Ivory Bill

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

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

[Mr Paterson]

Absolutely. Commonwealth members made several helpful contributions at the conference, and they will be invited again. The Commonwealth is a good vehicle for this, because this is about stopping both supply and demand, mainly in Asian countries, and some of our Commonwealth colleagues could be helpful at both ends of the trade.

I really want to hear from the Minister, but, based on what he has told me informally and from what I have seen on the DEFRA website, I will be supporting amendment 3, because it will deliver the fastest route to our aim. I think it would also be sensible for the Opposition, having listened to the debate and been convinced by the arguments, to withdraw their amendments so that we can get on to Third Reading.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is a privilege to speak once again on the Bill, which the Scottish National party welcomes. We also welcome Government amendments 1 and 2 to clause 6, and Government amendments 3 and 4 to clause 35.

We are working towards implementing stringent measures to protect and conserve populations of elephants and other endangered species for future generations. The survival of the species is the most important thing and must be realised, so the Bill must be as strong as possible. I thank members of the Bill Committee who worked together so consensually towards the same aim: protecting ivory-bearing species and populations of elephants. We have the same aims and aspirations; this debate has just been about how we reach the final outcome that we all desire. The general public are absolutely behind the Bill, and we must take our lead from their good common decency and sense. The consultation received 70,000 responses, so we must act decisively in their name.

The SNP also supports new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory instrument within 12 months of the Bill becoming law to extend its scope to include hippos, killer whales, narwhals, sperm whales and walruses. Such action is integral to affirming the UK’s commitment to stopping the trade of all inhumanely obtained ivory.

We heard compelling evidence in Committee about the unscrupulous nature of ivory poachers. They will stop at nothing, leaving no ivory-bearing species safe. They trade in death. They undermine poor and vulnerable communities in developing parts of the world, moving from species to species to make their money. Protecting elephants is critical, but the SNP believes that the Bill does not go far enough due to the possible impact on other species and further knock-on effects. Those other species also require protection from the actions of unscrupulous individuals.

Reports indicate that hippo teeth, which are also ivory, are being auctioned in Tanzania and that demand for ivory also poses a threat to Malawi’s hippos. Hippo teeth represent a cheaper and easier option. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, demand for them increased after the 1989 ban on the international trade of elephant ivory. I recently read that a killer whale that was beached in Vancouver—near where some of my family live—had its teeth removed by unscrupulous ivory thieves. It was an 18-year-old killer whale called J32 that had been nicknamed “Rhapsody”. Such people will go to any lengths.

Turning to narwhals—the sea unicorns—Queen Elizabeth I spent £10,000 on a narwhal tusk, which is the equivalent of around £1.5 million today. The average price today is between £3,000 and £12,000, and narwhals are considered to be near-threatened. It is important that we support new clause 1 to ensure that poachers do not move from species to species.

The SNP also supports new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before each House within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, detailing the state of international ivory markets and the steps taken by the Department for International Development to reduce demand for ivory. That is extremely important, because we are in a race against time. We will need to know that the Bill is having the desired impact—and quickly—so that we can amend or adjust the processes in place to save the species we desire to save.

The race against time means we must work, via DFID, with the communities that are most affected. We must determine, through a whole-Government approach, to tackle this trade and to ensure that we do our utmost to protect populations. Jobs and livelihoods are integral to populations affected by poaching. There must be alternatives to poaching, because we heard in Committee that people living in poverty in such areas tend to be caught up in poaching activity just to feed their families. If they have no alternative, there will be little for them to do other than to try to continue poaching unabated.

Through DFID, we must look to ensure that we leave no one behind, and that we protect jobs and livelihoods as alternatives for these communities. We must also work with rangers and conservation agents, who have a direct impact on tourism, to ensure that there are opportunities for growth and development in the countries affected.

SNP Members want the strongest Bill possible. We want to work consensually with Members on both sides of the House. We want to ensure there is a whole-Government approach and, most of all, we want to ensure that we proceed in a timely manner. The utmost goal of this legislation is not a conference at the end, but the survival of a species.

It is important that we come together to ensure that this happens for our children and grandchildren. My children visited the elephants two years ago. They still speak today about their experience of seeing baby elephants wandering. We want to ensure that that can continue and that this magnificent species continues to wander across our savannahs.

The 2015 SNP manifesto included a commitment to support further animal welfare measures with a global focus, including action to end the illegal ivory trade, so I commend new clauses 1 and 2 and the Government amendments to the House, to achieve the most stringent legislation possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

This is a truly historic day. We have worked extremely hard in Committee and at the Bill’s other stages to bring the legislation to this point. I thank everybody who has been involved for working so well together. The Bill is historic because its purpose is to ensure that elephants and other at-risk ivory-bearing species survive and are effectively protected for generations to come. That is important for us, for our constituents right across the United Kingdom, and for future generations—our children and grandchildren, and beyond.

I am extremely proud to be able to speak today and commend the work that has taken place. I particularly thank the Minister for his careful consideration of these matters in Committee and today. He has worked very consensually. I also thank the shadow Minister for working very well. Across the House, we have all aimed to strengthen the Bill as much as possible to make sure that it has the maximum impact, because its impact is what is important and what we are aiming for. I would still like some assurances about funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit, because we must make sure that the legislation is enforceable in the UK, and about how colleagues in DFID will work with the communities that will be affected.

I pay tribute to the environmental and animal welfare agencies and groups that have been so involved in this for so long: the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Tusk, Stop Ivory and the Born Free Foundation, to mention just a few.

People think that we spend our time in the House debating the same issues repeatedly, going round and round in circles—often quite literally—but the very best work is undertaken in cross-party form with significant cross-party agreement. This Bill is a perfect example of Parliament acting consensually in the interests of all people. I am proud to have played a part and to represent the SNP on this historic matter.

Pet Theft

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, especially having worked with you on the Select Committee on International Development, where you have done so much on human rights over the years.

It is also a pleasure to speak on the petition. As has been mentioned, it has received overwhelming public support, because it is an issue that is very dear to the hearts and minds of people right across the United Kingdom. I thank Dr Daniel Allen and Beverley Cuddy for getting it to this stage, and I look forward to hosting them at some point in the near future in the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, which I chair. We have been doing lots of good work on dog welfare in the year since the group was formed. I encourage hon. Members to join the group. It is very much a cross-party group, because animal welfare is one of those issues on which we come together and work together to ensure that we have the very best conditions right across the United Kingdom.

The petition secured more than 100,000 signatures, and has been supported by the Stolen And Missing Pets Alliance, All About Animals, APDAWG—our all-party group—Finn’s law campaigners and Lucy’s law campaigners including Marc Abraham, known as “Marc the Vet”, the National Animal Welfare Trust, magazines including Dogs Today and Dogs Monthly, and celebrities including Ricky Gervais, Chris Packham, Kirsty Gallacher, Peter Egan, who regularly attends our cross-party group, Victoria Stilwell and Lorraine Kelly. Most of all, the petition has the power of people behind it. It has the power of our constituents, and I am very proud that more than 100 of my constituents from East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow felt so strongly that they wanted to sign the petition and have urged me to speak on this important issue.

[Hugh Gaffney]

I want to make a wee point. Last week, dangerous dogs were in the news, and 2,275 postal workers were bitten last year. I would just like to say that the majority of postal workers, like myself, love animals and dogs, and welcome them.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am aware of his history in the postal service and thank him greatly for that. It is one of the great services that we have across the country. There are some risks to postal workers from dogs, so it is incumbent on dog owners to ensure that their dogs are trained appropriately. I realise that postal workers have an affinity for dogs, like the rest of our constituents and people across the country.

