issue go away. A ban would hasten improvements in animal welfare internationally, not impede them. We cannot, as my former head teacher used to say, move at the rate of the slowest caravan.

The UK public, in numbers that are growing all the time, are appalled by the suffering caused to animals by the fur trade. A YouGov poll in February of this year showed that 69% of the British public support a ban on the import and sale of real fur, regardless of their political affiliation. It cuts through any voting behaviour and other belief systems people have. The World Trade Organisation has set a precedent for a ban, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out. Following challenges by Norway and Canada, the World Trade Organisation upheld the right of the EU to ban trade in seal products on the grounds of public morality. It noted that commercial seal hunts pose inherent dangers to animal welfare and the ruling was upheld on appeal. The door is open for a ban on the sale of animal fur in the UK. The question is whether the Minister will allow us to walk through it.

All lucrative endeavours bring with them powerful lobbyists such as we have seen with the tobacco industry. The latest example in the fur industry is an organisation called WelFur. I am sure the Minister is aware of the comprehensive and rigorous “Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’”, which concluded:

“WelFur is not able to address the major welfare issues for mink and foxes farmed for fur...or the serious inadequacies in current labelling and regulation.”

I am sure the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood also pointed that out.

For me, and I believe for many people in the UK, it is quite simple when we get right down to it—we have heard it said repeatedly in the debate. If we banned fur farms because of the cruelty they inflict on animals, it is simply not sustainable—indeed, it is actively hypocritical —to allow the sale of real fur in the UK. It suggests that the suffering inflicted on animals for fur is absolutely fine as long as it is not done in the UK. It is not fine. Probably everybody in this Chamber believes that, and every constituent who has contacted me believes it. If something is wrong because it is cruel, it is wrong regardless of where it occurs. The best message we can send today is to show how strongly we believe that by refusing to allow real fur into the UK for sale. We have outsourced the cruelty, as the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood has pointed out, and it is not good enough. No matter what animal we are talking about, the cruelty inflicted is simply not justifiable or acceptable.

I will end by urging the Minister to screw his courage to the sticking place and implement a ban on the sale of animal fur in the UK as soon as possible. The House supports it and our constituents support it and want it. Let us make it happen. I have no doubt that other countries will follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I was going to return to the issue of trade. The point is that it is not possible to make a difference just through the restriction on trade to the UK, because we represent a tiny portion—about 0.25%—of the entire global market. We would probably be more effective agitating for change through international forums such as the World Organisation for Animal Health, CITES and others to get improvements and further restrictions, and to encourage other countries to adopt the sorts of measures we have adopted. The Government recognise that some consumers do not wish to purchase fur on ethical grounds. As a consumer protection measure, there are laws about the legal fur trade to ensure consumers can obtain sufficient information about whether a product is composed wholly or partly of fur so they can make an informed choice.

I recognise, as several hon. Members pointed out—including my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) in an intervention—that concerns have been expressed recently that real fur is being passed off as fake fur, especially in low-cost items. That is the subject of an inquiry by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to which my noble Friend Lord Gardiner gave evidence. The hon. Member for Bristol East cast aspersions on Lord Gardiner’s knowledge of these issues, but I believe he has looked at them in depth and understands them well.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I did not mention Lord Gardiner.

[George Eustice]

I am sorry; I would like to correct that. I misremembered who made that point—it was the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). I assure hon. Members that my noble Friend Lord Gardiner has looked at these issues in great detail and, I believe, has a deep understanding of them.

The hon. Member for Cambridge asked about levels of trade. Various figures have been mentioned. I am told that, in 2017, we imported £63 million-worth of fur and articles with fur, and exported £33 million-worth of fur and articles with fur, which suggests that about £30 million-worth of those imports was for UK use.

Let me turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman talked about WTO rules, and I broadly agree with him. I have argued many times in this Chamber that nothing in the WTO rules precludes us from taking stances on ethical grounds and from advancing animal welfare. As he pointed out, an important test case relating to seal fur and seal skins was upheld. It is not perfectly straightforward—the WTO has not upheld other cases—but there is case law that allows individual national Governments to advance such measures on ethical grounds, particularly relating to animal welfare.

