Future Flood Prevention

Rob Marris Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes another good point. Planning conditions can be flouted, and they are sometimes not properly enforced. It is sometimes claimed that resilience measures cannot be put in place because of the economic situation, but we must ensure that houses are not built unless those measures are taken. I am sure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister present will pass on that point to her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, because this is a planning matter. If we are going to plan for the developments that we need, we must plan them properly. I do not think that any of us are against development, but we must have the right kind of development and hold the water back. Indeed, if we could make a feature of those measures, we might also create some leisure facilities as well. That would be a planning gain.

The recommendations in our report also include the need for a new governance model to deal with flooding. As part of our inquiry, the EFRA Committee visited the Netherlands to learn how that low-lying country manages flooding. We learned that 25% of the land there is below sea level, and that half of its 17 million population live in flood-prone areas, so they know a lot about flooding. The threat of flooding led to local government and water management being administered hand in hand from as early as the 13th century. As the threat of flooding in the UK grows, we need to borrow some ideas from the Dutch and to mirror their focus on dealing with floods locally and nationally. The fens in this country were drained by Dutch engineers, as was the part of Somerset where I still have my farm. They know exactly how to deal with water, because if they did not deal with it, they would not have a country. It is as simple as that.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that many of the things in this very useful report from the EFRA Committee were being discussed in this House a dozen years ago and have still not been implemented? An example is the recommendation about “building back better” that appears in paragraph 60 of the report. I discussed that matter with the Association of British Insurers in, from memory, 2006, but we have made almost no progress on it. Since then, the Labour Government and the coalition Government have cut spending on flood defences.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have tried to ensure that the report is not party political. Under the last Labour Government, the spending on flooding went down in dry times and up in wet times. The same thing happened under the coalition. We can argue about the figures, but they very much follow that same pattern. The report recommends learning from what has happened and putting in the proper resilience measures.

As I said, the report discussed the Dutch system. The idea would be to set up a regional flood and coastal board and then involve local authorities and local drainage boards, where they exist, and then landowners and businesses in order to have a broad catchment basis. As such, the Government should completely overhaul flood risk management, to include a new English rivers and coastal authority that is accountable for the delivery of flood protection. The Netherlands has a flood commissioner who is answerable to the Dutch Parliament and at a local level, which provides real focus. We may not need a full management system like that of the Dutch, but we can learn many things from it, such as how to alter the system through the Environment Agency and others to make it more answerable to Parliament, local authorities, drainage boards and landowners. I am convinced that, until we get a system that works from the top down and from the bottom up, we will not make the best use of our resources, because they will always be pressed. The commissioner would be able to hold those carrying out flood prevention work to account for their performance, because we have to get the best value for money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has published a report on flooding. We found a lack of long-term strategic planning for flood risk and that the Government had not been doing enough to ensure the resilience of nationally significant infrastructure. Crucially, there has been a stop-start approach to flood defence funding and a lack of support for local councils. Our report called on the Government to take a proactive approach to funding and to make companies that operate key digital, energy and transport infrastructure report on their preparedness levels for flooding and their resilience targets. We called for more support for councils to prepare plans to deal with the risk of flooding, and for the Government to publish a 25-year plan for flooding alongside the long-awaited and much delayed 25-year plan for the environment, for which, yes, we are indeed still waiting.

Before I discuss the detail of our report, I wish to say a few words about climate change. Flooding is the greatest risk our country faces from climate change. As hon. Members have said, the risks are already significant and will increase as a result of climate change. Even if global temperature rises are kept below 2°, the UK faces a rising threat from surface water as a result of the intense rain patterns, from coastal erosion and tidal surges, and from fluvial flooding. It is important to stress that cities such as Hull face all three of those threats—some areas are much more vulnerable than others.

Sea-level rise forecasts vary from 50 cm to 100 cm by the end of the century. That will make tidal surges bigger. We saw how exposed is our North sea coast on the east of England in January’s storm surge, when the coastal town of Jaywick in Essex, which suffered so grievously in the 1950s, had to be evacuated by the Army. It is good to see a faster response time from the Government in such fast-moving, life-and-death situations, but we need to be able to scale that up if the North sea surge happens simultaneously along the whole eastern coast.

Various predictions, including the forecasts in the Government’s national flood resilience review, say that monthly winter rainfall could be 20% to 30% higher over the next 10 years, so as well as planning for the next 80 years, for our children’s lifetimes, we need to be thinking about the next 10 years. There are risks to all nations and all sectors of the economy. In its latest risk assessment, the Committee on Climate Change said:

“Current levels of adaptation are projected to be insufficient to avoid flood and coastal erosion risks”.

We are not yet doing what we need to do to match the scale of the risk.

[Rob Marris]

I hope my hon. Friend shares my disappointment at the slow rate of progress. The adaptation measures in the Climate Change Act 2008 are the direct result of a private Member’s Bill I introduced around 10 years ago. As she points out, we have made almost no progress.

