Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I think the hon. Gentleman was about to make an allegation against somebody. It is important that evidence be provided to the police, and it is for them to make a recommendation to the Crown Prosecution Service. If anybody is breaking the law on this sort of activity, I fully welcome prosecutions being made.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

What investigations is the Minister making on what drives rural and wildlife crime, so that the police can understand it and respond appropriately?

[Dr Coffey]

Both DEFRA and the Home Office fund the national wildlife crime unit and support its work in investigating crimes. They undertake analysis and share intelligence with police forces. There are six wildlife crime priorities—badgers, bat and raptor persecution, illegal trade in species covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species, poaching and freshwater mussels, but more can be done locally, and I am aware that hare coursing in particular concerns many Members of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The House will be aware that we increased the amount of money being spent on flood defences between 2015 and 2021—£2.1 billion across those six years—better to protect more than 300,000 homes. The hon. Lady will be aware that there are formulas for how we can allocate money to projects. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) opened up the doors with a partnership funding approach, which is largely working. However, I am very conscious that the hon. Lady is doing diligent work on behalf of her constituents to get better flood protection.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

T3. On a recent visit to the Northmoor Meat Company in my constituency, which deals in organic, sustainably sourced beef, raised on the banks of the River Thames, I also saw the great work that it does with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to provide scrapes and nesting habitats for birds such as lapwing and curlew. What are Ministers doing to help farmers, the real guardians of our environment, with conservation work?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend draws attention to just one of many ways in which farmers are making sure that our natural environment is enhanced. Our new environmental land management schemes should better reward farmers and allow other landowners, such as the RSPB, to continue their good work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will remember meeting me recently to discuss the issue of pollution in the River Windrush, which is a matter of great concern to the people of West Oxfordshire, as shown by the strong attendance at West Oxfordshire District Council’s recent water day. I applaud my right hon. Friend’s speech in March in which he took the water companies to task for their performance, but will he elaborate on what steps he is taking to ensure that they improve their performance across all areas?

[Michael Gove]

I was grateful to my hon. Friend for raising his constituents’ concerns about the condition of the River Windrush, and he is absolutely right to do so. We have subsequently got a commitment through Ofwat, the regulator, for all water companies to spend more on making sure that the environment that they safeguard is protected.

Agriculture Bill

Robert Courts Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who made a spirited and punchy speech that I enjoyed listening to. It is also a great honour to speak in this debate, because the last time this House considered an agriculture Bill was in 1947, when Albert Stubbs, my great grandfather, who was the Cambridgeshire Member, spoke on Third Reading. He would entirely agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) in saying that that Bill was very good. He was much respected, and is to this day, for the work he did for the agricultural workers of Cambridgeshire.

Much has changed since that day—the House of Commons is no longer sitting in the other place—but some things have not changed. The value of farming to the UK most certainly has not. It provides national self-sufficiency, a safe supply of domestic food and jobs. It also provides a high standard of welfare and environmental protection—much more so now because of the progress we have made. Much will change in the years ahead, and there are many benefits from our leaving the CAP. As is made clear from talking to the farmers of West Oxfordshire, the policy is wasteful, inefficient and environmentally damaging. It is also economically damaging, given the artificial increases in the price of food that it causes. The policy favours large landowners over small ones, and the large companies over the families, with the top 10% of recipients receiving almost 50% of CAP payments and the bottom 20% receiving just 2%. So there is a great deal to be gained from the Bill, which I warmly welcome. I am glad the Government have introduced it.

I have met my local farmers and my local NFU branch. They have raised some concerns, which I know Ministers are listening to. There are concerns about the amount of burdensome regulation and red tape, and about fair pricing and the powers of supermarkets. Above all, they would like a feeling that their high standards and the quality products they are producing are valued and respected by the Government and by Britain as a whole. I reassure them that that is very much the case, and I am sure that Ministers will do so in due course, too. My local farmers do ask that there is a focus on linking all the public goods we are discussing in connection with the Bill to agricultural products and food production, and that that is seen as a good in its own right.