As we have heard, a quarter of households have one or more dogs, and it appears that this crime is on the rise. I ask the Minister whether we know why that might be happening, and what the factors are. Only when we discover the key factors behind this crime will we be able to have a multi-structural strategy to address what is happening. Are dogs being stolen for heinous crimes such as dog fighting, as we have heard today? Are those poor dogs being savaged, perhaps as bait for dogs that are being trained to fight in a ring? We need far more resources to tackle that. I was extremely proud to lead a debate in Westminster Hall, only in 2016, on dog fighting.

Is there a gang element to pet theft? Is the same type of organised crime set-up that we see in relation to dog fighting, puppy smuggling and puppy farming causing pets to be stolen? If there are links between those activities, and between the people perpetrating them, we need to develop adequate laws and legal frameworks to deal with that. Lucy’s law is also important for many reasons, including dog welfare and people’s welfare, in terms of having dogs and young puppies enter families, and in relation to the types of issues that we are discussing today. I feel that there may be an important underlying common denominator that it is important to address.

People have spoken today of their love for dogs. My dog, Rossi, is a French bulldog. Having looked at the figures for pet theft, I am aware that that is exactly the type of dog breed that is being stolen—it is near the top of the list. French bulldogs are often used for breeding and puppy farming, which makes me think that perhaps there are links with pet theft. I would be bereft if something happened to Rossi out in the garden where he likes to roam. We are lucky to have quite a big garden. I keep encouraging my husband to cut the grass, and I am hopeful that he might be doing that today as we speak, but Rossi loves to wander throughout our garden. It is always in the back of my mind to check that he is still there and that everything is okay.

[Giles Watling]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to get the information out to owners to protect their pets? Humphrey, Herbert and Minnie wander as well. I do not know where they are half the time. We need to take measures and be aware.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Much of this is about education. Our garden is enclosed, but we are mindful of the fact that if someone were intent on stealing our pet that would not prevent them from doing so. I am aware of the breed-specific snatching of French bulldogs, so it is a particular worry for my family.

From listening to the figures, pet theft seems to be a crime that goes unpunished and has very little consequence for those who engage in it. That has to be addressed, and I urge the Minister to make a change in law. We are a nation of dog lovers, and addressing this issue will minimise the impact on families who lose a pet and on the children. My children would be absolutely devastated to lose Rossi. As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, there is a severe impact on the stolen dog, too, because often they do not go to a happy home. I do not want to think about their fate, given the activities that the criminal gangs may be involved in.

Another issue that has been raised is the impact on elderly people, for whom a pet can be very important. If they live on their own, a pet can be an absolute lifeline and can make them feel that they have a connection. We must consider that, for someone in such circumstances, losing a dog or any other pet is a bereavement—it causes grief and trauma. We know from the meetings of the all-party group for dog welfare just how important dogs, cats and pets in general are in tackling loneliness. The Government have set out to address that issue, so I ask the Minister to look at pet therapy and contact with pets within that framework.

It is extremely busy in Westminster Hall, despite the fact that we are all on a one-line Whip, because this issue resonates with the public, MPs and our constituents. There is no party politics when it comes to animal welfare, as we all want to see change. Members from many parties have spoken today, and I thank them for that. Several Members who support the dog welfare group could not be here today but very much wanted to come.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) spoke about his little dog, Mia, and her importance, if not primacy, in the family now that he is down at Westminster. I wish Mia and the family well.

This is a devolved issue, and I have written to the Scottish Government about it because I want it to be reviewed. My colleagues, Emma Harper and Christine Grahame, are linked to the cross-party animal welfare group in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that they will take this issue forward. The First Minister knows I am extremely dogmatic in insisting we take the lead on these issues, which must be addressed across the United Kingdom.

I urge the Minister to discuss the legal framework—particularly the fact that cases are not coming to court, they do not appear even to be recorded, and weak sentencing is not acting as a deterrent. Obviously, pets mean much more to us than objects, so that is one of the issues that must be addressed in the law. Some of the ideas that hon. Members suggested as part of the solution, such as licencing and passporting systems, are good, but I want the Minister to address the precipitating factors that have caused the increase in dog thefts across the country. Are they linked to other animal welfare issues, such as puppy smuggling and farming, and dog fighting?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on the way in which he introduced the debate.

As with every debate on animal welfare issues, it is one that is incredibly important to the public. This petition has more than 100,000 signatories—106,000, I am told —and today we have heard some heart-rending stories of individual cases from many Members’ constituencies, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson). The hon. Member for Hartlepool talked about some horrific cases of pets being stolen to be used, in effect, for baiting in dog fighting or to fight themselves. That is clearly the cruellest and most extreme end of this heinous crime.

When I was about 13, we had a beautiful young golden retriever called Sam. When he was about a year old, he went missing. To this day, I can remember us going out on the roads late at night, driving down every country lane around the farm in Cornwall and trying to locate Sam, all to no avail. We were unable to sleep that night because we were so distraught and upset that our wonderfully kind pet dog had gone missing.

The following day, we phoned every farmer in the area, in case Sam had gone on a runabout, and we phoned all sorts of other businesses in case we could locate him. As luck would have it, a local scrap-metal dealer phoned my mother back about an hour after they had spoken to say that there was a van at the scrapyard with a white-coloured golden retriever that might be our dog. My mother rushed off to the scrap-metal dealer, who undertook to keep the person occupied so that the van did not disappear. It was indeed our pet dog Sam, and my mother and our family were reunited with him.

The person who took Sam claimed that he had found him and had intended to take him to the police. It was therefore thought that we would not have a case and would not be able to bring a prosecution against the person, although that gentleman certainly had to endure a dressing down from my mother—a significant penalty.

I shall return to the issue of pet theft, but first I shall say a bit more about what the Government are doing to improve animal welfare specifically for pets. We have introduced new licensing requirements for puppy breeders, lowering the threshold at which they need a licence to breed pets. We have also strengthened the provisions on online sales, beyond any doubt bringing those who sell pets online into a licensing regime under the Pet Animals Act 1951. We have been clear that we intend to increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals to five years, and we have given our support to a private Member’s Bill that will strengthen protection and recognition for service animals. Finally, to come to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), we have been clear that we shall introduce a ban on third-party sales of puppies, in particular, and other juvenile pets. We have had a call for evidence on the issue, and we intend to introduce provisions in that regard.

[Mr Adrian Bailey in the Chair]

Specifically on the issue of pet theft, a couple of years ago we introduced changes to make the microchipping of all dogs mandatory. That has had some impact already. More than 90% of dogs are now microchipped, which has made rehoming or the reuniting of people with their missing pets much easier for the authorities. The impact of that change has been extraordinary. The latest figures from Dogs Trust show that the number of stray dogs last year fell to about 66,000, which has almost halved on a few years ago, when we regularly had more than 120,000 stray dogs per year.

Microchipping also has a potential role in identifying animals that have been stolen. A couple of years ago there was some suggestion that we should legislate to create a legal obligation on vets to scan every animal in their practice to identify animals that might have been stolen. At the time we believed that to be a step too far, but we did work with the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to create clear guidance for veterinary practices that there should always be a presumption of checking any new animal presented to them when an owner enrols with the practice.

Earlier today, I discussed with the police lead on dogs, Gareth Pritchard, this issue of dog and pet theft. One point he made was that although the microchipping regulations are working well and have led to big improvements, we are starting to see some problems with people not keeping their details up to date—people moving home, for example, and not keeping the record up to date. In some cases, that is starting to make it hard to reunite people with their pets. It is important—and a provision of the regulations—for people to keep their data up to date.

