Derby County Football Club

Debate between Pauline Latham and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We are going to move straight on to the next debate, so would all those Members who are not participating please be courteous enough to leave quickly and quietly because we come on to the important issue of the administration of Derby County football club.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the administration of Derby County Football Club.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. At the outset, I would like to thank the Minister for his support and for his willingness to discuss this issue with local MPs. That has really been appreciated.

Last week marked nine months since Derby County entered administration on 22 September 2021—nine months of pain and uncertainty for Rams fans, who have shown so much devotion and dedication to the club during this, the toughest of all seasons. Since September we have seen a string of deadlines set, and missed, by Derby administrators Quantuma and the English Football League. We had an urgent question on the Floor of the House in January because the EFL had set a deadline of 1 February for the club to exit administration. That, like every other deadline throughout the process, was missed and the administrators were allowed to delay again.

In April we finally got the news we were waiting for: a preferred bidder, Chris Kirchner, was announced. We were told on 3 May that it was “almost done”, on 14 May that it was “almost complete”, and on 27 May that they would be closing by the end of the month. On 2 June, we were told that the delays were nothing to worry about and that UK and US bank holidays were preventing the bank transfer, which no one on either side of this multimillion pound deal had apparently foreseen or planned for. All along, the administrators had assured Team Derby—made up of Members of Parliament, councillors and local stakeholders—that nothing was wrong and that Kirchner’s deal would be completed.

Two weeks ago, it was announced via the media, rather than a direct communication from the administrators, that Kirchner had pulled out. Quantuma had made a terrible miscalculation in giving Chris Kirchner 65 days of exclusivity, which could have been spent seeking other, more credible buyers. Those 65 days have come at an absolutely crucial time for the club. We really are at one minute to midnight. Derby has only seven players contracted for next season, and the EFL has not yet lifted the transfer ban. Derby needs to be able to sell season tickets and agree sponsorship and commercial deals, and there are just weeks to go until next season.

In a spark of good news, local businessman David Clowes has been announced as the new preferred bidder and, crucially, has already acquired Pride Park, the stadium, so he is in a good place to finalise his deal. We very much hope he is able to conclude the sale of the club by tomorrow, Wednesday the 29th, but Derby fans have been here before and will not believe it is over until the ink has dried on the contract.

However, it was also announced this week that our inspirational manager, Wayne Rooney, who has given his all to the club over the past year, has left. He fought against all the odds to rescue us from relegation. Despite a transfer ban and a 21-point deduction, he very nearly achieved that feat. Without our points deduction, Derby would have finished comfortably out of the relegation zone, in 17th place. I thank Wayne for all he has done for Derby County. We understand the difficulties and challenges he faced. Rams fans will be giving all our support to interim manager, Liam Rosenior, who has supported Wayne throughout the past year and now has the chance to lead the team forward and hopefully eventually back to the championship and beyond.

With all that context in mind, I have three main points I would like the Minister to respond to. My first relates to the conduct of the administrators, Quantuma. For some time, I have been very concerned about its competence in handling a business of Derby’s size. It took more than a month to work out that Kirchner was not able to provide the funds he promised. There are reports that it failed to communicate effectively with other interested buyers, and it has therefore run the club dangerously close to the edge of liquidation over the past nine months.

Furthermore, Quantuma’s manner of communication with local stakeholders through Team Derby has been incredibly poor. It has constantly told us that it is on the edge of breakthroughs, which never materialised. Our weekly updates barely had any new information. Quantuma refused to discuss key matters, on the grounds of commercial sensitivity, only for those matters to appear in the newspapers the next day. It is reported that Quantuma racked up more than £2 million in costs in the first six months of the administration. Its latest response to supporters’ groups assures us that no fees have been drawn so far, but not that it will not be taking them out of the sale proceeds.

It appears to me that the conduct of the administrators has fallen far short of what Derby County has a right to expect. However, there are no fans’ voices in this process. Fans have had no say in who the new owners of Derby County will be, and the administrators have failed time and again to communicate clearly with the fans.