I warmly recognise and welcome many of the public goods set out in the Bill. I am particularly enthusiastic about the fundamental change whereby instead of pricing and subsidy being granted simply on the basis of the size of land, a public good is attached. EU subsidies currently encourage poor land management. Under the CAP, for example, farmers lose direct payments if they plant trees on their land, because it means that they are taking land out of agricultural production, so environmental factors are not given the pre-eminence that I, and we, would like.

It is quite right that only viable farms will be able to devote the necessary time and resource for this. As the Secretary of State said, farmers will be able to go green only if they are not in the red. I would very much like to see West Oxfordshire farmers who are light years ahead of the rest of the country in terms of combining food production and environmental protection having a system that means that those goods are recommended and valued, with small farms able to succeed in the same way as large ones.

There are many more things that I would like to say but, at this stage, I will just warmly welcome the Bill. This is our first major domestic policy on agriculture for well over half a century. It gives us a challenge to set forward a bold and ambitious vision, which I warmly welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The farmland bird index shows that over the past 30 or 40 years there has been a precipitous decline in some species, although there has been an increase in others. Many factors are at work—sometimes the way the land has been farmed has had an impact, but there are also other factors, including climate change. At the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) raised a number of issues that we need to address, including through education, to ensure that conservation, biodiversity and environmental enhancement are valued not just by the Government but by us all.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

In a rural area such as west Oxfordshire, the livelihood of farmers is of enormous importance, as is leaving our environment in a better state than we found it. What are Ministers doing to ensure that farmers are protected while improving our environment?

[Michael Gove]

My Department and Ministers personally carry out extensive consultation with farmers and those who work alongside them. In the agricultural shows that I have had the opportunity to visit over the course of this summer, and in meetings with the National Farmers Union and others, I have been struck by the commitment that farmers have not just to food production, but to the highest environmental standards for the future.

Ivory Bill

Robert Courts Excerpts

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

[Liz Twist]

We are keen to see that action is taken now and not deferred. From our perspective, new clause 1 would improve and strengthen the Bill.

New clause 2, which is also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), calls for a report on the ivory trade in 12 months’ time. It is important that we have a mechanism for reviewing how the Bill is operating in practice within a period of a year, so that we can ensure that it is doing what we want it to do: reduce the slaughter of endangered species and other species covered by the Bill. It is also important that we ensure we can take steps to strengthen the legislation in the future if that is necessary, so I support new clause 2.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

We have had an important discussion of this Bill over the past few weeks. It has been a great honour to speak on something that is so important to so many of my constituents. It has also been very good to see how the House works very constructively together on occasions where there are particularly important and historic matters for us to discuss, as in this case. I am very grateful to the Government for listening so constructively to many of the points that I have made, some on behalf of my constituents and some on my own reading of the Bill, and for answering a great many of them. I will address those in the course of my brief comments.

I do not support new clause 1 because I think the Government have proposed a better way of doing this. I say that for two reasons. They have been covered already but bear repeating. The first is the fact that the Government amendment goes further. New clause 1 deals only with CITES-listed species. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) rightly raised a concern that we all have—I raised it on Second Reading—about species displacement, for want of a better phrase. The new clause, if anything, makes that more likely because it does not cover species that are not on the CITES list, such as the warthog. We need to ensure that we can go further. There is much more freedom in the Government’s approach, which is to add species whether they are endangered or not and whether they are extant or extinct. Their amendment will also cover the mammoth, which, as we have heard, is being mined, and closes a loophole whereby mammoth ivory can be passed off as elephant ivory. It is a much better way of doing this because it goes further.