I have done some work on the scale of the pet theft problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford pointed out, the figures out there range widely. Our belief is that the best estimate available is from a series of freedom of information requests put to all 44 police forces, with 38 providing reliable data back. From that, it is possible to ascertain that in 2016 there were 1,788 dog thefts and in 2017 the number rose to 1,909. That equates to around 34 dogs being stolen each week—a significant number. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, the 7% increase between 2016 and 2017 suggests that it is a growing problem. I will return to the statistics later, because my hon. Friend made the legitimate point that we ought to have reliable data in this area.

[Dr Cameron]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I was about to come to the hon. Lady’s question, but I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

There has been an increase in pet theft of some breeds in recent years. Does analysis of the breeds that are being stolen offer any insight into the reasons, and therefore how we can best tackle this crime?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady asked a similar question about what is driving the thefts. At one end of the scale, there are horrific examples of pets being stolen to be used in baiting and dog fights. This afternoon, I asked our police lead on dogs whether they considered that to be a large factor in dog thefts. His response was that generally speaking, as with lots of theft, dogs that are perceived to have a higher monetary value tend to be stolen. Obviously, that is bad news for pets that are deemed to be of high worth, but on one level it is reassuring—hopefully, the type of incidents that the hon. Member for Hartlepool described are the exception rather than the rule in this terrible crime. I will return to the data a little later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and others pointed out, the Government’s view is that the Theft Act 1968 provides sufficient sanctions to deal with the problem. He made a powerful case about some of the issues with the Sentencing Council, which I will come on to in a moment. I want to take the opportunity as the Front Bench spokesman to recognise that pets are not just objects; they are sentient beings and companions to people. The fact that they are covered for this purpose under the Theft Act does not take away at all from the fact that they are sentient beings and more than just property.

In his introduction, the hon. Member for Hartlepool highlighted the fact that, somewhat bizarrely, the Act has a provision for the theft of mushrooms and for the theft of wild animals. He asked why if we can have provisions for those, we cannot have one for pets. The reason why they are pulled out is that it was judged at the time that sometimes there could be doubt about whether a mushroom was public property or private property, and there could be some doubt about whether somebody would have ownership of a wild animal. It is beyond doubt that pets have an owner, so that provision did not apply.

Turning to sentencing, a number of hon. Members—including, quite powerfully, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)—highlighted the current Sentencing Council guidelines. Hon. Members will appreciate that sentencing is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, policing is a matter for the Home Office and companion animals form part of the portfolio of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs managed by my noble Friend, Lord Gardiner. However, I will do my best to describe the position as I see it.

It is important to remember that in 2016, the independent Sentencing Council updated its sentencing guidelines for theft offences. The new guidelines acknowledge that theft that causes emotional distress to the victim or where the item stolen is of a substantial value, regardless of the monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly. In the context of the theft of pets, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is right that although the Theft Act provides for a maximum sentence of seven years, there is scant evidence of that being used.

Our reading of the current guidance, which was issued in 2016, is that in applying that guidance, the theft of a pet should be considered as either a category two or a category three offence. The custodial sentence is two years for a category two offence and one year for a category three. My hon. Friend is right that, applying our interpretation of the most recent guidance, a seven-year maximum penalty is largely theoretical for pet theft unless there are other aggravating circumstances. But as a general rule, category two or three would seem to be an appropriate sentence.

I hope that I have been able to reassure Members of the seriousness with which we take this issue. The Government have demonstrated in just the last six months that we are willing to change the law wherever necessary. Although at the moment the Government are not convinced that we need to change the law, I want to give three undertakings. First, let us use this debate to be absolutely clear that the Government interpret the latest guidance from the Sentencing Council to mean that the theft of a pet should generally be treated as a category two or three offence.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and others made an important point about the need for statistics. This afternoon, I asked Gareth Pritchard, the Home Office policing lead for dogs, to marshal accurate data from the 44 police forces. It should not be left to third parties to try their luck through freedom of information requests—I agree that Government should marshal that. I have asked him to generate that data and to provide me with a report of the most accurate data he is able to gather.

Thirdly, I will discuss with my noble friend Lord Gardiner whether there are any other things that we have considered by way of enforcement and to improve detection rates for this crime. One of the messages I picked up from hon. Members’ contributions is that it may be not so much that the ability to sentence is not there or even that the maximum penalties are wrong, but simply that too few of these crimes are detected and too few prosecutions are brought.

Ivory Bill (Fifth sitting)

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I think that this measure has to be strengthened, and we heard clear evidence along those lines from the experts. Like my colleague, the hon. Member for Redcar, I want to know what “ought to know” will be taken to mean in such a situation. Will it be based upon a person’s experience or history of dealing with such artefacts? I have concerns about how a person can prove that they did not know something. Proving a negative is difficult judicially. This measure should be strengthened, but I have concerns and would like to hear more from the Minister in that regard.

[David Rutley]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which was similar to that made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. As currently drafted, the Bill gives a degree of discretion to the enforcement agency. It allows the officer to consider the position of the defendant and ascertain whether they should have knowledge of ivory—for example, an antiques dealer, which we will come to shortly—or whether they are a member of the public who has genuinely made a mistake. So there are points about proportionality and discretion.

An individual or organisation could, for example, show that they took reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence through checking that the item had been registered prior to the purchase, or listed on an online platform, and that the registration or listing appeared to them to be authentic. Additionally, the enforcement bodies will consider the person’s position when taking a view about whether they should have known or suspected that an item was ivory. As I have explained before, there is a difference between a fully trained and experienced antiques dealer and a member of the public who could be young and inexperienced. The enforcement agencies need to have clearer discretion, as in many other forms of legislation. I will provide more details later. If we removed that provision, there would be no such defence. Further, doing so would place the sale of prohibited ivory in the same bracket as illegal transactions such as the sale of alcohol to a minor, where, as we know, a shopkeeper or a member of bar staff can be sanctioned for a sale on the ground of protecting public health. Strict liability must be used with considerable caution, and we do not think it would be proportionate to make these offences analogous.

[Dr Cameron]

Something has just come to my mind about how to strengthen the measure. It is about experience and having a connection to the industry. Might there be a loophole for unscrupulous people to try to engage the services of those who perhaps have no history of or direct connection to online sales? If someone is connected directly with individuals who ought to know, might we strengthen the legislation, because I would not like people to be able to use that as a loophole?

[David Rutley]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

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

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

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

[Dr Cameron]

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

[Liz Twist]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As the Bill is called the Ivory Bill, it is well established that its scope can include ivory. The only definition included in the Bill refers to elephants. A clear opportunity is available to Members to expand that to include other species that are directly at risk from the precedent set by tackling only elephant ivory.

I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman is correct when he talks about the judicial review risk. However, I am certain that we all want elephant ivory to be banned and the ban to be extended to other types of ivory. Two possible routes have been laid out: the first is accepting the amendment proposed by the shadow Minister; the second is for the Government to take a short consultation period, after having accepted the amendment, to ensure that everything is in order.

I think we might be dancing on the head of a pin. We all want these species to be brought into the scope of the Bill, and we need to work out the best way of doing that. From my point of view, having, ahead of the conference, a piece of legislation that bans trade not only in elephant ivory but in that of other species would send a powerful message, and a stronger one than if the Bill included only elephant ivory.

[Dr Cameron]

I also rise to support amendment 11. It is imperative that there is no knock-on effect and endangerment of further species as a result of the Bill. We heard extremely clear evidence from experts that that is exactly what would happen. We must ensure that it is all-encompassing. We have heard already that expert opinion says that that can be done timeously and so as not to interfere with the announcement at the conference later this year. A short consultation period can take place.

Where there is a will, there is definitely a way in the case of the Bill. I also put on record that although announcements at conferences are extremely welcome and important, they are not as important to me and to the Scottish National party as protecting a number of endangered species for future generations.