[Mrs Latham]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I must correct him: it is Derby County, not Derby Town. Yes, this is a problem that could happen to any club at any time and in later remarks I will address what could be done.

The fans and the club deserve so much better. Can the Sports Minister update us as to how best we can hold Quantuma to account? In particular, how would he expect administrators to consult and communicate effectively with fans during a sale process? Furthermore what, specifically, will the Sports Minister do to ensure that Quantuma is acting in the best interests of Derby’s fans? The club is not out of the woods yet and I have lost all confidence in Quantuma. Therefore, I call on the Sports Minister and the Secretary of State to take a close interest and ensure that the interests of Derby fans are represented in what are hopefully the very final stages of the sale to Clowes Developments Ltd.

My second point relates to the English Football League, which has an important role in saving Derby County. It is responsible for the particular set of insolvency rules that govern football clubs and for resolving disputes between clubs. Unfortunately, its apparent desire to take a back seat has been very damaging to Derby County. The well-publicised claims by other clubs made Derby a much less appealing prospect for potential buyers, particularly given the EFL’s refusal to confirm that those claims did not amount to football debts, which need to be paid in full. It was only after Chris Kirchner pulled out of the process two weeks ago that the EFL finally announced it would amend its position and become fully involved in the process of finding a buyer alongside Quantuma. That is far too late and should have taken place much earlier in the process.

In addition to assisting with the negotiations with interested parties, there are other key actions that the EFL can take that would help Derby County fans. First, it must lift the ban on Derby signing and re-signing players. With just weeks until the start of the season, Liam Rosenior has only seven players to choose from. The EFL must immediately allow Derby to sign players or at least to re-sign existing squad members to contract extensions. Secondly, fans have been squarely behind Derby County throughout the whole process. They have turned up to matches, and the grounds have been at capacity. However, fans have not yet been able to buy season tickets for next season, which not only hurts them but reduces the income for the club at a time when it is so desperately needed.

Derby County is a founder member of the English Football League, which has treated our club and our fans poorly, when it should be doing everything possible to ensure that the club is not liquidated and has enough players to compete in League One next season. What discussions has the Sports Minister had with the EFL to ensure that Derby fans are not punished, that they will be able to get season tickets for the upcoming season and that the club will be able to field a full side for its opening games? The EFL has been incredibly slow to step in and oversee Quantuma’s work. What assurances has the Minister received that it will be much more active in securing the future of one of its member clubs going forward?

My final point relates to the actions that we can take in this place. So much of the situation could have been avoided if the recommendations from the fan-led review into football governance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has championed, had been implemented already. The hon. Lady sends her apologies; she desperately wanted to be here and support Derby and its fans, but she has been held up.

Creating a new independent regulator for football governance requires primary legislation. An independent regulator is needed so that fans’ voices are heard throughout the process to ensure that the right people are in charge of football clubs. Football clubs are not just commercial assets or businesses; they are community assets of huge sporting, cultural, economic and historical value to the local area—no club more so than Derby County, an historic founder member of English football. It has fans not only across the region, but across the world, and its game days provide an economic boost to Derby and the east midlands.

All too often in recent years, we have seen the effect on the local area of a football club going into administration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) made the point eloquently during my urgent question in January about Bury football club. An independent regulator is desperately needed to ensure that the right people are in charge of football clubs and are meaningfully taking the views of fans into account. Please, for the sake of Derby fans, Bury fans and so many more, will the Minister confirm that that crucial legislation will be brought forward?