Secondly, the Government’s amendment goes faster because we can deal with the matter by secondary legislation. I entirely understand what the Opposition are trying to do through new clause 1, but the big, overriding problem is the procedural one. If a challenge is raised to the primary legislation on the human rights ground, we may run into difficulty on the whole Act, and that would be a great shame. I have thought very hard about this. As a lawyer, I am naturally of the mind that I do not like legislation that is rushed through, because rushed laws are often bad laws. I would instinctively prefer that we took more time and got it right. In this case, however, there is very much a need to move quickly, given that the conference is coming up, and given all the heartbreaking stories that we have heard today and throughout the Bill’s passage, including during the evidence session.

It is very important that we make it clear that the ivory trade is no longer acceptable. It is also very important that we make it clear that Britain is a world leader on this. We have heard about the great work that is being done by the Army—I pay tribute to that—and through DFID. We can look at doing a lot more to expand that work. I very much welcome that.

For those reasons, we need to get this Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible, despite the fact that that goes against my natural instinct whereby I prefer to slow things down and take more time to make sure that there is not a hiccup further along the line. I am sensitive to the concern about everything being pushed into the long grass and the further expansion never happening, but I am very encouraged by today’s announcement by the Secretary of State that he will now be consulting on this. It seems to me that the Government have approached this in entirely the right way.

I have had a number of concerns about the Bill as it has gone through. Constituents have raised concerns with regard to the antique trade and those have been answered. I am grateful to the Minister for doing so, in full, and at relatively short notice. I had some concerns about the definitions aspect of clause 35. The Government’s amendments deal with those concerns because they mean that we do not have to worry about a particular species once the secondary legislation has been brought in to expand the species list further.

We can now move forward quickly with legislation that sets a positive, leading path for Britain as a nation. I wholeheartedly welcome that. I thank the Government very much for listening to all of us who have expressed concerns and for answering those concerns. I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s amendments to it.

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

I spent three days on the Public Bill Committee carrying out detailed scrutiny. Although we did not always agree on the detail, I valued all the contributions from Committee members, who clearly believed strongly in eradicating the global ivory trade. We have a further opportunity today to make this a better Bill.

I want to start by raising a question that I asked the Minister in Committee, but which he might answer differently today. We had a detailed discussion about musical instruments and the rule that if less than 20% of an antique musical instrument is ivory, it can be sold. We heard from the Musicians Union that many retired musicians sell their instrument collection because it is not an industry in which people have a pension. I raised the issue of guitar picks made from mammoth ivory. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that they would be exempt because they are made from mammoth ivory. However, with amendment 3, there is a potential for mammoth ivory to be covered by the Bill. That changes the status of those guitar picks. I wonder whether the Minister will give a new response to that question today.

However, that is not the substantive part of my speech. I am in favour of the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and in particular new clause 1. I will restrict my comments to the protection of other horned animals, and in particular the monodon monoceros, more commonly known as the narwhal, as I did in Committee. I do not have time to go into depth on the hippo, killer whale, sperm whale, walrus or warthog.

After returning home from the Committee, on which I served for three days, I was asked at the dinner table by my children what I had done that week in Parliament, and I said, “Have you heard of the narwhal?” My 10-year-old son immediately broke into song. Following the example of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I will allow Members to hear the narwhal song:

“Narwhals, narwhals, swimming in the ocean

Causing a commotion coz they are so awesome”.

It goes on:

“Like an underwater unicorn

They’ve got a kick-ass facial horn

They’re the Jedi of the sea.”

Who could disagree with that?

If Members were not aware of the narwhal, I am sure they are now fully clued up and join every 10-year-old in the land who has impeccable knowledge of the narwhal. That knowledge is not new, however. Narwhals were known as sea unicorns for many centuries before exploration of the Arctic, and their tusks were one of the most valuable commodities in pre-industrial revolution Britain. Queen Elizabeth I is said to have spent £10,000—equivalent to £1.5 million today—on a narwhal tusk, which was placed with the Crown jewels.