[Mary Creagh]

There has been some progress, but we need to move much further and faster as the scale and nature of the risk becomes more apparent and as the science develops. My concern is that Government policy is not changing fast enough to meet the changes in the scientific forecasts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). I do not want to speak to the whole report or the Government’s response. I shall focus rather on our Select Committee’s recommendation 15 on the statutory duty for the fire and rescue service. This recommendation is consistent with our other recommendations 16 to 21, which all raise concerns about governance, command and control, structures and relationships. The evidence the Committee heard led us to the conclusion we reached. Sadly, however, the Government disagree.

Under recommendation 15:

“We recommend that the Government places a statutory duty on the Fire and Rescue Service in England and Wales to provide an emergency response to flood events and commits the necessary additional funding and staff resources to support delivery of this responsibility”—

a point to which I shall return later. The Government’s response states:

“Fire and Rescue Services in England already have the discretionary powers they need…A Statutory Duty would potentially reduce flexibility with a one size fits all approach, and there are clear advantages to a permissive regime”.

That sounds like civil service and ministerial double-speak or euphemism if I ever heard it.

I am grateful to Pat Strickland in the House of Commons Library for its briefing, “Should Fire and Rescue Services have a Statutory Duty to deal with flooding?” It outlines that the 2008 Pitt review into the 2007 floods said that there should be fully funded national capability for flood rescue

“underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty”.

In a written answer in December 2015, the then Minister with responsibility for policing and fire said that the good response of the fire services to flooding in that year suggested that there was “no need for review”. The Labour Government had arrived at the same conclusion in 2008, but we have seen more and more serious flood events since then, so the situation is changing.

The briefing paper details the law as it stands:

“The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 does not place a statutory duty…to respond to floods, although there is a power to do so…the Act sets out the statutory ‘core functions’ of FRA…to provide for…fire safety…fire-fighting…rescuing people and protecting people from harm in the event of road traffic accidents”—

or road traffic collisions in 21st-century jargon. The law in Scotland is different. There has been a statutory duty since 2013, and the Pitt review took a similar view to the one that now exists in Scotland:

“The Review believes that clarifying and communicating the role of each of these bodies would improve the response to flooding. However, we are concerned that the systems, structures and protocols developed to support national coordination of multi-agency flood rescue assets remain ad-hoc. We believe that the Fire and Rescue Service should take on a leading role in this area, based on fully funded capability. This will be most effective if supported by a statutory duty.”

That is essentially the core of recommendations 15 to 21 and, as I say, nothing much has changed.

The Library briefing goes on to examine the history of the proposal and the debates in the House. I would like to focus on the history of the fire and rescue service’s statutory duties. Colleagues might expect that the fire service has always had a duty to attend fires, but it was partly the fire that destroyed most of this Palace of Westminster in 1834 that led to the creation of the London Fire Brigade, which celebrated its 150th anniversary last year. Most colleagues would also probably expect that the fire and rescue service has a duty to prevent fires, and I suspect most would consider the role of the fire service in dealing with road traffic collisions to be a statutory duty. That is not the case. On fire, the statutory duty was created only in 1938. On fire safety, it was the Fire Services Act 1947 that created it. As for road accidents and road crashes, it was the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 that created the statutory duty.

When the Government say that the fire and rescue service will deal with floods because it has, it does and it will, that was also the case for fires, fire prevention and road traffic collisions until the prevailing wisdom decided that an expectation was not enough and the Government had to do more than just expect. There not only has to be a legal requirement for a duty; it has to be resourced and paid for, and the Government need to legislate for that outcome.

The Select Committee report makes the case for changes in structures. Part of our recommendations for better preparedness, better governance and stronger resilience is to confer a duty on the fire service to boost all those elements. The Government clearly do not want to proceed in that direction at present.

[Rob Marris]

Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that the Government’s refusal to create a statutory duty for the fire and rescue service in this regard is driven principally by their desire not to commit resources to this area of endeavour?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend perfectly anticipates my next point. I was about to quote a statistic to demonstrate that the Government do not want to proceed in this direction—because staff reductions in fire and rescue services since 2010 have been significant, with nearly 7,000 jobs having been lost. By my estimate, that amounts to 20% of the British fire service disappearing since 2010. Those numbers are very worrying.

Furthermore, the transfer of responsibilities of the fire and rescue service to more and more police and crime commissioners, and budget pressures on both the police and the fire services suggest that there is real fear of further reductions. The fire and rescue service needs to be able to maintain the staff and equipment necessary to continue to play a prominent role in dealing with floods, preparing for them and mitigating them. To achieve that, they need recognition in law. The Select Committee believes that that needs to be done. It is an issue that is not going to go away. I suspect that at some point—perhaps not now—the Government will get the message.

Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill

Rob Marris Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank hon. Members of all parties who have joined us here today. The Bill may be small, but it has ramifications for all. I also thank Lord Gardiner, who has taken a keen interest in the proceedings, for steering the Bill so far.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Very apt.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I knew someone would say something from a sedentary position.

The Bill removes the restrictions on leases on the Kew Gardens estate. Currently, 18th-century legislation limits leases at Kew to 31 years. It is therefore none of our faults—not even Peter Tapsell’s. The measure modernises the provisions by allowing a lease of up to 150 years.