In conclusion, I have concerns—to which I would like the Minister to respond—about the administrators, the EFL and the fan-led review of football governance. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their participation in the debate. I know that the Minister will be able to see the strength of support for Derby County here in the Chamber. I also want him to be aware that other colleagues would have liked to contribute to the debate, but cannot because they are Whips or Ministers. None the less, they are still local Members of Parliament who have also been involved. Many Members support our cause, because if these things can happen to a club such as Derby County—a founder member of the Football League—they can happen to anyone.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope for assurances that he and the Secretary of State will be taking a keen interest in the resolution of the administration over the next day or two—a resolution firmly in the interests of Rams fans.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The full-time whistle on this debate goes at 5.30 pm; the half-time whistle, when we switch from Back Benchers to Front Benchers, is 5.07 pm. The guideline limits for the Front Benchers are 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and three minutes at the end for Pauline Latham to sum up the debate. So, for Back-Bench time until 5.07 pm, there will be a time limit of six minutes, which means that you all get to contribute. We are led to the kick-off by Dame Margaret Beckett.

Sexual Abuse and Exploitation

Debate between Pauline Latham and Philip Hollobone

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them and respect the one-way system around the Room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members can speak only if there are on the call lists. This applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list and Members are not expected to remain for the wind-ups.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of sexual abuse and exploitation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. When we think of overseas aid workers, we imagine altruistic individuals using their skills to provide essential support to people in need across the world, often with little compensation or formal recognition. Peacekeepers, especially those from the United Nations, also enjoy a favourable public image associated as they are with reducing fatalities and helping communities damaged by conflict to rebuild and recover. When they perform their roles correctly, they represent the best of humanity but when they abuse their positions of responsibility, they harm their relations with the host country population, jeopardise peacekeeping and development efforts and leave victims behind, damaged and with no idea of where to obtain redress. I intend for this debate to focus on how to protect the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers and prevent further victims from being made in the future.

The involvement of international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers in sexual exploitation and abuse and the difficulties experienced by their victims in obtaining redress has been known about for years. To provide some examples from the Select Committee on International Development report on “Sexual exploitation and abuse in the aid sector” published in 2018, I point to the revelations in 2002 about children being abused in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. In 2007-08, the vast majority of surveyed victims of sexual exploitation in Kenya, Namibia and Thailand said they did not know where or how to report their abuse. Last month, staff from a variety of organisations, including the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, Oxfam and World Vision were discovered to have exploited and abused girls and women in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is going on again, again and again.

Host countries damaged by poverty and war naturally have displaced people and it is not the case the peacekeepers and overseas aid workers are merely passive participants in the effects of deprivation and misery in host countries. Sometimes their arrival can actively create the problems. A note by the Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1996 entitled “The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children” concluded:

“In six out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children during armed conflict, the arrival of peace-keeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution.”

Most obviously international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers have access to money, food, supplies and other resources that enable them to exercise influence over the population of the host country. This influence is frequently used improperly—for example, to obtain transactional sex. Women sometimes even have to sell their young daughters for food and supplies. That may be shocking but the fact that it happens just shows how desperate the victims are.

As I said at the beginning, overseas aid workers and international peacekeepers have incredibly important roles supporting the most vulnerable across the world. When they engage in sexual exploitation and abuse, they undermine the trust of the people they are meant to protect and of the people who support them at home. Public trust in charities has fallen since these matters were reported, so have donations. Ultimately, sexual exploitation and abuse undermine the efforts of those workers who conduct themselves properly.

Reading the reports of historical sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers, and the responses of organisations involved, provides a sense of déjà vu. First, there are the apologies, often expressed in general terms about falling short of standards, which are undefined. Secondly, there are frequent platitudes about “lessons being learned” and the interests of victims being at the forefront while ultimately inconclusive investigations are commissioned. During that stage, the perpetrators can be allowed to resign quietly and are free to take employment with another organisation operating in a different country, where they continue their abusive behaviour. Thirdly, there is a gradual loss of interest in the issue until, in five or six years’ time, the exact same thing happens again and the same people make the same excuses. That complacency has led to the trend of the last three decades and it must stop.

While ever I am on a Committee looking at how the aid budget is spent on behalf of our taxpayers, I will keep asking the questions that many do not want asked, which I have been doing since I first heard about this shocking problem at the world humanitarian summit in 2016 in Istanbul. I heard about the problem at one of the fringe meetings, where panellists from several different countries discussed the problem and admitted that nothing could be done about it. From that moment on, I asked about it in almost every IDC evidence session until it was recognised that something had to be done, but only when the Oxfam and Save the Children scandal happened was I finally taken seriously.