Although narwhal horns are no longer so valuable, they are valued at between £3,000 and £12,000, and a double tusk can fetch as much as £25,000. The International Union for Conservation of Nature considers narwhal hunting still to be a major issue. In Canada and Greenland, narwhal hunting is still permitted, and between 2007 and 2011 an average of 979 narwhals were hunted a year. The Inuit as a native tribe have hunted narwhal for centuries, using them as a source of both food and income. In addition to the global trade in tusks and teeth, a Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society study found that shops in Japan were selling ground narwhal tusk as a tonic to treat fever. Shop counter prices for that medicine varied from $540 to $929 for 100 grams. Numerous reports have been produced, and there is an evidence base from non-governmental organisations.

CITES, which we have heard much about today, says that the main threats to the narwhal are hunting and climate change. The majority of narwhals live in and around Greenland’s territorial waters. Export of narwhal products was banned in Greenland in 2006, but narwhal products are legally traded within Greenland. Only subsistence hunting should take place. CITES says that there is a significant trade in narwhal tusks and parts, but not sufficient data to track it. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is concerned that the hunting of narwhal has already become unsustainable. Narwhals have been over-harvested in Canada and Greenland. The society said:

“The annual hunting in western Greenland...significantly exceeded the quotas recommended by those scientific bodies of regional and international organisations charged with narwhal management.”

Laws in Greenland are being broken. Surely we should align our laws with theirs.

I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that the Inuit people are permitted to sell narwhal derivatives, including the horn, within the European Union. On one Canadian website, I could have ordered a narwhal tusk from my desk here in Parliament for around $70 an inch that could be legally sent to the European Union. There are restrictions on what can be imported without permits and penalties for contravening import rules. I thank the Minister for his letter in which he outlined the restrictions on imports from Greenland, which I deem sufficient, but he does not mention Canada, where restrictions are not so tight. I want to repeat what I asked him in Committee: will he clarify his views on narwhal horn trade from Canada?

As I have said, narwhals are also affected by climate change. While I understand the need for haste with elephants, narwhals face more than one threat, so it is important to include narwhals in the scope of the Bill, rather than for this to be covered under clause 35. Why wait when action can be taken in the Bill today?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

This has been another outstanding debate on a very important subject, and I am very grateful for all the contributions that have been made.

On Second Reading, I was heartened to hear the support from all parties for the Bill. I thank all the Committee members for their important contributions on this issue and for the suggestions on how we can refine the Bill. Progress has been swift, and it is crucial that we continue that pace of progress on the Bill, as has been set out in numerous speeches.

I would like to give a warm welcome back to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). As always, the Department will benefit from her keen intellect and boundless energy in moving forward with so many important initiatives, of which this Bill is not the least. It is good that she is in her place on the Front Bench today.

We have not really discussed the intention of Government amendments 1 and 2, which seek to provide a definition of a pre-1918 portrait miniature for the purpose of the exemption in clause 6. The amendments adds a size restriction to the definition so that portraits with a 320 sq cm surface area qualify for exemption. That is the maximum area of the visible surface of the ivory “canvas”, irrespective of the size of the frame. In Committee, Emma Rutherford, a representative of Philip Mould & Company, who is an expert on portrait miniatures gave evidence on how the exemption for portrait miniatures could be refined to add a size limit. The Government listened to that expert evidence and to views expressed in Committee and have introduced proposals that set maximum dimensions for portrait miniatures. We have discussed this, but we have chosen to exempt portrait miniatures because the value of these popular items is due not to their ivory content but to their historical importance, the delicate painting and their luminosity.

Let me now move on to important subjects that have been discussed at length today. We should focus our attention on Government amendments 3 and 4 and discuss matters raised in debate. I shall then come on to discuss new clause 1. As has been said, amendments 3 and 4 will extend the power to make secondary legislation so that the definition of ivory could include that from any ivory-bearing species.

The hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), in a characteristically considered contribution, asked whether the focus on elephants was initially an oversight. Non-governmental organisations, particularly during the evidence session, underlined the need to focus on elephants as an urgent priority. There was no oversight—there was a clear focus to start with—but that is not to say that we should not move on and look at other species.