It is a little more complicated when it comes to the European Union, because where there are EU harmonising measures relevant to the movement of fur—including the EU animal by-product regulations—any limitation of where such products can be sold and any national restriction would need to meet the requirement of article 114 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That would require us to have the consent of other countries or cede the final decision to the European Commission. It is a complex picture but, for political reasons, it is unlikely that we would be able to advance that while we are in the EU. I suspect that is why the previous Labour Government, when they introduced the ban on fur farming, stopped short of trying to introduce a restriction on trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood made a very important point about the use of leghold traps. As I said earlier, under current EU regulations there is a prohibition on the import of furs or fur products from some wild animal species originating in countries where they are caught by leghold traps or trapping methods that do not meet international standards of humane trapping. The furs of animals caught in leghold traps are prohibited from import into the UK, and there has to be certification to confirm the country of origin, so I believe that the existing regulations cover that.

Some hon. Members made an important point about the saliency of this issue to the public. I agree and concur with that completely. The lion’s share of the correspondence coming into DEFRA relates to animal welfare. This really does matter. I was not aware that we had ever blamed the European Union for not introducing a ban on wild animals in circuses—indeed, that has been Government policy for a couple of years now. We are committed to introducing that Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset talked about our ability to use soft power. I agree with much of what he said on that issue but, as I pointed out earlier, I believe we will be more effective if we advance that soft power through forums such as the World Organisation for Animal Health, CITES and others in order to get a wider uptake of the types of bans and restrictions that we have in place here in the UK.

There have been many thoughtful contributions to this important debate, including from hon. Members who have been campaigning on the issue for many years. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge on introducing the debate, and all hon. Members on their contributions.

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The existing motor companies will play a critical role in ensuring that we can move towards a more sustainable and cleaner method of providing personal transport. He is absolutely right that hybrids will have a role to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be saying more about that in due course, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and other Members who represent manufacturing and industrial sectors for the constructive way in which they have helped to bring people together.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Environment Secretary gets very frustrated with the Treasury dragging its feet on some of the initiatives he wants to push forward. It was recently reported that the £400 million plan for electric car charging infrastructure is being held up by the Treasury because it has not even recruited somebody to be in charge of the private sector investment element—it says it will recruit this summer—so will he please put a rocket under the Treasury and tell it that while people want to buy electric cars, they will not do so unless the infrastructure is in place?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for trying to present the issue in the way she did. The truth is that I cannot think of anyone in this House, apart from possibly my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who is cleaner—keener, rather—on investment. [Laughter.] He is very clean. Cleanliness is next to godliness. I do not think there is anyone in this House who is keener on moving towards ultra low emission vehicles than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As Transport Secretary and in his current role, he has led efforts across the Government to make sure we are moving in the right direction. I do not think it is at all fair to criticise him or the Treasury in that regard.

Sale of Puppies

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I believe that Godiva has previously won Westminster dog of the year, along with her friend, so it is good to have an update on her. Does the hon. Lady agree that one particular problem is that people are not aware of where popular dogs, such as French bulldogs, are coming from? They are paying huge amounts of money, assuming—because of the cost—that their dog will have been well treated. People going for those popular, fashionable dogs need to be particularly vigilant.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I wholeheartedly agree. As I said, when I bought Godiva, I made that mistake: having paid £550 for her, I thought she would have been from a decent, legitimate organisation, but clearly that was not the case.

Lucy died in December 2016, and I am happy to say that her later years were happier than her beginnings. We must do more to save countless other animals from suffering similar horrors to Lucy. Pup Aid has been campaigning on overbreeding of females since 2009, and I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate Marc Abraham on his hard work on the campaign, as well as Lisa Garner, who is present and who rescued Lucy and ensured that she had a good end to her life.

As the hon. Lady has said, the public clearly remain naive to the horrors of the puppy farming trade, and that is why legislation is necessary to protect not just the puppies but their mothers as well as the public from facilitating this abhorrent trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I am sure that even if this had been a contentious and divisive debate, you would have been impeccably neutral, Sir Roger, but may I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that you have done in this area? You will be pleased to know that there was a strong degree of consensus throughout the discussion of this issue.