There are already fears in the current IDC that the latest round of complacency has arrived. In the evidence session on 7 May 2019, we were given an assurance by Frances Longley, then chief executive of Amref Health Africa UK, who said:

“As a sector, we are passionately committed to making that reporting better and more effective, and we absolutely stand side by side with you on that.”

But I wonder what is actually happening. Tracey Smith, then chief executive of British Expertise International, stated:

“The companies have shared best practice. They have looked at the way the sector operates. They have collaborated together, but it is felt that those specific, strategic issues, the support for survivors, cultural change, minimum standards, organisational capacity and capability, are covered by the code of conduct.”

Passion, collaboration and discussion do not produce results and will certainly not do so if they fall back on a vague code of conduct that has hitherto abjectly failed to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable women and girls across the world.

Three problems must be addressed to discourage potential abusers from exploiting women and girls and to support those who have been abused. They relate to reporting, investigation and whistleblowing. Victims of sexual exploitation and abuse encounter significant problems when they attempt to report their experiences. Many different legal regimes may operate in the context of international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers in mission host countries. There is international law, which often comes with immunity in respect of certain actions; the law of the perpetrator’s country, which may or may not provide redress; and the host country’s law, which cannot be reliable if the host country is in political turmoil.

Generally, victims lack the expertise to pursue their cases without legal assistance, and of course they lack the ability to pay for that legal assistance unless they rely on those organisations that may have been responsible for their abuse in the first instance. Different organisations have different structures and complaints procedures, and there may be so many operating in one area that it is impossible to know which the abuser belongs to. Reporting rape and sexual assault is difficult in the best of places, but as Professor Andrew MacLeod stated in the IDC’s evidence session on 6 October this year, in the context of host countries,

“It is like asking the victim of rape to report to the rapist”.

Often, the women or girls cannot read, so notices that we have been assured are pinned up for the victims to read go unread and therefore the complicated systems for reporting such abuse are a complete waste of time.

This situation is not improved by the behaviours of the institutions involved. In the evidence session on 6 October, Sienna Merope-Synge characterised the “practical reality” of the UN’s assistance as

“usually a black hole of information; that is the standard. At best it may be some charitable crumbs to the victim that is not based on an acknowledgement of legal rights and responsibility.”

In the minority of cases that are reported to the organisation involved, there is no guarantee that effective remedial action will be taken against the perpetrators, even when they are known and identified.

The Oxfam scandal of 2018 is probably the best known example of that. After an investigation by The Times in February of that year, it emerged that senior staff in Oxfam’s mission to Haiti, including the Belgian country director Roland van Hauwermeiren, had hired prostitutes at a villa rented by the charity. An internal investigation commenced, in which several of the abusers admitted using “prostitutes”. The internal report concluded that there was a culture of impunity among Oxfam staff and that some of the “prostitutes” could have been under age, yet that report remained confidential. The perpetrators were allowed to resign and the details disclosed to the Charity Commission were inadequate.

Shockingly, The Times reported that Dame Barbara Stocking, the chief executive of Oxfam at that time, offered van Hauwermeiren a “dignified exit”, because sacking him would have had potentially serious implications for the charity’s reputation. In other words, Oxfam was more concerned with looking good than doing good, and acquiesced in one of its top staff members enjoying all the acclaim of his position while performing none of his responsibilities towards the vulnerable people he was meant to protect. He had already been investigated for inappropriate sexual activity in 2011, when he had worked for Merlin, but he had been allowed to resign and go to another job elsewhere.

In numerous evidence sessions to the IDC, it has become apparent that the problem is not exclusive to Oxfam. Nevertheless, what I want to know is why they believe that women or girls are “prostitutes” rather than victims. How many people in this Chamber went to school with somebody who said, “When I grow up, I want to be a prostitute?” Exactly: these women or girls are victims, as are all sex workers.