We have heard passionate speeches expressing concerns about other species, from the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) about hippos, and from the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I do not think anyone will forget the speech by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and his legendary narwhal song. We will have to find the words and start humming them in the bath, or something.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading, it is important that, as a result of this ban, the trade in ivory does not move to other species. That is why we included a power in clause 35(3) to allow other ivory-bearing species listed under CITES to be brought into the scope of the ban.

[Robert Courts]

May I repeat my thanks to the Minister for listening to the concerns that I have expressed about that provision in particular? Does he agree that the key point is that we need to move quickly to protect elephants, but after that we need maximum flexibility so that the Government can protect other species, whatever they are, as and when required?

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend has been consistent throughout the process about the need to push forward, as have many colleagues on both sides of the House. Absolutely—we need pace, and I will come on to how we will ensure that we move forward as quickly as possible in the weeks and months ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

We have had an excellent debate this afternoon, and it is great that hon. Members right across the House have welcomed and supported this important Bill. I thank the Minister for our constructive discussions in Committee and today and warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), to her place.

I take issue with what some hon. Members have said about Government amendments 3 and 4 meaning that new clause 1 is not required. Our new clause would amend clause 35(1), whereas the Government amendments amend subsections (2) and (3), so they are not mutually exclusive. If we are to make the Bill as strong as it can be today and achieve as much as we can, I see no reason why the House cannot support both new clause 1 and the Government amendments. We would then today have the strongest Bill possible. I am a little disappointed, therefore, that the Government do not want to support the new clause.

[Robert Courts]

A Bill that is open to challenge is not a strong Bill. Is that not the fundamental problem with the hon. Lady’s argument?

[Sue Hayman]

I will come to that point, but I am aware that I only have a minute and half left.

Having made those comments, I strongly welcome the Minister’s commitment to seek to start a consultation process on widening the scope of the ban to other species if the House does not support the new clause today. The Opposition have pushed strongly for this right from the beginning, and I welcome the fact that he has listened to us. On the issue the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) raised, I talked about the consultation in Committee, and I must again draw Members’ attention to the fact that I am an associate of the Consultation Institute. I have taken further advice from the institute, and it has reiterated that the consultation could be carried out both swiftly and efficiently as a supplementary consultation without giving rise to any issues of legal challenge. It is happy to support the Government in achieving a very solid consultation. None of us in the House wants to see any legal challenges to the Bill. If the Minister would like me to put him in touch with the institute—if he thinks that would help—I would be more than happy to do so. With that, I ask the House to support new clause 1.

Ivory Bill (First sitting)

Robert Courts Excerpts

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

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Q You talked about cyber-dealing and cyber-trading, and I want to come back to that. As I understand it, there is a significant amount of trade over the internet. How can we enforce this effectively? Do you think that there should be additional measures, or do you think the Bill covers that sufficiently?

David Cowdrey: Additional measures have just been introduced in the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations. Anybody offering an annexe A specimen will need to display their article 10 certificate. That is a new requirement that we welcome. Enforcement is an issue. There has just been a major conference with Interpol in Lyon with law enforcement agencies from across Europe and the world, which was co-partnered with IFAW. It was looking at how we can tackle cyber-crime and where it is moving—again, it is the impact of Facebook closed groups, which are very difficult to penetrate, and also the dark web. An awful lot of further work and investigation is needed by global enforcement agencies, but also by our own enforcement agencies. We have to remember that this is a criminal activity, undertaken by organised criminal gangs using the same routes they use for other commodities, such as guns, people and drugs. It is the fourth largest illegal activity in the world. It is undermining communities and Governments and therefore needs to be a priority. Tackling this in any way we can, and especially online, is going to be critical.