[Liz Twist]

I also rise to support amendment 11. I am afraid I do not have the erudition about some of the species in question that other hon. Members have. However, I think it was clear on Second Reading and is clear from other evidence that there is widespread support for ensuring that the Bill encompasses the whole range of ivory, so that there are no knock-on effects and we can protect as wide a group of species as possible, with the aim of protecting wildlife. So I urge the Minister to—

Ivory Bill (Third sitting)

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

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

[David Rutley]

I think we are all learning through this process, and Committee stage is about getting into the details and ensuring that we get the right answers to those important questions. The APHA and the enforcement bodies will have full access to the database of exemption certificates, and we have full confidence that they will consider applications for replacements—there will not be many—very sensibly, with reference to the history of applications for that item. The point that I think the hon. Lady was making is whether the enforcement bodies will be engaged in creating the guidance. She is nodding from a sedentary position. My understanding is that we will involve those bodies as well. We want the best expertise to ensure that this process is as watertight as possible.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Could the Minister clarify the types of circumstances in which a number of replacement certificates might be required, and how likely that is to happen? Would there be some way of tracking the number of replacement certificates so that such certificates would not flood the market, or, if such certificates did become more apparent, that could be identified extremely quickly?

[David Rutley]

Those are more good questions. I explained a little bit in my remarks—I apologise if I ran through them too quickly. An example would be if a certificate was lost or not passed on appropriately from the original owner when the item was sold. There are situations in which that can happen, and we need to be open to that; we live in a world where people lose things. The hon. Lady makes an important point about tracking. That is where the APHA will be able to log the number of replacements and take the appropriate action. If there is a pattern of behaviour that looks odd, obviously it will be on to that.

The important thing to bear in mind as we go through the Bill is that we are spending a lot of time on the most important areas. It feels like this is a big category, but actually there is a very small number of items. In this particular category it will be much easier to track patterns of behaviour than it would be in some others.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I understand that the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm knows no bounds; she is very passionate, as we all are, but I think she understands that there are formal processes that need to be gone through as part of the legislative process, and there will be moments at which these points can be given full consideration as the Bill progresses over the next few weeks.

[Dr Cameron]

It appeared to me in the evidence sitting that the expert was clear about the size of portrait miniatures, but the Minister has said there is a range, rather than a definite size. I wondered whether, in that case, the range could be set out in the Bill, or whether we could seek clarification: is there a clearer definition of portrait miniatures than the Minister’s initial evidence suggests?

[David Rutley]

Yes, there are different ways in which that could be reviewed; it could be by range or by definitive sizes. As I said in my earlier remarks, I think that the contributions made by Philip Mould & Company were helpful and we want to give them due consideration.

Ivory Bill (Fourth sitting)

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

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

[David Rutley]

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

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

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is extremely important, given the evidence that we heard from the National Wildlife Crime Unit, that resourcing follows the Bill. I would like reassurances from the Minister in that regard. We heard clear evidence that its current shelf life, so to speak, is only to 2020—it is only resourced up until 2020. It is extremely important for long-term planning that that is extended. That is quite timeous, actually, because it is not only about long-term planning, but also holding on to staff with great expertise in the field. The last thing that any of us working together on the Bill would want is not to be able to enforce its provisions.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Obviously, the resources will be important. We know that they are in place until 2020. We also know that we are making an important statement with this Bill in tackling the trade in ivory. We need to make sure that the resources and the systems are in place. We have had questions today about how we can improve and enhance the system, so there is a lot of work that we need to do. I am not trying to suggest that resources are not important. I simply think that they are one part of a package that we are moving forward on.

Ivory Bill (Second sitting)

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

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

[Trudy Harrison]

Q It sounds as if raw ivory—if that is how we might term it—is easier to identify, but once it has been crafted into an object, does that become much more difficult?

Grant Miller: If ivory is highly polished, the Schreger lines can become more difficult to identify, but again we generally have the skills within the team to do it. If we do not, we reach out to experts. We will predominantly go to the National Museum of Scotland and Andrew Kitchener, who will always provide expert advice, from an academic, about what we are looking for.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Q The work you are doing is so very important, but I am wondering whether the National Wildlife Crime Unit has any indication of continued funding beyond 2020. When will you know whether funding will continue?

Chief Inspector Hubble: Our funding is committed until 2020, but beyond that we have had no formal indication that we will continue to be funded. That does cause concern. It is difficult for us to plan and commit to long-term strategies, and difficult for us to form business plans when in 20 months’ time we may not exist. It is difficult for me to keep my staff motivated when they have no job security—a whole raft of concerns are caused by funding.

[Dr Cameron]

Q In terms of the Bill, how important is it that that funding is put in place so that you can achieve the necessary long-term plans?

Chief Inspector Hubble: We act as a centralised hub throughout the UK to collate intelligence, and we work with all 43 police forces on that. I am sure you are all aware of the strains on modern-day policing at the moment, and dealing with ivory is probably not at the top of the list when they are looking at terrorism, child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, drugs and firearms. Ivory will not be up there with that, but as a national unit we can drive the issue and make sure that things are investigated as they should be with police forces. Without that central resource, it would very much be down to individual forces to decide what they do or do not deal with, and I fear that ivory may drop off the radar with some of them.

[Dr Cameron]

Q Do you have any comments on the importance of that?

Grant Miller: The Border Force is centrally funded through the Home Office, and CITES enforcement sits as a medium priority for Border Force. Because we are mandated to enforce the CITES regulations and the convention, we must exist to authorise and endorse the permits. There is no indication that the team is under any threat from Border Force management.

[Dr Cameron]

Q But you said you work in partnership.

Grant Miller: Certainly with the unit, and it is about the added value of our relationship with them. Border Force could exist and we would go out, detect and disrupt the trade. If we were to lose the unit, the capacity to then investigate and prosecute would be lost, but our key function would still continue, and we would detect and disrupt.

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

Q I have a question for each of you. Chief inspector, you talked about this maybe not being seen as that important by some officers, because they obviously have lots of other things to do. What is the smallest artefact that you might have dealt with, and what is the largest—to give us an idea of the range of things that you do?

Chief Inspector Hubble: Would you like to ask Grant his question, while I ponder my response to that one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

Q I understand that the instrument would be sacrificed, but could you imagine a market where people took the very small proportion of ivory from instruments to craft an object?

Paul McManus: You would nearly always break the ivory when taking it off the product.

Mark Dodgson: Most inlay that features on anything, such as the thin slither on a piano key, is very unlikely to be capable of being reused or exported. We have had this discussion previously. Objects with small, thin slithers are of no use to anyone who wants to use them further.

[Dr Cameron]

Q Do you have any concerns—we heard some this morning—about proposals to issue replacement certificates? Could that allow duplicates to be circulated in the system? How could we strengthen the system in that regard?

Anthony Browne: The proposals on certification are very sensible. They deal with all the eventualities quite well. I have to say that this whole certification system grew out of discussions that we have had for a very long time with DEFRA officials and with NGOs, and it is very robust as it is. It will apply to a small number of very recognisable and unique objects, which is really why it will be effective. It is analogous to all sorts of licensing systems in that respect. The proposals for replacement, re-registration in the event of a transfer and so on, seem to me to be eminently sensible.

Mark Dodgson: The only thing I would add to that—I agree with everything that has been said—is that there should be some facility for someone to check whether a certificate is genuine, perhaps online. Likewise, in the case of registration, I wonder about online purchasers. It is not clear to me from the Bill whether a buyer will have the opportunity to check through DEFRA whether a particular registration has been made.

[Dr Cameron]

In terms of the documentation?

Mark Dodgson: Yes, I am talking about the items that are registered under clause 10.