That change would allow Kew to generate revenue to improve the quality of the estate and support its world-class science. Income generation would help Kew achieve its core objectives and retain its UNESCO world heritage site status. The change would also enable the release of value from non-core land and property at Kew. Long leases would help Kew develop what it does and what it wants to do in future. Anybody who saw David Attenborough in the wonderful series at Kew will not disagree that it is a remarkable place. The aim is to help Kew in its ambition to increase its self-generated income and become more financially viable.

Kew Gardens, as Crown land, is governed by the Crown Lands Act 1702. The Bill modernises the constraints on Kew and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by allowing a longer lease to be granted on the land. The Bill removes the restrictions on the lease; it does nothing else.

What is the benefit of the legislation? Kew’s historic estate requires conservation and improvement. The Bill will enable income generation from the land at Kew that can be reinvested in the maintenance and development of the site. That will allow Kew’s infrastructure to be brought up to a standard that fully supports Kew’s ambitions and, more importantly, its mission. Basically, that has to happen because it is a UNESCO world heritage site. The financial benefits mean that it will have a time and place to raise the money it requires for the long-term commitment that it has shown in the past 150 years since it was set up.

The change does not allow the sale of the freehold land. The Government cannot sell the land because it remains with the Crown. Primary legislation would be needed if we wanted to do anything else to the land. Any proposals for new build or changes to buildings or their use, including the wider estate, will continue to be subject to rigorous review. There are tight restrictions on planning anyway, because Kew is a UNESCO world heritage site. We also know how rigorous planning is in that part of London.

Kew is in the process of updating its world heritage management plan, with UNESCO’s approval, with the firm intention of maintaining its status. Generating income from its estate will enable it to achieve its core objectives and retain its UNESCO world heritage site status. It is a UNESCO site because of the historic and contemporary scientific and horticultural activities that occur within its landscape. The need to maintain such activities means that this is an important little Bill. Income generation will continue for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I am delighted to rise in support of the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset. As he says, this is an important issue. The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew is globally renowned for its scientific expertise, as well as being a world-famous botanic garden and world heritage site. RBG Kew is a DEFRA non-departmental public body. We have allocated significant funding to Kew over this spending period to conserve its built infrastructure, as the shadow Minister pointed out.

A large proportion of Kew’s estate is historic in nature and requires careful management. To create world-class infrastructure, Kew would like to be able to enhance its estate. It would like to get additional investment into its infrastructure through leveraging Government investment to achieve philanthropic and private commercial investment. The Government fully support Kew in that aim, as part of its ambitions to further increase its self-generated income and become more financially self-sufficient.

My hon. Friend has explained what the two-clause bill will do. It will remove unnecessary restrictions on leases at Kew Gardens. Currently, the Crown Lands Act 1702 limits leases at Kew Gardens to 31 years. The Bill modernises those provisions, allowing leases of up to 150 years, which brings it into line with the approach taken in the Crown Estate Act 1961. The change will enable the release of value from non-core land and property at Kew Gardens. It will enable income to be generated from Kew Gardens that can be reinvested into the maintenance and development of the site. That will enable Kew’s infrastructure to be brought up to a standard that fully supports its ambitions and mission. Income generation will help enable Kew to achieve its core objectives and enhance its status as a UNESCO world heritage site.

Kew’s trustees are committed to ensuring that Kew has an estate that meets the needs of the botanic gardens, its visitors and Kew’s world-beating science. The trustees support the Bill, as the Government intend that the proceeds that result from it will provide additional income to Kew.

Examples of situations in which long leases might be granted include for the replacement of outdated catering and visitor facilities within the gardens and the renovation of properties just outside the gardens for residential use. All proposals for granting long leases will be in line with Kew’s world heritage site management plan. Proposals will be subject to scrutiny by Kew trustees and DEFRA, as well as through the planning process with local residents and businesses.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill, which will free up Kew to generate significant revenue to improve the quality of its estate and support its world-class science. The Government fully support Kew in that aim as part of its ambitions to further increase its self-generated income. I confirm that the Government are happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure the good passage of the Bill through Parliament.

[Rob Marris]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. It has become more common in recent years for Bill Committees to take evidence in their first session and I did have fancies that we might be taking evidence on site, but that has not come to pass.

It is many a year—several decades, I have to say—since I did any conveyancing, but I have done some. May I say to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, who is more experienced in these things, that I have come across 125-year leases? I think they have become a bit more common in recent years. To reassure him, the 1702 Act does not confine the length of a lease to just 31 years; it confines it to 31 years or three lives. Those lives will be well past, given that that was 315 years ago, but three lives could amount to nearly 125 years or 150 years, depending on whose lives are chosen. That is well past now.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

As the hon. Gentleman is a conveyancer, he raises a very interesting point, which is not covered by the Bill. Does it allow for one 90-year lease, or more than one 90-year lease—in other words, successive 90-year leases? Perhaps that ought to be clarified.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset can clarify this, but the way I read it, clause 1(1) allows a Secretary of State—not an individual human Secretary of State, but Secretaries of State—to grant successive 150-year leases. That is what it enables; the power is vested in that office. One would expect there to be such leases, but of course we do not know what will happen down the road. None of us will be there then.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of when the current lease expires, so we know where we are in the process? If there are, for example, another 15 years on the current lease, will it be rolled over into a new 150-year lease from, say, next year? That is just so we are aware of the cycle.