In addition, I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on the way that he introduced the debate and on being so generous with the number of interventions that he took from some Members who were obviously unable to stay for the full duration of the debate.

Finally, I congratulate the supporters of this e-petition, which has secured so many signatures in such a short time and attracted so many Members to Westminster Hall today to speak passionately on this important issue.

As several hon. Members will know, I have championed improved animal welfare when it comes to puppies and dog-breeding establishments for a number of years; in fact, since I was a Back Bencher. I advocated a reduction in the threshold before puppy breeders required a licence. The background to this debate, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, is that the way that we treat puppies in the first few months of their life is, just as it is with a human child, incredibly important to their development.

The welfare charities in this sector can give many tragic examples of young dogs or puppies that come into their care and that they are simply unable to rehome because it is not safe to place them with a family. That is due to the abusive and neglectful way that they were raised in the first few months of their life. For me, therefore, tackling the way that we regulate and license dog breeders is particularly important.

The second issue that has long needed addressing is the introduction of new regulations to tackle the growth of internet or online trading. Some very good work has been done by the Pet Advertising Advisory Group and I commend all those organisations that have signed up to the group’s code. It is a robust code and the group has done well to draw it up.

One of the things we have done, which I will come on to, is strengthen the rules around online trading and the way that we license those who trade online, because there had been some doubt regarding the previous pets legislation, which dated back to the 1950s, about whether online traders were caught or covered by it. However, we have now clarified that matter.

The culmination of this process, during which I and others raised several points over a number of years, was a consultation on these matters to strengthen the pet licensing regime. I am very pleased to say that the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 passed on to the statute book earlier this year, and those regulations provide statutory minimum welfare standards that all licensed dog breeders and vendors of pet animals must meet. This is the first time that licensed breeders and sellers of dogs will be required to meet statutory minimum welfare standards.

Previously, those statutory standards were set out only in guidance but now they are a requirement before a licence can be obtained, which brings greater consistency. We have developed the new standards with the welcome involvement of the Canine and Feline Sector Group, which represents a broad range of vets, local authorities, the pet industry and welfare charities.

The new regulations and the new statutory code that goes with them achieve a number of things. First, there are clear regulatory requirements for licensed breeders and sellers to protect the welfare of the animals. Secondly, we have lowered the threshold for the number of puppy litters that someone is allowed to breed in a year so that more breeders can be brought into a licensing regime. That means that anyone in the business of both breeding and selling dogs will need a licence and, irrespective of whether they claim to be in the business of breeding, they will need a licence if they breed three or more litters a year. Thirdly, anyone selling pets commercially will need a licence, whether they are trading online or they are a pet shop. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) raised. Licensed breeders must show puppies alongside their mother before a sale is made and they can sell only their own puppies.

In addition, pet advertisements will now require the seller’s licence number and country of origin and the residence of the pet to be included. The sale of puppies and kittens under the age of eight weeks is now banned, which closes a loophole that existed for some pet shops regarding some pets. Licensed sellers must also show puppies to the purchaser before a sale is completed, an intervention we have made to try to curtail the growth of online trading and, finally, a new licence condition applies to dog breeders to prevent the breeding of dogs with harmful genetic disorders, which addresses the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the tragedy of pets often having defects and health problems because they have not been properly bred or cared for.

The 2018 regulations come into force on 1 October and, taken together, represent a significant improvement in pet animal welfare legislation in this country.

[Kerry McCarthy]

What the Minister has outlined is very good as far as it goes, but it deals only with the more respectable end of the market, tightening up regulation there. Does he have any figures on how many puppies are bought and sold on the streets of the UK through the illegal trade—illegally imported, trafficked—as opposed to coming through breeders who are likely to abide by the regulations?