As Will said earlier, these are criminal groups that will adapt and change at the flick of a switch. When one market closes, another one will open. They will use technology to the fore. Now, with our tenBoma scheme in Kenya, we are creating a network to defeat a network, which is critical. We are using the same intelligence software used to tackle poachers before they shoot the elephant, so we can anticipate where they are going to be and make sure the resources from the enforcement agencies are deployed. Enforcement online and on the ground, and using technology, is vital if we are to defeat the poachers.

Cath Lawson: We certainly agree that the online trade is very much a concern, but we feel that the Bill as it stands, and the exemption for what is specified—with some tweaks that I hope we will have an opportunity to talk about later—is pragmatic and sufficient to not pose a significant risk.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Q I want to return to the definitions under clause 35 for a moment. We all share the desire to extend protection to as many species as possible. You can probably hear that there is some concern from Members about the speed with which we are doing that. Would it be right to say that your overriding concern today, in the context of the Bill, is to bring forward the protection for elephants as soon as possible? There is a real sense of urgency here.

David Cowdrey: Yes, I agree. With 20,000 elephants being killed every single year—around 55 elephants a day—this is poaching at an incredibly high, industrialised level. We saw in a three-year period between 2010 and 2012 approximately 100,000 elephants being poached. This is genocide for elephants on a vast scale. It is industrialised poaching to go to the markets. Something absolutely critical on enforcement is therefore needed. We need to acknowledge the scale of what is going on and the legislation needs to deal with elephant poaching urgently. Over the past two years, the work that the Government has done in preparing the Bill—gathering evidence about ivory markets and ivory poaching, and listening to people—has been absolutely critical in developing what we have in front of us today. So yes, we agree.

Cath Lawson: The urgency is because of the detrimental impact on elephants, but also because of the leverage value that the October conference offers. Having the legislation in place by then means we can maximise that leverage value.

Will Travers: I agree with both colleagues. I do not want to bombard the Committee with statistics, but one that always sticks in my mind is that Tanzania was regarded, for many years, as an elephant stronghold—it had the second largest elephant population on the continent. Yet between 2009 and 2014—in five short years—its elephant population fell from more than 100,000 to just over 40,000. That is 1,000 elephants poached every month for 60 months. That just gives you a sense of how once it reaches that kind of critical mass, once law enforcement has broken down to the level that the poachers are winning, the situation can go from hero to zero extremely quickly.

[Robert Courts]

Q Presumably, given the amount of work that has gone into preparing the Bill for this one species, if we have to go back and add more species to the Bill, we will therefore have to undertake all of that consultation work again with other bodies, which is going to delay the Bill. That is antithetical to what you are trying to achieve here, isn’t it?

Cath Lawson: That is my understanding, yes.

Will Travers: I am not at all technical on this, and you know it far better than I do, but it seems to me that if we can get this through, with the provision that the Secretary of State can look at other non-ivory-bearing species and bring forward whatever measures he or she wishes in short order, then the consultation may be very short and serve only to verify the situation, rather than to do a long exploratory digging into it—in other words, just to verify the kinds of figures I gave you earlier. The Secretary of State can then come forward with secondary measures, which will hopefully address the issue very quickly. I hope that would be the sort of commitment we could count on.

[Robert Courts]

Yes, clause 35(2) would clearly allow the Secretary of State to bring forward delegated legislation. Can I focus on one other thing you said? That is to include ivory from an animal or species not, for the time being, covered by that subsection. You mentioned non-ivory-bearing species. Did you mean non-elephant?