[Mrs Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I think that the problem with character references is that those giving them can be sued, and they often have to be public. Often, the person applying for a job has to know what has been said in their character reference, which I feel is completely wrong. Very often, what someone has done is known about, but they resign before the end of the investigation into their activity, which means there is no blot on their copybook; nobody knows about their behaviour and they move on. That is a serious problem and I hope that we will hear from the Minister as to how he will address it.

Reporting sexual exploitation and abuse is often discouraged by those organisations that do not have transparent structures. Many whistleblowers, having approached the media or other organisations, are summarily dismissed and unable to work again in a similar role. These are not isolated examples; there are many examples.

One recent example that attracted notoriety is that of Anders Kompass, a former employee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In 2014, he approached French authorities regarding sexual exploitation and abuse that he had learned about by French peacekeepers in the Central African Republic. He was suspended for not having gone through the formality of asking his superior for guidance before whistleblowing and for including personal details of the victims in his report. He was later exonerated by an independent panel. The UN’s allegations were spurious. However, six years later the investigations into the allegations against the French peacekeepers have still not been completed. It is often difficult to avoid the impression that organisations complicit in sexual exploitation and abuse are more concerned with protecting themselves than with punishing the perpetrators, with scant regard for the victims. Given the difficulties at every stage, from perpetration and reporting to whistleblowing and investigating to obtain redress, fundamental changes must be implemented to ensure the safety of women and girls in the world’s most deprived areas. We must not forget that it is a problem for a few boys as well, although a much smaller number than for girls.

Currently, frontline aid workers do not require Disclosure and Barring Service checks to operate in host countries. DBS checks ensure that people working with children and vulnerable adults do not have a history of abuse, which is an effective move towards protection. Since overseas aid workers support mainly very vulnerable children and adults, a requirement that they obtain DBS checks or something similar might improve the situation. There is an aid worker registration scheme that would prevent perpetrators of sexual exploitation and abuse from moving around the sector after their abuse has been detected. The scheme could be made effective if donors and Governments were encouraged to make their donations conditional on an organisation being a member of the scheme.

Twenty-one of the 30 major donors that form the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD have agreed to pilot the scheme. Regular reporting of safeguarding and misconduct data would also ensure that victims are actively sought out rather than expected to report their abuse to organisations that, understandably, they do not trust. The establishment of an ombudsman by the international aid community could reduce the complexity of legal systems and complaints procedures that contribute to the chronic under-reporting of sexual exploitation and abuse. Such abuse by peacekeepers and overseas aid workers is an appalling fact of life for vulnerable people in the world’s most deprived and war-torn areas. It is thought that because sexual exploitation and abuse of under-age children has been tackled primarily in the churches, particularly in this country through the Scouting and Guiding groups and all those other places where it was happening, many of the perpetrators are gravitating towards the aid sector because they can go abroad where they are anonymous and can get away not with murder, but with sexual exploitation and abuse. My hope is that effective reforms will be implemented to improve the situation and that the victims are not simply forgotten, as they have been time and again.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) was the Secretary of State for the Department for International Development, she had an international summit just across the road, where many of us present believed that much would be done and achieved as a result of a spotlight on the problem. Things have changed, but nowhere near enough. The whole culture must change, not only to ensure that proper reporting is done, but to stop men’s abuse of women and girls. Men need to know that there is absolutely no tolerance of such behaviour, and that if it happens they will be sacked immediately and will be unlikely to get another job where they have access to the most vulnerable.

I wish to ask the Minister what solutions the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has come up with to ensure that this country does not in future become complicit in any form of sexual exploitation and abuse of anyone, never mind the most vulnerable people in the world. What will the Department do to stop it from happening again and again? How does the new, mighty Department plan to follow on from the female Secretaries of State for DFID?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 11 o’clock. At three minutes before 11, I will call Pauline Latham to sum up the debate. That means I am required to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.27. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Until 10.27 we are in Back-Bench time. Five very distinguished Back-Benchers seek to contribute. Members should bear in mind that the longer they speak at the beginning, the less time a distinguished colleague will have to speak at the end, but we have until 10.27 for Back-Bench contributions. I call Sarah Champion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Latham]

First, I do not wish to condemn all aid workers, because there are some amazing aid workers out there. However, far too many are abusive to women and need to be stopped, so I am pleased to hear some of the things that the Minister has said.