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that point and to the specific issue of the debate. The measures in the new regulations substantially tighten up areas where there were weaknesses in the law. In particular, bringing greater clarity to the fact that online traders must have a licence, and lowering the threshold of the number of puppies someone can breed before they require a licence, are significant steps forward. However, I am aware that for some years now several people have been calling for third-party sales to be dealt with and for there to be a ban on such sales—for puppies in particular and, called for by a number of others, for kittens.

It is fair to say that although the petition was launched only on 1 March, the public reaction has been rapid. It has already attracted more than 140,000 signatures, which shows the strength of feeling people in this country have for the welfare of dogs. However, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, even before that, the Government had made it clear that it was their intention to consider the issue. On 8 February, we announced a call for evidence to consider a ban on third-party sales of puppies and kittens. Such a ban means that pet shops, pet dealers and other outlets and licensed sellers of puppies and kittens would be unable to sell them unless they themselves had bred them. The implication is that anyone seeking to acquire a puppy or kitten would have to look to either an authorised breeder or an animal rescue or rehoming organisation.

It has been suggested to us that a ban could achieve several things. First, it could ensure consistency with Government advice that purchasers should seek to see puppies or kittens with their mother, which goes beyond the new regulations for licensed breeders and applies the condition to everyone. It could also assist purchasers to make informed choices based on seeing a puppy or kitten with its mother, and encourage responsible buying decisions. It could incentivise welfare improvements in high-risk commercial dog-breeding establishments by ensuring transparency, accountability and appropriate remuneration for breeders. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it could prevent the sale of puppies that had not been bred to recognised standards of welfare in this country. The Government, therefore, consider there to be merit in exploring that further. I am aware that there are consistent, though difficult-to-quantify, concerns about puppies that are bred overseas, smuggled illegally into the UK and then sold out of the boots of cars at service stations, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling).

At the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs we have been involved since 2015 in an operation to tackle the scourge of underage puppies being smuggled into the UK, something I feel strongly about. When I was responsible for this part of the brief in 2015, although we were doing work to strengthen regulations, I was concerned about the reports of large numbers of puppies being smuggled, particularly from the Irish Republic and east European countries, to be sold in the UK. Since 2015, our vets from the Animal and Plant Health Agency have been stationed at a number of ports and in just three years we have seized more than 700 puppies that were considered to be under 12 weeks old, the minimum before which they are able to be transported. That evidence of underage puppies being smuggled into the country suggests there could be a problem there that we ought to address, which is why we have run a call for evidence.

The call for evidence ran from 8 February to 2 May and we received about 350 responses, which we are currently analysing. The next step would, of course, be to consult on specific options. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) invited me to make her cry by making an announcement today. I will not be doing so today; I will stop just short of it, but hon. Members will be pleased to know that we anticipate being likely to introduce a consultation based on the early feedback from the call for evidence. They will, however, have to wait a little longer to see further details.

I want now to address a few wider issues, in particular regarding sentencing, because the pet licensing measures are only part of our work. We are also taking action to improve animal welfare in other areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last September that we will increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years in prison. There was an intervention earlier on the shadow Minister regarding likely sentences. That would obviously be a matter for the consultation, but any such step would be likely to be taken within the framework of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The current sentencing guidelines refer to an unlimited fine or a maximum custodial sentence of six months and, as I say, we have made it clear that we want to raise that maximum sentence. It will always be important for an individual judge on an individual case to be able to reach an appropriate sentence based on the particular circumstances.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister mentioned that 90 puppies, I think, had been seized while being illegally imported. What happened to the people who were responsible for that illegal trafficking? Were they fined or jailed? Do we have any idea what happened to them?

[George Eustice]

There were prosecutions. Actually, some 700 puppies were seized in the course of three years for being under the age of 12 weeks. When we were looking at the issue around a year ago, I asked officials whether there was a pattern of it being a small number of individuals, but generally speaking it was a diverse range of individuals often doing one-off trades rather than high-velocity trades. Others are using different people to bring animals in. It is difficult to discern a pattern of it being, for example, a small number of people who are very difficult to challenge. There have been prosecutions in the past, including through Operation Bloodhound a couple of years ago. I understand there have also been prosecutions related to some of the interventions.