In terms of what is envisaged in a longer lease, can the hon. Gentleman reassure me about two things? First, will the longer lease be on a peppercorn rent—in other words, a nominal rent, rather than a real terms value rent of thousands of pounds a year, which it would be at market value?

Secondly, he mentioned planning permission, which would restrict, for example, over-building on the site, but of course in a lease one can have restrictive covenants that trump planning permission. Those who are not planners or property lawyers may not know this, but even if planning permission is granted for a piece of land to construct buildings, for example, if the land is subject to a lease that has a restrictive covenant forbidding the construction of those buildings, buildings could be constructed legally pursuant to the planning permission, but cannot not be constructed in practice because of the restrictive covenant in the lease. That is a stronger brake on such developments, so I hope that can be done.

Those three things go together. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me on the restrictions in the lease, on the restrictive covenants and on whether there is going to be a peppercorn rent?

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I have some questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West suggested that we might have had an evidence session, and there are certainly some questions that I would like to have asked. For example, one assumes that the board of trustees is happy with the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset knows that.

Secondly, are we talking about generating additional income or replacing what was in the past Government revenue support? Presumably Kew has land and other property that is surplus to its own requirements, and which it is quite happy to lease out to others for their use and to generate rent. How much land and property are we talking about for potential leasing? Those things are all of interest. I am sure the Bill will go through without any difficulty, but I think those questions ought to be asked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify this for me. I understood from what the Minister said—I may have misunderstood—that under the Bill we are not talking about a situation in which the Secretary of State will grant to Kew itself a lease of 150 years; rather, the Secretary of State will have the power to agree up to six leases by Kew to the six plots of land, and that each of those leases can be for up to 150 years. If I have misunderstood that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can clarify those two points: we are talking not about leases to Kew, but leases granted by Kew, signed off by the Minister; and each of those leases to what I think the Minister said were six plots of land could be for 150 years.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have had a quick chat with the Minister, and the lease is for 150 years on everything. On the properties, it will be a 150-year lease. Would my hon. Friend the Minister like to say something?

Domestic Ivory Market

Rob Marris Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Luke Hall]

As I have said, I welcome the Government’s leadership. Other countries around the world are also taking action. Hong Kong has confirmed that it will totally ban all ivory sales within five years. In August last year, France proposed further restrictions on its domestic market. India has implemented a near-total ban. The US introduced a near-total ban on all ivory sales at a federal level in July 2016, and 80% of African elephant range countries support the closure of domestic ivory markets.

It is clear that the public support further action, as is demonstrated by more than 107,000 people—2,000 just over the weekend—signing the petition and therefore triggering the debate, which is the second on this subject in two months. Further research carried out by TNS in September 2016 found that 85% of the public think that buying and selling ivory in the UK should be banned.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

It has been suggested by some of those who are against a ban that a certification system could be introduced, whereby pieces of ivory to be sold in the United Kingdom market would have to carry a certificate indicating that they were pre-1947. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that radiocarbon dating is very expensive. I am not an expert. Can he give an indication of how much it would cost per piece?

[Luke Hall]

I cannot give an exact indication, but the point I was trying to make is that radiocarbon dating every piece of ivory would be hugely time-consuming and cumbersome. I will say what more I think the Government can do on this important matter later.

The Government’s response to the online petition stated that the consultation would be a

“step towards a total ban.”

That is welcome, but I urge them to take a bigger step by widening the remit of their forthcoming consultation to cover all possible scenarios, including a total ban on the domestic trade in ivory, while considering international examples that include tightly-defined exemptions for items such as musical instruments and items with very small amounts of ivory. That would allow the ban to be practical and enforceable. Parallel measures can also be taken, such as supporting foreign Governments to protect elephants and supporting education around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Lady has just adduced a very interesting and helpful piece of evidence. She referred to carbon dating—that is how Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall found those six ringers. Can she give us an indication of how much it would cost to carbon date each piece, to put into context whether it would be better to produce a certificated system?

[Pauline Latham]

I have no idea; I have never even thought about having anything carbon dated. However, the cost is not what matters. What matters is having something independently certified to prove that it is old and not new. We cannot expect the police or Border Force people to understand and to be able to look at a piece and say, “That’s post-1947 and that’s pre-1947.” It is just not possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kinahan]

Having a very clear date is absolutely right. I point out only that a date of 1900 means that we miss out on two of our greatest art movements, so we should keep that in mind. Coming from the other side, I want to see an ivory ban, but I want to see the trade being protected in the right way.

[Rob Marris]

I am not an expert in these things, but because of the horrors of the atomic bombs in Japan, 1947 does not seem to be a bad date for carbon dating. The hon. Gentleman just said that he does not particularly favour a carbon dating approach. He is much more of an expert than me, so can he indicate how much it would cost to carbon date each piece?

[Danny Kinahan]

My answer is no—I have never been involved in the carbon dating side of things. I have been involved in working out the provenance and the date so that we have the complete history of where something came from, and the value, but I have never been involved in carbon dating and have no idea how much it costs.