[Dr Cameron]

We heard concerns about duplicate certificates. Is that not something that—

Anthony Browne: I would not have thought that would necessarily be a problem. You get a duplicate certificate if you lose one, I think—there is a provision for getting a replacement one.

[Dr Cameron]

Q I understand that, but if you can get an extra one for losing one, is there potential for extra ones to arrive in the system somewhere?

Anthony Browne: One would have to ask the people who administered that, but I do not think the provisions in the Bill are weak. They should be workable, just like issuing any paperwork.

Mark Dodgson: The certificates are in respect of the most distinguished objects. They are all unique, and they are not likely to be easily muddled up with something else. If the concern is that they could be mixed up with other objects and used for other objects, I think that is unlikely.

Anthony Browne: If I may, I will add something to this. Certification is straightforward, because you are dealing with objects that are unique, rare and important, so there are not likely to be lots of them. I do have some concerns with the registration requirement for the de minimis objects. There is a sort of Catch-22 built into the de minimis. The Government have opted for 10% by volume. We argued for a higher percentage, in common with other countries, but the Government took that decision—so be it.

What the registration of objects will mean is this. There are quite a number of common or garden, utilitarian objects—many of your constituents probably own them if there has been a death and the house has been cleared—with minute amounts of ivory in them. They are by no means unique objects: they are Victorian or Georgian chests of drawers with tiny ivory lock holes and that sort of thing. There is no indication as yet what the cost of registration will be—one of you asked about that—but it could make selling such things completely uneconomical. The managing director of Lyon & Turnbull in Edinburgh sent me an email making that point. They are frequently asked to clear out estates when people are downsizing or moving house.

In the future, families who want to sell such things will be faced with two options. If there is something that looks like a small bit of ivory, it falls within this Bill, although it is well under the de minimis. If the cost of registration is more than negligible, the family is very unlikely to want to do that as it will simply not be economical, particularly as they do not know whether the object will sell. It could lead to an awful lot of objects with small amounts of ivory, which are reusable and recyclable and can be used again instead of buying new furniture, ending up in landfill because people cannot register them because the cost is too great. Even if they do register them, they are by no means unique, so what will the register do to help? I do not see how the register helps with a chest of drawers that looks identical to thousands of its cousins. Our concept was always that if an object is below the de minimis, it should be saleable—straightforward. If you sell something above the de minimis because you get it wrong, you are liable to criminal or civil prosecution, which is as it should be.

The registration of de minimis will do two things. You will simply deter people from registering, and then these objects will be destroyed or mutilated, as people try to hack the bits of ivory off—what is the point of that?—or they will just end up in landfill. I do not think this is a sensible aim. I wonder whether the Committee could look at this again. I do not think it would weaken the Bill in any shape or form. It would still be very easy to police, as it is a very low de minimis, and it will be completely apparent whether an object contains more or less than 10%. The penalties exist, and so on and so forth. It will prevent a lot of things that can usefully be used again or bought by the next generation from being used in that way. I do not think doing this will undermine the objective of the Bill at all. I just suggest that as a point that has been made to me.

[Sue Hayman]

Q I was going to ask whether any of you have concerns about the de minimis requirement—whether we need further clarification of that, whether you had looked at how the volume of ivory is measured, and whether the Secretary of State should set the measurement. Do you measure it now, and is there is a best practice way of doing it? We do not want items to be calculated slightly wrongly and to fall into the criminal section just because there are different ways of measuring volume. I just want to hear your thoughts about that.

Anthony Browne: Yes, I quite agree. I think the 10% means that it is pretty straightforward, but because of the penalties people will always err on the side of caution. We were very pleased that the Government chose volume, rather than weight, which is notoriously impossible to judge—volume is a sensible way of approaching it. As I said at the beginning, we think 10% is rather low, but we live in the real world. I do not think 10% by volume will be impossible, but people will err on the side of caution, so I would have thought that you will probably not get people rubbing up against the maximum and risking criminal penalties.

Mark Dodgson: Members of the British Antique Dealers’ Association were quite surprised at the 10% and the way it was set. We could not quite see from the documentation in the consultation why 10% had been chosen, versus perhaps 30% or 40%. Just so that you are aware, because the 10% is proposed to be set in that way, items such as a silver teapot—this is a Georgian silver teapot with an original ivory handle—

Ivory Bill (First sitting)

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

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

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Q I understand the point: there might be a concern that if these other species are excluded from the Bill and they are an alternative to ivory, there could be a knock-on impact on those species. Would we be at risk of losing those species in the interim period?

Cath Lawson: We certainly recognise the risk, and that is why we are comfortable with there being the option in the Bill as it currently stands for consideration. Our concern is about including them in the body of the Bill now and the delay that a consultation process on that would cause for the passing of the Bill.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Q We asked a question earlier to check that witnesses felt that they have been involved in the consultation and engaged in the process. The other witnesses felt that they have been, but it is very important to hear that you have as well. I hope that is the case. We want to thank you for all your contributions to the process. We want to ensure that your voice has been heard, or that you at least feel that it has.

The other point I raised earlier, which has not been so fully examined with this panel, was displacement, and what more you think we could do to stop it as the focus on ivory moves to the far east—whether the October conference will help, or whether anything else could be done.

Charlie Mayhew: First, I echo the comments of the previous representative of the NGOs. I think that DEFRA and the British Government have been extremely good at consulting with us all. We certainly feel that we have been very involved—as involved as we could be expected to be. That has been fantastic.

The 2014 conference saw the launch of the British Government’s illegal wildlife trade challenge fund. Tusk has been a beneficiary and has managed two very major grants under that programme that have had a significant impact on the ground. I urge the Government to continue to support that funding—if possible, to expand that funding. Only yesterday I had a report of a poaching syndicate that had been arrested as a result of some of the training that we had implemented under that challenge fund grant. We have also been working with the Ministry of Defence on the deployment of soldiers out in Malawi, which has been hugely successful and very welcomed by that Government.

The British Government have a significant role to play in using our expertise in various areas to help those countries—not only in Africa but, as was said earlier, in helping to clamp down on the trade in the far east. We should continue to provide as much support and funding as we can to eradicate this illegal trade, not least because it is known that the trade has been exploited not only by criminal syndicates but by armed militias, rebels and terrorists. This goes much further than just being a criminal activity; it really impacts on the security of many of these countries.

Alexander Rhodes: I would like to add my thanks to the Government, and to DEFRA staff in particular. The consultation has been run extremely carefully and we certainly feel that we have been well consulted. It seems that everybody has had an opportunity to put things in, as I think the public response demonstrates. The electronic means by which people could engage were heavily used by the public, in order to be involved in the consultation, so thank you very much for that. I endorse what Charlie said.

[Dr Cameron]

Q Do you have any concerns about the proposals on issuing replacement certificates? Will they allow duplicates to be circulated?

Alexander Rhodes: Yes, I think so. There are a couple of parts of how the Bill works internally and we have put in submissions on that in writing.

[Dr Cameron]

What would you like to see?

Alexander Rhodes: First, it seems that the exemption certificates process needs to work hand in glove with the registration process. It would make sense, when one is looking at clause 10 on registration, for the Secretary of State to have to register an item under that clause if an application is made in the way envisaged in clause 10(1), and also on the issuance of an exemption certificate. That means that when an exemption certificate is issued, it is automatically put on to the register. Then I think the system ties up. Replacement certificates can be checked against the register much more closely because it is automatically part of the register in the first place. Everybody understands that things get lost from time to time, so I think it makes sense for there to be a provision for replacements, but if the exemption certificates automatically form part of the registration system, that will help.