I believe that whistleblowers need much more support. They need support to be able to come forward, and they do not need condemning, which has sometimes been the case. They also need to be guaranteed a job afterwards, because many of them come forward and never work again. It is a shocking state of affairs.

I thank all hon. Members present for their support. What I find most interesting is that two current members of the International Development Committee, and some past members, have spoken powerfully of the IDC. The other Back Benchers who have spoken have made excellent contributions. It is interesting that the Back Benchers we have heard from include four women and two men, whereas the Front Bench spokespersons are all men. That is not to decry their abilities or anything else, but one of the problems that we have in this debate is that there are not enough women at the top. There are not enough women leaders in charities and in peacekeeping areas—the men tend to rise to the top. It is important to accept that we need to ensure that more women are involved.

I would like to see no abuse happening. That is unlikely, but we need to make it much easier for people to come forward. I believe that victims will feel much more comfortable coming to talk to women than to men—that is just a fact of life.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he will appreciate that we must continue to scrutinise the aid budget not just through FCDO, but through the other Departments, because who will look at that funding if there is no follow-on Committee from the IDC? It will be in nobody’s remit to do that, and it is important that somebody is watching out for sexual exploitation. We need to continue the IDC’s work not just on this issue, but on many others. Spending a large amount of taxpayers’ money needs scrutiny. In this case, it is vital that somebody is looking at it through the different Departments.

I thank the Minister very much for his assurance that things are happening in FCDO, but he has no influence, of course, over what happens in other Departments. It is vital to move on and move forward with the changes that have happened in his Department—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Backbench Business

Debate between Pauline Latham and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing and opening the debate, and commend the thoughtful contributions that he and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) have made.

This year has seen the worst decline in the African elephant population in a quarter of a century, and it is escalating. It is estimated that only 352,271 savannah elephants are left, with approximately 120,000 illegally killed by poachers since the first Conservative manifesto commitment to close the domestic ivory market was made in 2010. I want the introduction of a near-total ban on ivory trading in the UK—one that eradicates the current pre/post-1947 divide. The only exception—this is the reason I refer to a near-total ban—would be for genuine pieces of art, of cultural value, ratified by independent experts such as museum experts. Evidence suggests that the most effective move that the UK could make to save elephants and combat illegal poaching would be closing the domestic ivory market, and that is what I am calling for.

I shall briefly outline the UK position before I explain why a near-total ban on ivory would be beneficial, primarily to boost elephant populations and prevent their slaughter, but also because it would combat criminal activity. It is supported by the public, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said. The Government have promised to deliver a ban, and we should keep our word.

On 21 September 2016, the UK announced a possible ban on the sale of worked ivory produced after 1947; works before that date would be considered antiques. The ban will be consulted on next year, but that is not soon enough. There is evidence that legislation can successfully combat the illegal killing of elephants. In the US, the introduction of a near-total federal ban on ivory sales in July 2016 is already working well. Crucially, it also has support from the antiques industry; Sotheby’s called the move “manageable”, and stated that even when stricter legislation has been implemented, it has continued to operate successfully. The regulatory situation in the US indicates that the introduction of legislation in the UK could be effective. However, beyond that, a stronger sign is needed that more can and should be done and that more elephants can be saved without harming UK businesses.

Such measures are wholeheartedly supported by the British public. Only 8% of them are aware that it is still legal to buy and sell ivory in the UK, but 85% of them think that buying and selling ivory should be banned. It is one of our nation’s great traits that we are such proud animal lovers and express enormous concern for our planet’s wildlife. Introducing a near-total ban on domestic ivory would give the British people what they want: legislation to protect elephants, which are animals as majestic as any other. The Conservative party knows that people want elephants protected. In our 2010 and 2015 manifestos, we said that we would press for a total ban on ivory sales. It is right that we deliver on those commitments, because we made them.