We have watched ISIS destroying Palmyra and the Taliban destroy the two fantastic Buddha statues in Bamiyan. If we had a blanket ban, we would be a little bit on the same page, in that we would be trying to get rid of some of the most beautiful items. If ivory were banned, it would not be looked after because it would be worthless. I have seen that happen with a most beautiful Edwardian shotgun stick. It was made illegal—it was banned—and was left in the local police station. It had to be cut into pieces, even though it was one of the most beautiful pieces I have seen—it had a little gold top and a lion’s head and everything on it. Are we really trying to go down that route?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady; I am sorry that my voice today is not quite as strong as it might be. I declare an interest: I am president of the British Antique Dealers Association and I have been advised by the British Art Market Federation, the Antiquities Dealers Association and LAPADA, which comprise a group of Britain’s most knowledgeable and highly regarded auction houses and specialist dealers in fine art, decorative arts and antiques.

The fact that a second ivory debate has been triggered by a petition to Parliament demonstrates the strength of feeling among the public about the plight of elephants. I therefore really hope that we can clear up these misunderstandings about ivory and about antiques. For the record, I must emphasise that the British antiques trade deplores the trade in poached ivory. The most important point that I need to make is that the antiques trade does not support the killing of elephants, nor does it support any system that allows raw ivory from post-1947 sources to be traded. Every hon. Member present agrees that we must look to our future, for our children and our grandchildren, but we must not throw away our past. We all welcome the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to remove from sale all ivory items that are less than 70 years old. Antiques collectors have no interest in items made from modern or poached ivory. We all welcome tougher measures to stop the sale of tourist trinkets made in recent decades.

This is, understandably, an emotive topic, so it is crucial to be factually correct. The e-petition claims:

“From 2009 to 2014, 40% of UK customs seizures were ivory”.

That is not correct. For example, the Border Force typically makes 500 drug seizures a month. Cases of ivory seizure represent less than 1% of all seizures. The British Antique Dealers Association’s understanding is that the Border Force does not regard the UK as the final destination for poached ivory. Most seizures are of one or two small carved items, often old objects that lack the necessary paperwork. A smaller number of seizures are of tusks and freshly carved trinkets that have arrived here in transit, destined for other countries, and I concur with my hon. Friends that that is something that we need to stamp out.

Last year’s TRAFFIC report, backed by the World Wildlife Fund, on the antique ivory trade in Britain concluded:

“Links with the current elephant poaching crisis appear tenuous at best, as researchers found no new or raw (unworked) ivory for sale, and only one item that was reportedly after the 1947 cut-off date for antique ivory.”

We all know that the largest market for ivory as a material is in the far east, as other Members have said this afternoon. Buyers there have no interest in most historical objects on sale in the UK; they desire ivory in any form and prefer it shiny and modern. Other EU countries must therefore stop exporting whole tusks to China. As has been mentioned, the Chinese Government’s announcements of further restrictions are very welcome, but they have to happen and they have to be enforced. They cannot come soon enough. It is in the far east that we must galvanise our resources. We should stop confusing ourselves on the topic by looking at our own medieval treasures in our museums, churches, homes and antique dealers. We must protect our history.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Lady has connections with the antique trade, as she has declared. Can she answer the question that I keep asking, which is whether the antique trade would support some kind of certification system? There is already some paperwork—she spoke about paperwork on seizures and so on. Can she also tell me how much it costs to radiocarbon date a piece of ivory?

[Victoria Borwick]

Certainly. I can answer both questions. There are many parts of the art and antiques dealers’ trade for which we keep catalogues, make certifications and work among trade associations and specialists to keep certificates, records and suchlike. I have absolutely no doubt that when the Minister sets out her suggestions on a committee or a way of taking things forward, the trade will willingly look at ideas about the certification of finer objects with photographs and detailed descriptions of provenance, size and so forth, so that they can be properly catalogued.

With carbon dating, a very tiny item can be destroyed if too much is drilled out, which is why everyone is so reluctant to do it. However, as other Members have said, it is usually easy to tell. The usual cost is a few hundred pounds, but it very much depends on the complexity of the object. With early Chinese and other works of art that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years, there is always a lot of unhappiness about drilling out the left foot, because it inevitably spoils the item. I am sorry if that was a rather longer answer than the hon. Gentleman wished for.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.

I thank the Petitions Committee and also the public, for the 107,000 signatures. I am sure that members of the public will continue to sign this type of petition until the Government act. My constituents remind me every week of the importance of animal welfare and particularly the importance of preserving and conserving elephant populations. That is important to them, it is important to me and—as we have already heard today from a number of Members—it is important for future generations.

I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for opening this debate. It is an important and iconic debate at Westminster. I was pleased to speak in the debate last month and it is a privilege to speak again today, because in my mind preventing the ivory trade cannot be spoken about enough in Parliament until action is taken.

As we have heard, 415,000 African elephants remain, but in Mozambique and Tanzania, the decline in elephant populations has been as high as 48% and 60% respectively. As a result, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has concluded that

“Africa’s overall elephant population has seen the worst decline in 25 years, mainly due to poaching”

over the past 10 years. Some people in this House do not like experts, but we should listen to experts on this issue. Experts indicate that wild elephants could be extinct within as little as 20 years. My young children saw elephants for the first time last summer and I will never forget the amazement on their faces. They saw them moving around and saw the baby elephants with their mother, and they still speak of it today. Surely it is incumbent on us to ensure that that opportunity, that experience and that nature is there for future generations. We must preserve this iconic species.