Secondly, while accounting for data protection requirements, the register should be public, not least because if it is not, the Government are going to find themselves swamped with freedom of information requests, which we all know take up valuable time, money and resources. I actually wonder whether in the implementation, the technology may become more streamlined and efficient for the Government Departments that have to operate it. There was a question in the previous session about whether there were enough resources. Patently, one reason why the current system does not work is that the Government resources are too limited to operate it fully. If there was an electronic register and it was publicly available, that would help.

I will make one final point on this. As I said, these points are supplementary to the ones we have submitted in writing. There is some wording, if I can find it, that seems to envisage—if you have it, Charlie, maybe you will take the point?

Charlie Mayhew: In clause 4(5), we feel that more safeguards are needed for replacement certificates. As it stands, an item could have several replacement certificates, which could be used to sell similar items illegally. We are concerned that under clause 4(5)(b), someone could legally acquire an item but not obtain the certificate. A buyer should not be able to buy an item relying solely on the seller’s assurance that the item had a certificate but they do not have it any more. We suggest, as a minimum, the deletion of clause 4(5)(b), to avoid suggesting that dealing can take place without a certificate.

[Alex Chalk]

Q Stepping back from this a little, we know that, although the UK is showing global leadership on this matter, what will arguably move the dial most is what happens in huge markets such as China. To what extent are you able, at sub-governmental level so to speak, to reach out to counterparts in China to ensure that these measures dovetail with whatever is taking place in China, to ensure a truly global response that does not have loopholes?

Charlie Mayhew: If anyone had suggested back in 2014 that China would implement a ban there would have been disbelief around the table. The fact that they have gone to the extent of doing what they have done must be recognised and applauded. A great deal of credit goes to the Duke of Cambridge for the work he did on his visit to China and the conversations he had with President Xi on this subject. In that sense, the UK had significant influence in bringing about China’s ban.

We know that China is watching what the UK is doing; there has been plenty of evidence of that. By going ahead with the legislation we are proposing, we are at least backing up and endorsing China, which is the world’s biggest market for ivory. As was said earlier, we want to do everything we can to help China influence its neighbours; there is already evidence of the market displacing to some countries on China’s borders. It is good news that, although Hong Kong is working to a slightly longer timeline, it has indicated that it will impose a ban. Taiwan has done so as well, which is good. We need the other countries in the Asian bloc to follow suit; the UK taking this position now can only help to encourage that.

Alexander Rhodes: In terms of process, at a sub-governmental level we operate on the international stage in the same forums that Governments do at a governmental level—particularly, in this circumstance, through the CITES convention and IUCN. In terms of building international consensus, two international resolutions under the two international agreements stating that domestic ivory markets should be closed have been really important. The NGO community has been working closely, both together and with Governments, to try to build on and achieve those agreements, but ultimately, they are agreements between Governments.

As we look forward, although the market may close in China, there is real concern about some of its neighbouring countries. Those neighbouring countries need to come on board—first they need to agree that the domestic market should close, and secondly they need to do something about it. The UK Government will be in a much stronger position at the next CITES standing committee, and the run-up to it, if we stand shoulder to shoulder with other countries and tell them that that is what we think they should do, having ourselves passed this Bill .

Ivory Bill

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

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

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party welcomes the fact that robust measures to help to protect elephant populations for future generations are one step closer to becoming law and being realised. Today is a good day in Parliament, for this is the right thing to do and we are getting on with achieving it together.

I am pleased that work on the Bill has included widespread consultation with experts, including the environmental groups and charities that see the desperate plight of the decline in elephant populations and the carnage of poaching. They have worked so very hard, and I pay tribute to the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Stop Ivory, the Born Free Foundation and Tusk, to name just a few. The general public overwhelmingly support a ban on ivory, guiding Parliament, as they always do. We must be mindful that we are simply the representatives of the people’s voice. With the 70,000 responses to the consultation, the people have spoken, and we must listen.

Musicians and representatives of the antiques trade have contributed to the process, stating that the preservation of ancient ivory is important, but fundamentally ivory belongs to elephants and rhinos—to nature, not to mankind.

[John Mann]

In respect of the stacks of ivory that the Scottish Government have in their museums, will they be prepared to destroy those horrendous objects or to offer them back to the countries from which they were originally poached?

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am well aware that he is keen to destroy our ancient bagpipes, or perhaps to send them back to Scotland, where they belong. [Laughter.] That is certainly an issue for the Scottish Government and they will take it forward.

The cross-party support for the Bill is absolutely astronomical. People often ask whether we spend all day in this Parliament arguing just for the sake of it. I have to remind them that some of the very best work, which is often not reported on—the majority of our best work—is completed with cross-party agreement. The Bill is a perfect example of that. It forms part of our party’s manifesto commitments and also my personal pledge to my local constituency in 2017.

I wish to touch briefly on several issues that will require further consideration in Committee. The wording “rarest and most important” appears to have been altered to “rarity”. There is concern that the test may have been toned down. We hope that the wording will remain as strong as possible. Guidance is required alongside the Bill to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place for its implementation. An annually published register would assist, to determine how many items have been issued each year with exemptions and to ensure the veracity of this crucial legislation moving forward. Safeguards are needed for the issuing of exemption certificates, as they could be replicated to sell illegal items.

Also, we need assurances that the assessor will be employed by the institution doing the assessment rather than appointed, so that they have no conflict of interest in commercial trade. A definition of portrait miniatures is needed. New legislation must be enforceable, and it is important that there is permanent funding for the national wildlife crime unit so that that can be in absolutely no doubt. Finally, sentencing guidance will need to be timeous to ensure that those who seek to ignore this critical legislation and who engage in such atrocities against nature are punished severely from the get-go.

When I was in Kenya with the International Development Committee, I had the privilege of visiting Nairobi national park and the Sheldrick elephant orphanage, where I spent time with the valiant rangers who protect baby elephants whose mothers have been killed. They were tiny little elephants that came up to my waist—and unfortunately I have quite short legs, so the House can imagine how tiny those little elephants were. They needed nurture to survive, but had been taken from their mothers and their natural environment, ravaged by the greed and destruction of mankind. I pay tribute to those involved in the vital work to rehabilitate those elephants and get them back into the wild.

The SNP will support the Bill in Committee and at its subsequent stages. Today, we turn a corner, working together for a future in which elephants survive and continue to stride proudly across the savannahs of our natural world, for future generations.

Sale of Puppies

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for bringing the e-petition to Parliament and speaking in such a detailed manner. He outlined the case for Lucy’s law in a thorough way, with best practice and evidence at the forefront of everything he said.

Lucy’s law was launched in December 2017 at a House of Commons reception hosted by myself with vet and campaigner Marc Abraham of Pup Aid, who is here today. It was supported by the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, which I chair. It is a pleasure to chair that group, which is entirely cross-party. Animal welfare—dog welfare in particular—knows no party lines. There are animal and dog lovers right across the House of Commons, our countries and the United Kingdom. We speak together on our love for animals, dogs and animal welfare issues.

The voices against Lucy’s law have gone—they have paled into insignificance. We are speaking with one voice today and I hope that the Minister heeds that. Across party lines, there is universal support for Lucy’s law. Now is the time to prevent further suffering. Now is the time for Lucy’s law. To those organisations that say, “We’d like a ban, but not now,” I say, “Why not now?” As the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, if we wait a minute longer, more dogs like Lucy will suffer absolutely appalling consequences.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is putting on record the Scottish National party’s support for Lucy’s law. We will have to work with our colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that happens there, too. Given that this is a devolved matter, there is a golden opportunity in this debate for England to show leadership in the UK and take the initiative. If the Minister went further and faster, he would create a situation whereby the devolved Administrations would swiftly fall into line. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good if the Minister gave an unequivocal statement in his summation?