Crucially, although public awareness about the ivory trade’s legality is not huge, it does not mean that the Conservative decision not to fully implement those manifesto ambitions has gone unnoticed. Tusk, the wildlife conservation charity, criticised the Government, saying that the proposals introduced

“do not represent a near-total ban as promised”.

Just three days after the consultation on the modern-day ivory ban was announced in September this year, the grassroots organisation Action for Elephants UK sent the Prime Minister a letter with 124 signatories, including Lord Hague, Stephen Hawking and the nation’s beloved broadcaster and naturalist David Attenborough. Finally, a current e-petition calling for the domestic ivory market to be shut down has reached more than 75,000 signatures. A near-total ban would prove to those groups and the wider public that the Government are committed to protecting endangered species and take citizens’ concerns extremely seriously.

Unfortunately, in terms of legislation—I touched on this briefly—Britain currently lags behind several countries in protecting elephants and restricting the ivory trade. Alongside the USA, China has also gone further than the UK in terms of regulation. The two countries have put in place stricter laws than are required under the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, which, although it confusingly only mentions fauna and flora in its name, aims to ensure that the international trade in wild animals does not threaten their survival.

On 20 March 2016, China imposed a three-year suspension on importing all ivory tusks and carvings. In June 2016, the Hong Kong Government introduced plans to phase out the domestic ivory trade entirely within five years, as well as bans on the import and re-export of pre-convention ivory into the territory. In the same month, the USA implemented new rules on the domestic trade in ivory, under which the commercial sale and export of ivory between US states are allowed only for certified antiques more than 100 years old.

Recent conferences, such as November’s international conference in Vietnam on the illegal wildlife trade, attended by the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are key examples of how countries’ treatment of the ivory trade can be put into the global spotlight. That conference was the third conference, the first of which was hosted by the UK Government in 2014. Through the meetings, nations have committed to supporting the elephant protection initiative, which includes measures on closing domestic ivory markets. After making such pledges, Britain must take care that we are not shamed on the international stage or left behind by our neighbours. Introducing a near-total ban on ivory in the UK would prove our conviction to the world. Britain should be leading from the front, not limping behind other nations.

A more immediate and tangible reason for introducing a near-total ban than protecting British reputation is the horrendous illegal slaughter of elephants, which has reached an appalling level. The great elephant census, released in September this year, found that the number of African elephants plunged by 30%, or around 144,000, between 2007 and 2014. It is not possible to understand the scale of the slaughter without also understanding the scale of the illegal ivory trade.

[Mr Hollobone]

In an answer to my hon. Friend on 1 November, the Government said that only 111,000 African elephants had disappeared in the last 10 years. Does she share my concern that the Government are underestimating the scale of the problem?

[Pauline Latham]

Yes. I am not sure where those figures came from, but other independent people and organisations have come up with much bigger figures, and the problem is escalating. It is not at a flat level or decreasing; it is escalating. They are being killed faster and more frequently.

The illicit wildlife trade is considered the fourth most profitable international crime after drugs, arms and human trafficking. It is worth between $10 billion and $20 billion each year. Ivory makes up a significant proportion of that market, and an estimated 200 to 300 tonnes of illegal ivory enter the global market every year. Given the value of ivory, the brutality directed towards elephants becomes increasingly predictable, although no less despicable. The word “poaching” may conjure up the image of small, individual instances of killing, but the term does not convey the horror of frequent butchery.

In an article in The New York Times, Ugandan Eve Abe describes how, after Idi Amin’s overthrow, both armies involved in the conflict would throw hand grenades at families of elephants and then cut out their ivory. Those armies are no longer present, but to assume that the brutal killing of those animals and the use of the profits to fund terrorist and militia activity have disappeared with them is, unfortunately, incorrect. As long as current UK legislation inadvertently helps ivory trading remain that profitable, the killing will continue.