Will Travers: I am sorry; I meant non-elephant ivory. I have mentioned warthog. At the risk of upsetting people who are concerned about a very small amount of Aboriginal use of walrus, that is really important, but so is mammoth ivory. We should at least be aware of the volume of mammoth ivory in trade. Recall that this is in trade. I have the import figures for the United States. They keep a close record of all mammoth ivory in trade, and I will just give you three years. This is only mammoth ivory carvings—there are lots of different categories— but in 2013 there were 5,049 mammoth ivory carvings and 773 tusks. In 2014 there were 19,335 carvings and 338 tusks. In 2015 there were 7,822 ivory carvings and 120 tusks. That is a not inconsiderable amount of trade in an ivory product that, in marketplaces in the far east, is definitely a surrogate for modern elephant ivory.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q I was very struck, David, by the points you made about organised criminality and how the trade is currently undermining communities and Governments. What the Bill will do for us in the UK is great, but how can we ensure that the measures we take here get right through to communities? How can we support them in transitioning away from dependence on poaching? How can we ensure that there is no adverse impact on some of those local communities? Is there anything missing from the Bill, in terms of obligations on our Government, that would enable us to help communities through that transition, to tackle that organised criminality on the ground and to ensure that some of the most deprived communities in the world are not damaged?

David Cowdrey: Those are all excellent points. The Bill will clearly close down markets in the UK. The more markets we close down, the more we deprive people of money and income. The price of raw ivory that was publicly for sale was $2,200 per kilo. After China introduced its ban, it went down to $1,100 and then down to $600. It is now about $450. There has been a massive devaluation in the price of raw ivory, making it a less viable option. Such things are incredibly useful.

With regard to help for communities, on Second Reading there was an interesting discussion in which Members talked about how some of the Department for International Development’s budget might be used. We have to consider a holistic approach. The communities are not isolated from poaching, and the impact of poaching on communities is not isolated from the illegal wildlife trade; they are joined up and hand in hand. There are good opportunities that exist with our overseas development budget to take a more integrated approach to delivering holistic aid and support and anti-poaching measures, to help build communities and tackle corruption.

The support with efforts through the DEFRA challenge fund grant, through DFID and the FCO’s interaction with other communities is also important. It needs to go hand in glove. This is a complex situation that you cannot just wave a wand or a Bill at. It is all part of a jigsaw that really helps, but our overseas aid is another part that we could potentially re-examine and look at, to provide better integrated aid.

Cath Lawson: The WWF would very much endorse that position. I do not think we need additions to the Bill, but we are supportive of wider conversations about looking at overseas aid for ecosystem-based funding, and looking at bigger-picture landscape approaches to some of the critical habitats where the illegal wildlife trade impacts on the survival of certain species.

Will Travers: I endorse everything that has just been said, and I totally understand that when it comes to spending the £13 billion or so a year in our DFID budget, in most cases we must be risk averse. However, for this sort of issue—I used this term before when I talked about it with Justine Greening three years ago—we need a sort of adventure capital fund. We need a modest amount of money with which we try innovative, new things on the ground or with partners, and try to deliver something that will change the game on the ground and speak to all the issues that have been raised, such as secure ecosystems, secure livelihoods, alternative livelihoods and food security at landscape level. Sitting right in the middle of that can be conservation. If the brief is whether we can make conservation work for communities and people, I think the answer is yes, but it needs not insignificant—although not huge—pump-priming to really get it going. That is where DFID, which is a completely different entity from the one we are talking about right now, could have a major role.

David Cowdrey: I agree about some of the technical developments and initiatives that the UK can take. I mentioned fingerprinting earlier, and across Africa most countries do not even have an electronic fingerprinting database. When we are dealing with international criminal syndicates and gangs, countries are not capturing the information, and they do not have the capability to share it with neighbouring countries. These are transnational crimes. We must consider how we can develop these countries in a way that provides practical enforcement and really helps them to develop.

We can help to defeat these international criminal syndicates, and simple investments that can be done through development grants or a challenge fund are really important. A national fingerprinting database for a country could cost as little as £60,000. Look at that as an investment and a way to help tackle corruption and crime, including not just wildlife crime but crime and terrorism. That has a massive impact across the world. In tackling the illegal wildlife trade, we must consider some of those simple enforcement measures that can make a game-changing difference on the ground for those countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Q Do you think the Government should commit under clause 2 to publish an annual register of items exempted under the artistic, cultural or historic value exemption? Do you think that register should be made public to ensure that there is public confidence that this ban and any exemptions applied to it are fair?