[Dr Cameron]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, we do not want to start a competition in relation to Lucy’s law, but if the Minister could make an unequivocal statement, that would be fantastic. I would be reduced to tears of joy if that happened. If the Minister wants to make an SNP MP cry, he should tell us that Lucy’s law will happen now.

I do want change in the Scottish Parliament. The matter is out to consultation, and it is extremely important to me. The First Minister and the Scottish Government are absolutely aware of my perspective. I am particularly dogmatic—forgive the pun!—when it comes to Lucy’s law.

Lucy was a beautiful Cavalier King Charles spaniel. She was a casualty of the legal, licensed third-party puppy trade, and was exploited within an inch of her life with absolutely no regard to her health or welfare. Lucy was rescued and adopted by Lisa Garner—who is here—in 2013. Despite Lucy’s horrific and miserable past as a breeding slave, she still had it in her enormous heart to love people. She made so many people think about all the other poor mums, the invisible victims living their lonely, loveless lives to produce litter after litter. Lucy has become a mascot for all the abused breeding dogs. Lucy sadly died all too soon in December 2016 and Lucy’s law is named in her honour.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk stated in his opening speech, the concept of Lucy’s law has resonated with our constituents and with parliamentarians. A recent survey of nearly 2,000 readers of Dogs Today Magazine showed that 96% wanted a ban on pet shops and third parties selling pups. Lucy’s law continues to receive support from celebrities, the media and Members of Parliament. In Scotland, Lucy’s law has gained support from our own dog celebrity, the Wee Ginger Dug, as we fondly call him. In a newspaper only the other week, he gave his support for Lucy’s law. I believe that the Wee Ginger Dug was himself a rescued, abandoned dog, so he and his owner know only too well why it is so important to have Lucy’s law.

Lucy’s law calls for the immediate ban on puppies sold by commercial third parties, for example pet shops, but does third-party selling of pups always give rise to harm? It simply does and here are some reasons. Young puppies are transported huge distances, making them stressed and sickly, giving rise to behavioural issues from the anxiety of early separation and poor socialisation. Transportation invites premature exposure to disease. Exploited breeding bitches like Lucy live in terrible conditions and are hidden from sellers. Their stressed pups are at an increased risk of deadly diseases when transported legally or illegally. Commercial dealers facilitate impulse purchases, which is a common cause of pet abandonment, and rarely offer after-sales advice. In essence, puppies and their mothers are often irreversibly damaged before they reach the seller, whether the seller is licensed or not.

Other hon. Members have mentioned their dogs. My dog Rossi is a French bulldog and was, I believe, puppy farmed. We went to get Rossi from the local dog centre. He is an integral part of our family. He was also a contestant in Westminster Dog of the Year, alongside the dog of the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns). Rossi was runner-up on that occasion, but he is never runner-up in our home—he is always a winner.

There are not many high street pet shops, so why are dealers an even bigger problem? The sale of puppies by dealers without a shop is increasing. Most of them are selling out of normal houses in busy residential areas. Most pet buyers would know to be concerned about the provenance of pet-shop pups. The new breed of licensed dealers, using exactly the same pet-shop licence, to buy and sell pups, is not so obviously commercial and must be stopped to ensure protection of puppies, their mothers and our public.

Would Lucy’s law prohibit ghastly eastern European puppy trafficking? We believe it would. Van loads of sickly, puppy-farmed pups are currently arriving and can legally be sold only if the seller holds a pet shop licence. Lucy’s law would remove the legal reason for importing all these poor puppies, so all those vans could be turned back. Production in these despicable puppy farms would drastically reduce if the UK stopped being such a lucrative market for immoral traders. In the future, the condition of all puppies would be regulated by the UK standards of animal welfare, importantly removing the legal trade for smuggled pups, which would also help to remove the framework for illegal activity.

If Lucy’s law is so simple, why do we not already have a ban on third-party puppy sales? In the last few years, there have been many significant attempts in Parliament to end them. In September 2014, there was an e-petition; in November 2016, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended a ban, as we have heard; and in 2016, I led a debate on puppy farming. Another significant call for Lucy’s law has come from the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation’s manifesto, which has not yet been mentioned by other hon. Members, but I will mention it.

[Jim Shannon]

You are their conscience.

[Dr Cameron]

I am their conscience, indeed.

Its patron, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), is present. All calls for a ban in the last few years have been ignored, so it is unsurprising that worrying levels of unscrupulous breeding and selling activities, such as puppy farming, dealing and smuggling, which are all facilitated by third-party sales, do not show any sign of decreasing.

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

The arguments against Lucy’s law are dead in the water. On the first—that licensing commercial sales would be better and easier to enforce—we know that that cannot be the case. A licence takes much more policing and enforcement compared with an outright ban. We only have to look at what happened with banning smoking cigarettes in pubs, and the issues that would have arisen if it could have happened in some situations and not others—it would have only confused the public. Regulating something that is licensed would also obviously require more resources than a ban. If there is a ban, the public can alert the authorities very quickly, so there will be no dubiety.

Dubiety is regularly seen in action with the alcohol licensing regime. The public will report underage sales, but it is difficult for the police to determine where underage drinking is happening, if it is in a place where both underage and overage drinking are happening. It is much more difficult to regulate and to respond to.

If some third-party puppy sales are licensed and legitimate and some are not, the participating members of the public are unlikely to whistleblow, but it is important that we enable the public to do that. As we have heard, people do not want to go to the black market to buy a puppy—that is just not something people do. They are good people who want to give a puppy a loving home, so let us make it as straightforward as possible.

Current Government advice contradicts itself: third-party breeding can be licensed, but they also want people to see the puppy with the mum. Let us get it all in line by ensuring that we have Lucy’s law and a ban, so that everyone sees the puppy with the mum because that is how puppies are purchased in the UK.

I finish by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part. All the speeches have shown how important this issue is, not just to constituents but to hon. Members. We are all here for the same reason: we want Lucy’s law to be enacted now. To prevent any more suffering, it is clear that the time for Lucy’s law is now. Waiting a minute longer would mean another minute of puppy farm cruelty endured by thousands of dogs and their pups. I and every dog lover in the UK look forward to the Minister’s response.

Cosmetics Testing on Animals

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a global ban on cosmetic animal testing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. In his first keynote speech back in July 2017, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made global standards on policies for farm animal welfare and air quality a priority. In responding to the row about the Government’s non-inclusion of animal sentience in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, he vowed to ensure that Brexit works not just for citizens, but for the animals we love and cherish. This initiative to end the cruel, unnecessary and outdated use of animals in cosmetics testing is the perfect opportunity for the Government to set global standards and ensure that our laws work for animals and the UK’s animal lovers.

The public overwhelmingly want cosmetics testing on animals to end worldwide. More than 5.5 million people to date have signed a petition, jointly with the Body Shop and Cruelty Free International, for a global end to cosmetics testing on animals, which can be achieved by adopting an international agreement reflecting the combined will of United Nations member states to map a harmonised framework that would end the use of animal tests for cosmetic products and continue the development and international validation of non-animal methods.

What has Parliament done already? The fact that 116 Members across Parliament have already signed early-day motion 437 shows that there is cross-party support for that proposal. The EDM calls on the Government to lead on such an initiative by tabling, actively pursuing and supporting a resolution at the UN General Assembly for an ad hoc committee, as the UK-based Cruelty Free International has called for.

Cosmetics testing on animals has been banned in the UK since 1998. We have led the way on this issue. The UK was in fact the first country to take that step, and we motivated the EU ban on testing and sales. It is time to make that commitment global. If the use of animals in cosmetics testing is wrong in the UK and the EU, it is wrong everywhere around the world.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but a Division has just been called in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes if there is one Division, and an extra 10 minutes for any subsequent Divisions. As soon as Dr Cameron and the Minister are back in their seats, we can resume the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Dr Cameron]

A majority of the public surveyed—74%—agree that much more needs to be done to find alternatives to using animals in all forms of research. That is particularly their view when it comes to animal testing.