Tragically, that killing affects more than animals. The Thin Green Line Foundation estimates that around 1,000 wildlife officers have been killed in the past decade. Not all of those deaths will have been due to ivory poachers, but the statistic proves that there is a human as well as an animal cost from the illegal ivory trade market.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Pauline Latham and Philip Hollobone

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is right. I know that he has raised that issue in the Chamber on numerous occasions, and rightly, because there are few issues that enrage our constituents more than the public money spent on translating things for people who, frankly, should learn to speak English if they want to stay in this country.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is talking about the international development budget and prisons abroad. In the very uncertain world in which we now live, does he not agree that it is good that our Government are spending money on strengthening the legal systems in these countries so that they can deal with their own prisoners?

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, I support that. A stronger legal system in these countries would help to facilitate the return of their nationals imprisoned in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

This might be an issue that the International Development Committee, on which he sits, might want to explore, because when one compares the list of the top 10 countries with the most foreign national offenders in our jails with the list of the 28 countries to which this country gives the most international development aid, three countries stand out—Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia. All three countries are on the list of the 28 countries to which the Department for International Development gives international aid and in the top 10 list of countries with the most foreign national offenders in prison in this country.

[Pauline Latham]

Does my hon. Friend accept that many nationals from those countries send a huge amount of their own money back to their country to help their families who are still there? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, those people are good, contributing members of this society because they have chosen to come here and they add to what we have in this country. Obviously the criminals are the worst offenders we could possibly have and we need to get rid of them, but there are so many people here who work hard to help their families back home.

[Mr Hollobone]

And those people will be very embarrassed indeed that their fellow foreign nationals are clogging up our prisons in this way. They may be keener than us to see a sensible resolution to the problem.

The point that I want to make in drawing my brief remarks to a close is that, if we are giving so much money in international aid to Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, but those three countries are in the top 10 list of shame in respect of having foreign nationals in our prisons, surely we should do in those countries what we are doing in Jamaica—spending the international aid money that we are already giving them on building prisons in those countries, so that the prisoners in our country can be sent back to them.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend’s bid to be on the Bill Committee is accepted. That is exactly the sort of constructive suggestion we need to strengthen the legislation.

[Pauline Latham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we did do that, the standard of the prisons we would provide would be far superior to the standard of the prisons that many developing countries provide for their citizens?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am not sure that my constituents are that fussed about the standard of prisons that are built in other countries—they just want the foreign nationals to be sent back to them—but I take the point that my hon. Friend makes.

I want to highlight one other issue that is of concern. I asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many foreign national offenders were serving their sentence in prison, and I have read out to the House the list of shame that I received. However, I also asked how many foreign national offenders were serving their sentence outside prison, and the answer that I got from the Ministry of Justice was:

“The number of convicted foreign national offenders serving their sentence outside prison is not published due to data quality.”

In other words, “We don’t know.” I am very worried indeed about that.

Trailers (EU Proposals)

Debate between Pauline Latham and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham]

I agree that we should be at the forefront of the fight against this proposal, because it would impact so greatly on our haulage industry, which, as I have said, faces so many challenges at the moment. It would also impact on the people of this country, who would pay more for their goods. We are already in a difficult, cash-strapped situation, so we do not want to increase the difficulties not only for the haulage industry but for every single one of us. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope that the Minister will take it on board.

Time is short, so I will use what time I have left to ask three things of the Minister—for the sake of the British economy, we need to get this proposal right. Before doing so, however, I thank him for his letter of 22 December 2010. First, I hope that the Minister will use his time today to outline his Department’s position in relation to the European Commission’s proposal. I understand from his letter to me and his comments to the trade press that he and the Department share many of the views of the haulage industry, but perhaps he will put that position on record. Secondly, will he ask the European Commission to make the proposal document available, so that those within the industry who will be affected can give their views? Thirdly and finally, I ask him to write to Government MEPs to ask them to raise the concerns of the British haulage industry in Europe.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I have certainly learned a lot from what the hon. Lady has just said, and I am very much looking forward to hearing the response from the Minister.