Announcements from the United States and China point to the implementation of complete bans on the ivory trade in those countries. In addition, a number of other nations have implemented restrictions on the sale of ivory, including France and India in 2016, and Hong Kong, forthcoming, in 2021. Will the Minister join me in welcoming those moves, but also give assurances that the United Kingdom will follow suit, to maintain its prominence as a world leader in tackling the issue? It is very concerning that we are no longer at the forefront; sadly, we are lagging behind. Indeed, since the Conservative party’s pledge to press for a total ban on sales in both its 2010 and 2015 manifestos, more than 144,000 African elephants have been poached for their ivory. We seem to be dilly-dallying while the elephants are dying.

[Rob Marris]

I am genuinely on the fence on this. The hon. Lady prayed in aid of experts earlier. What expert evidence does she have that the total ban she seeks will lessen poaching considerably, or at all?

[Dr Cameron]

That excellent question is the crux of the matter, and it is something we need to pursue. In my mind, time is running out and we cannot allow that. We are dilly-dallying. If a near-total ban is not enough to preserve the elephant population, then it is not enough. Those experts are crucial to ensuring that the right decisions are made. The UK public need those decisions to be made and the Government need to follow them. The UK public support a ban on the ivory trade here, so a ban is not against public opinion. In fact, 85% of the public think that buying and selling ivory in the UK should be banned. We must consider the evidence. That is the crux and we must take it forward.

The other issue is sustainable livelihoods in Africa. The elephant brings much to the community and, as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I am keen to see aid money going towards the conservation of elephant and rhino populations and helping the sustainable development of conservation in African countries.

Consultation takes time, and elephants and rhinoceroses do not have that time. If we want to preserve these species, do we have the time? We must take the lead. I wonder how many elephants have died in the month since I last spoke on the issue. It is so frustrating. If we cannot wait, the Government must act. The elephant cannot become the dodo of our generation under this Government. Is that the legacy this Government want?

The question is: is a near-total ban enough? We need that information. If it is not, then in my mind it is not good enough. It is incumbent on the Minister today not merely to respond, because time is running thin. We need to act. We need to act now, for our children, for their generations and for the human race, because they will forgive nothing less. We have heard today about chess sets, antiques, trinkets and all sorts of things in museums. Yes, we must find a place for those things and try to preserve them, but the crux of today’s argument is that elephants are priceless and we must act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for actually producing some evidence with that £500 figure. He will not be surprised to hear me say this, but it looks like having a certification system at £500 a pop for pre-1947 ivory is the way forward to balance things. He has spoken passionately, and I hope he gets on to this matter. I asked the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for some evidence that a total ban on the domestic ivory market, which is what the debate is about, will stop or lessen considerably—hopefully to zero—the poaching of elephants. I am not getting a causal connection there, because I am not hearing the evidence.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my not-so-distant neighbour for his kind compliments. First, it is easy to cheat, and people in the trade will cheat. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall may not be an expert. He is a BBC journalist, and he did a pretty simple test. He bought nine items. Six that were masquerading as pre-1947 were dated as post-1947. We must not underestimate the fact that there is massive cheating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington quoted TRAFFIC. It did a survey in September 2016 of the whole of London’s antique sector. It found ivory items widespread across the city’s antiques markets. The report found that

“the UK plays a role in illegal ivory trade, at both import and re-export, but in particular as a transit country, with ivory seizures reported by the UK having increased in recent years.”

It also pointed out how cheating can go on. It mentioned a fascinating case. As a country, we reported exports of only 17 raw tusks, but importers’ records showed 109 tusks originating from the UK. There is no doubt whatever that an illegal trade is going on and that people are cheating. They give cover to other activities in other markets. We simply cannot take the high ground and ask other countries to ban activities, as the Chinese have done, if we have not set an example. Our proposed ban on post-1947 ivory is sadly now inadequate and is being overtaken by countries such as China and India, which have introduced bans.

[Rob Marris]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for producing evidence, but he has left me more confused. When I looked at it, I found that the August 2016 report by TRAFFIC, “A Rapid Survey of UK Ivory Markets”, stated that links between the antiques trade and

“the current elephant poaching crisis appear tenuous at best.”

Of more than 3,000 objects sampled, no new or unworked ivory was found. Only one item from the 1960s came after the 1947 cut-off date for antique ivory. Are we reading different reports?

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair.]

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman has cited evidence of cheating. The point is that the UK is by far the largest exporter of ivory items among EU members. According to CITES, the EU had a huge export volume of about 1,874 ivory transactions from 2006 to 2015, but we were easily the largest with 25,351. That is 54% of the EU total, and we know cheating goes on. Bluntly, we have to learn lessons. In China, it has always been an iconic key feature of great family occasions—a wedding, a banquet or a state occasion—to eat shark fin soup. It has come down from on high in recent years and the party establishment in China has said, “We have got to stop this because of the damage to shark populations,” and they have. Habits have changed.