Where policy starts, industry follows. Following the EU’s ban, growth in the non-animal methods industry surged. There are now 33 scientific facilities working on alternatives to animal testing. Internationally, that market is expected to reach $8.74 billion by 2022, up from an estimated $6.34 billion in 2017. Such growth is widely attributed to the increasing adoption of alternative methods in the cosmetics industry. I highlight to the Minister that the UK is well placed to lead that work, and even more so in a globally harmonised market.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I echo what she said about this country’s role and our proud history of taking the lead. However, is it not also the case that the UK is reported to be the biggest user of animals in experiments within the whole EU? Not all of those experiments are for serious medical conditions. For example, skin rashes account for a high proportion of animal experiments, where non-animal alternatives already exist and are considered to be more scientifically sound.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Yes, I agree that much more needs to be done to look at non-animal testing methods in all forms of research, particularly for those types of experiment for which other methods are available. Animal testing should always be the last resort. I chair the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, and just the other month we heard about the 400-odd dogs tested—a figure that was reported to me as in Hansard. I was then told that the number had not been reported accurately to me and that it was more likely to be 4,000 across the UK. Will the Minister get back to me on that point? That also highlights that much is done underground, and we need to be much more transparent. We need to have the figures and to know that animal research is the last alternative, as it is meant to be. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that much more needs to be done about the transparency of the animal research industry.

Although no global ban has yet been enacted, the European Union ban on animal testing for cosmetics and on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals came fully into force in 2013. Other bans, some more comprehensive than others, are now in place in many countries. Guatemala, New Zealand, India, Israel, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam now have legislation, and things are moving forward in Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Chile, South Africa and China. In the USA, state-level bans have been enacted, as well as some mandated alternative laws. In a global market, it is essential that all countries ban the practice, to avoid testing simply moving around the world to countries with no effective laws, to ensure a level playing field and to put an end to animal suffering. The challenge is to make cruel cosmetics a thing of the past once and for all, and to achieve one coherent global ban on animal testing for cosmetics.

To market a product, a company must demonstrate its safety. Of course, of that we all agree, but that can be done by using approved non-animal tests and combinations of existing ingredients that have already been established as safe for human use. Increasing awareness of animal sentience and the pain, suffering and death inflicted upon animals via product testing has led the public to reject the idea in their droves. The number of companies seeking certification under Cruelty Free International’s leaping bunny programme is increasing, as their market insights tell them that consumers want cruelty-free personal care products.

The information that historically was gained from animal tests is increasingly being provided through quicker and more reliable non-animal methods. Modern methods are more relevant to humans and have been found to predict human reactions better than traditional animal-model methods. For example, an evaluation of the reconstituted skin model for skin irritation found that it predicted human skin reactions much better than the cruel Draize skin test on rabbits.

Rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, hamsters and rats continue to be injected, gassed, force-fed and killed for cosmetics testing worldwide. It is estimated from OECD figures that more than half a million animals are killed each year for cosmetics testing. Examples of the types of tests that are undertaken include repeated dose toxicity: to assess toxicity, rabbits or rats are forced to eat or inhale a cosmetic ingredient or have it rubbed on to their shaved skin every day for 28 or 90 days, and are then killed. Several reviews of the ability of rodent tests to predict human toxicity have found that they are only 40% to 60% predictive. They also include reproductive toxicity tests: to assess such toxicity, pregnant female rabbits or rats are force-fed a cosmetic ingredient and then killed, along with their unborn babies. Such tests take a long time and use thousands of animals, although studies have shown them to detect only around 60% of known human reproductive toxicants.

In toxicokinetic testing, rabbits or rats are forced to eat a cosmetic ingredient. They are then killed and their organs examined, to see how the ingredient is distributed in their bodies. Animals have significantly different metabolisms and physiology to humans. Thus, before the now available non-animal alternatives were routinely used by the pharmaceutical industry, the failure rate of drugs for poor prediction in this area was 40%.

Although some finished product tests take place, they are increasingly rare; most animal testing takes place on ingredients. It is important that consumers are aware of that; otherwise, they might unwittingly buy products that carry a meaningless claim, stating that the finished product has not been tested on animals, when the ingredients could well have been.

What are the alternatives? Companies can prove that their products are safe by using non-animal methods and utilising established ingredients. There are almost 30,000 ingredients on the EU’s database for which some safety data are available. There is an increasing number of non-animal methods available to replace outdated animal tests. To assess skin irritation, for example, we can use alternatives such as reconstituted human epidermis, such as the Episkin model developed by L’Oréal. More than 700 brands across the world are “leaping bunny” certified. Other companies may also follow this example and remove animal testing from their supply chains but, sadly, animal testing continues.

Some questions have been asked about the completeness of the EU ban. Since the introduction of the EU cosmetics directive, the European regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH—has come into force. Although Cruelty Free International has fought hard against the animal testing provisions in REACH, it does have implications for many types of chemicals, including some that may be used in cosmetics. That is something to highlight to the public.

Some 80% of the world’s countries still allow the practice of testing cosmetic products on animals. In the global cosmetics market, it is essential that all countries end the practice of testing on animals, to avoid it simply moving around the world to countries with no effective laws. That has to ensure a clear playing field for this country and others that have done the right thing and give consumers confidence that they are buying cruelty-free.

Being able to claim that a product is cruelty-free is the most important packaging claim for a beauty product. A 2015 Nielsen study found the “not tested on animals” claim to matter the most to consumers. By ending animal testing for cosmetics, businesses will gain a competitive advantage here, across the EU and in the global cosmetics market. Worldwide consumers are increasingly demanding ethical, sustainable and humane products and services.

Cruelty Free International, which is represented in the Public Gallery this afternoon, has partnered with the global beauty brand The Body Shop. In less than a year, more than 5.5 million people worldwide have signed their joint petition, calling for a UN resolution to end cosmetics animal testing across the globe. They are aiming to bring 8 million signatures to the UN by October 2018, which would make it the largest ever animal protection petition. The overwhelming support from the public in more than 60 diverse countries shows clearly that people want international leaders to work together to adopt this resolution. The resolution would also be compatible with the sustainable development goals.

I ask the Minister and the Government to ensure that, once again, we are at the forefront of championing animal rights right across the globe. With sufficient political support from different regions around the world, including our own, member states could submit a resolution under the sustainable development item of the UN General Assembly second committee agenda, ahead of the 74th session in September 2019. That timetable would create enough space for consultation and learning, but would be flexible enough to adapt to change.

The UK Government must continue to lead on this issue. The public are calling for it. Let us stop the cruelty now and make that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

It has been a positive debate. We have come such a long way, but there is so much more to do. I am reassured to some degree by the Minister’s response, and I hope that he will highlight this issue to the other Government Departments, because I understand that they will have to work collectively. Perhaps he could write back to me. It is important that we are seen to lead the way on the UN resolution. The public definitely expect us to do that.

The final point I hope the Minister can take forward relates specifically to beagles, which are tested on more than any other breed of dog. An excellent local charity that tries to rehome beagles who have been subject to animal testing told the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group that it was finding it extremely difficult to engage with the scientific community about rehoming dogs that were suitable for rehoming. I hope the Minister can have a discussion with the scientific community; the public want to see animals, particularly dogs—I am chair of the dog welfare group, so I have a particular interest—rehomed wherever possible. Beagles make excellent pets, and we would like to see as many as possible in a secure home. I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered a global ban on cosmetic animal testing.