The immediate reaction to ivory is, “Great. There’s world demand. It is marvellous that there is now prosperity in China and people are not dying of starvation as they were when I grew up. Let us let them prosper. Let them buy ivory and let us grow more of the item.” The problem is that we simply cannot farm elephants and rhinoceroses and meet the demand. If there is any legal activity, it gives cover to the illegal activity. That is a tragedy. I would love to be a Hayekian on this. I would love to say, “Let us open up savannahs and grow masses of elephants.”

We cannot cope with 600 million new middle-class people with middle-class aspirations in China, where ivory has great value and is seen to be an investment. That is the worst thing. Some are buying ivory knowing that the supply will dwindle and ultimately disappear when elephants are exterminated, and their product will go up. The answer is to follow what they did on shark fins. Let us simply make this a non-U item. It should simply not be acceptable.

We have stopped drink-driving. It is no longer acceptable in this country. It is very simple. I am afraid I totally disagree with the hon. Member for South Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. It is completely ludicrous to put things on the same level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady knows so much about this subject matter—[Interruption.] She denies it. There may be other contributing factors, so that still does not necessarily date the actual ivory, and that is the subject for today’s debate. We have to move on from trying to draw arbitrary lines and making judgments, either with the human eye or with carbon dating—we have had contributions about the costing of that—and say, “Why make things so complicated, when out there across the country and in this House we want a total ban?” Let us move on from that debate. Let us be really pragmatic and bring in the total ban.

[Rob Marris]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am trying to be pragmatic. I keep pressing for the evidence. I have to say to her, with all due respect, that she is assuming what she is trying to prove, and I do not accept that as a legislator. She assumes that a total ban will save elephants. Can she give me evidence for that?

[Rachael Maskell]

If my hon. Friend will hold on for now, I will move on with my speech. I will pick up those issues. The problem is, as we argue and debate in here, the gangsters out there are laughing at us, as they are still making their millions on the back of dead elephants. To be seen to take leadership on this issue and to control the agenda, it is so important that we now move forward and see that total ban. We know that the Government promised that in their manifesto, and I have made it clear that Labour would also bring in a total ivory ban, so let us move forward on this today.

The clock continues to tick. We keep debating this issue, and I dare say that if movement is not made in the Minister’s contribution today, we will be back here again and again, and at question times, continually saying, “Let’s move forward, because there is a majority view of how we take this forward.” We cannot go back to the CITES conference or to Hanoi in 2016, or look back to what China has said. We are in 2017 and we have now got our opportunity to make our mark. I therefore urge the Minister to do that, because in 2018 I do not want the UK to be on the world stage as apologists. I want to ensure that we are proud of what we have achieved to save the elephant.

I want to pick up the point that this is not just about a total ban; there has to be a wider strategy built around that. That is right, and that goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). We have to make sure that we move forward. We have heard about the work that the Ministry of Defence is doing: the 1st Division is out there, training up people in the parks to ensure they have better security. That is part of the strategy and, as we have heard, education from the NGOs is absolutely vital, so that this generation and the next understand what is at stake.

We also need to think about what is happening with antiques, as we have heard debated today. I want to pick up the point strongly argued by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for Kensington (Victoria Borwick). I will take issue once again with calling them beautiful works of art. I am sorry, they are not. The reality is that animals have died for their production. We need to be honest about what we are dealing with. The problem is, every time these objects are glorified, value is added on to them and on to ivory. We want to see the value taken out of ivory. We do not want these items displayed as glorious parts of our heritage. It is a shameful part of our history, and we should name it as that and realise what we did in leading the world in those trades. We need to move on in the way in which we look at these pieces and name them for what they are.

Why have them on display? The Minister made an important point in the previous debate when she said that perhaps we could take them off the shelves of our museums. Perhaps that is the right way forward. I thought that was a progressive point, because that is a way of taking the value out of these items. That would be a first step in saying that they do not hold the value we have placed on them, and that would be a step forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. As has been pointed out, we last debated this matter in Westminster Hall on 8 December 2016 and since then a further 30,000 people have signed this petition created by Ellen Cobb and chosen for debate by the Petitions Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for opening the debate and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond.

It is clear that all of us here are united in our goal to stop the poaching of elephants that are being slaughtered for their ivory. Elephant numbers in most African states have seriously declined over the last decade. The brutal actions of criminals are endangering the survival of one of the world’s iconic species. That is why the Government are already taking action to end poaching, involving proposals for legislative action, which I hope will be consulted on very soon. We are working in the international community to provide global leadership to reduce the demand for ivory and direct action on enforcement, tackling the issue at source and through illegal wildlife trade channels.

Illegal wildlife trade is a global issue that can be effectively tackled only with co-ordinated international action. The UK’s rules on ivory have their basis in the international CITES agreements, implemented via EU legislation, although UK rules are already stronger than required by CITES and the EU. We do not permit exports of any ivory tusks given the obvious potential for such international trade to be used to bring illegal, recently poached ivory tusks on to the market. We expect shortly to publish our consultation and a call for evidence on proposals to extend a ban on the domestic sale of ivory and the enforcement of such a ban. I like to think that the House will see then that our initial proposals will be among the toughest in the world.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) aid that while legal ivory trade in pre-1947 items continues, there will be an illegal ivory trade. That is true, but it is not the right question. The question is—perhaps the Minister can help with this—what is the evidence that if there is no legal ivory trade of pre-1947 items, there will be no illegal trade?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I understand the argument that people have made about any market at all, and many of the examples cited today still allow a market in ivory. It will be important, in the call for evidence, for people to come forward and demonstrate that point, for the reasons I hope to set out.

Last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans for a ban on the sale of worked ivory that is less than 70 years old—from 1947 onwards. That demarcation is used across Europe and was chosen because it was 50 years before the EU wildlife trade regulations came into force to regulate trade and protect endangered wildlife. By using that date for their proposed ban on the sale of ivory, the Government are on solid legal ground to bring a near-total ban into effect quickly. For control and enforcement, there are advantages in working with a date already used by the trade and the rest of the EU to draw a dividing line.

I recognise that many people want the UK to take an even stronger stance on the ivory trade and, as the petitioners demand, that there be no trade at all in ivory. Let me reassure the House that the Government are open to views on the matter. That is why the consultation will include an open question on this, with a call for views and evidence. I am regularly informed, and have been in this debate, that other nations have banned trade, so why have we not yet done so? I think that it would be helpful to set out to the House what is happening around the world.

The US has introduced what has been described as a near-total ban. The US Government can act only at federal level, and their ban covers trade internationally and between states, although it does not affect trade within states. The ban prohibits trade in ivory items that are under 100 years old and continues to allow the trade in pieces older than 100 years, as that is the US’s legal definition of an antique. The federal ban also provides for a range of exemptions, including musical instruments and items that contain a small amount of ivory. Four states have so far chosen to apply similar controls within their state. Those restrictions do not seem to apply to establishments for educational or scientific research purposes, which includes museums. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) referred to action by California, but he will recognise that trade continues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Marris Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The CMA has said that the energy sector for larger businesses is competitive, but it has put forward some strong and sound remedies for microbusinesses to prevent automatic roll-overs without a business’s consent and to improve online quotations, competition and the service available to microbusinesses.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

The Government have guaranteed an electricity price of about three times the wholesale price to EDF so that it will build a nuclear white elephant at Hinkley Point C. How on earth will that help consumers—businesses or households—to reduce their energy bills?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we get about 16% of our electricity every day from nuclear. He will also know that our nuclear plants are all due to be retired by at least the end of the 2020s. Therefore, new nuclear forms a core part of how we replace our electricity supplies. Hinkley is a good deal for consumers. Of course, the mark-to-market costs change according to the wholesale prices, but the price of the electricity coming out of Hinkley by the mid-2020s is guaranteed, and that is very important so that we provide certainty. The Government do not take the view that we will just see what happens; we have to plan for the future. Why? Because electricity security is not negotiable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Marris Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our research base and our agri-tech are vitally important. That is the future of agriculture, with more precision farming and better use of data. I am determined to do all we can to protect and grow that. That is why we are investing £160 million in our agri-tech budget. Of course we need to plan even more for the future.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Has the Department made available up-to-date data on the effect of the temporary neonicotinoid ban on both agricultural production and the health of bees, especially honey bees? If not, when will that data be available?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are looking at further research in this area. More research is due to be published and there are already many published pieces of research. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the decision on the use of neonicotinoids in the UK is made by the independent pesticides committee. It is made by Ministers, but we follow the scientific advice of that committee, whose minutes are fully published.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Marris Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

There certainly are issues there, and I am very happy to look at this specific one. However, we should say that most councils still have some way to go, so I pay tribute to South Oxfordshire, for example, which has hit a 67% recycling rate, when the national average is about 44%.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Could the Government look at the problem of the number of wretched plastic-lined paper takeaway coffee cups, the overwhelming majority of which never get recycled because of the difficulties of ripping out the plastic lining? It is a huge problem.

[Rory Stewart]

I absolutely agree: it is a huge problem—there are tens of millions of these things being produced and thrown away. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many cannot be recycled because of the way they are disposed of or because of their composition. The Government have tackled plastic bags—I hope everybody in the House would agree that the plastic bag tax has been a success—and coffee cups seem to be a very good thing to look at next.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Rob Marris Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Many people felt that at the time. We all agree that the challenge is how best to take a science-led approach to the use of pesticides. We must balance the need to support farmers and protect food security with the need to protect wildlife and reverse the decline of pollinators.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

As a former vice-chair of the all-party group on honey bees, I welcome this debate but I caution my hon. Friend that it is difficult for farmers and those of us who are not scientists. On 26 August, the European Food Safety Agency put out a press release stating that neonicotinoids should continue to be banned, even though it was still gathering evidence on a procedure that did not close until 30 September. It is now considering that evidence and looking at whether the ban should continue. That does not help, and makes the issue more confusing for people.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These issues are complex, and we are trying to balance the various risks. The Government said that they will listen to the scientific evidence to inform any changes to their position, but despite the strong evidence they still seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears. Since the EU restrictions were introduced two years ago, many peer-reviewed studies have been carried out in lab and real-world settings that underline how damaging such chemicals are for bees.