David Cowdrey: Absolutely. It is absolutely critical, where you have an exemption—especially for these items where I am challenging the definition and it should be “the rarest and most important”—that we should be publicly accountable for what is being listed. We have been told that this is only for exceptional items—we are anticipating 75 to 150 a year. Having a public register and seeing what has been sold for what amount is critical. Having that posted as an annual report on the website, publicly available to everybody, gives scrutiny to the legislation and to the processes involved, so I would fully endorse that.

Will Travers: I couldn’t have put it better.

[Robert Courts]

Q Some of the species we have talked about extending this to are covered by the CITES appendix. Are narwhal, sperm whale, walrus and killer whale all in the appendix?

Cath Lawson: Yes. Mammoth and warthog are not CITES appendix-listed.

[Robert Courts]

Q What about hippo?

Will Travers: Yes, they are included.

[Robert Courts]

Q You also mentioned hornbill, Mr Travers.

Will Travers: Yes, the casqued hornbill has been on appendix 1 since 1975, and it is facing extinction right now.

[Robert Courts]

Q That is in the CITES list?

Will Travers: It is appendix 1, so there should be no trade.

[Robert Courts]

Q That is CITES appendix 1?

Will Travers: Yes, that is CITES appendix 1.

[Robert Courts]

Q The hornbill is covered on that, and it is an ivory species, as opposed to something like rhino with an ivory-like feature, if that makes sense.

Will Travers: No, it is traded as if it is ivory. It is an ivory surrogate, whereas rhino horn is not traded as an ivory surrogate— it is traded as rhino horn.

[Robert Courts]

Q I am sorry, I may be being obtuse here, which is why I need your expertise. You say it is an ivory surrogate. Is it ivory in the same sense that elephant tusk is ivory?

Will Travers: It is not dentine. It is not made of the same material, but it is traded as if it is ivory. It is regarded by consumers and treated as if it is an ivory product, although it is not technically an ivory product.

[Robert Courts]

Q Are you satisfied the Bill will cover that in any event?

Will Travers: It should do. Of course, because it is appendix 1 on CITES, there should be no legal trade anyway. It should all be illegal trade. I guess one could argue that there might be some historical antique going back to whenever, but that should be covered.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Alexander Rhodes and Charlie Mayhew gave evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My comments to the all-party parliamentary environment group, which were inspired by a very good question from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), were explicitly designed to say that we should not patronise or judge people on poorer incomes for the choices they make. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) is very busy, but had she been there she would have had a better understanding of the context in which those comments were made.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

What are the Government doing to introduce and increase the use of biodegradable packaging?

[Michael Gove]

We recognise that biodegradable packaging should be an alternative to existing forms of packaging wherever possible. We are considering how we can change the taxation and regulation of packaging in order to facilitate the use of biodegradable materials.

Ivory Bill

Robert Courts Excerpts

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

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to speak in this debate, and it is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who has this evening demonstrated the real mix of wit and insight that the House has come to expect from him.

It is a real honour to speak in this debate, which shows the House at its best as we come together to make law at a time when we can feel the era changing. Not so long ago a person who wished to indicate that they were civilised and that they had travelled the world would do so by bringing something back, and that something would be a part of an animal they had killed to demonstrate that they had been to those places and seen those exotic animals.

Times change, and social attitudes clearly change. It is now no longer acceptable for fashion to be facilitated by cruelty, and that is the law we are discussing tonight. We realise, as we have heard a number of times this evening, that the scale of elephant killing is gigantic. We have lost five or six elephants since the start of this debate. The statistic is that we lose 20,000 elephants a year or one elephant every 25 minutes, which is extraordinary, but those dry statistics just do not do justice to the issue.

Anybody who has been to see elephants—ideally in their natural environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North has, but even in captivity where they are being bred or researched for conservation reasons—will realise the extraordinary beauty, sensitivity and intelligence of these animals. Elephants seem almost human, and anybody who has seen footage in a wildlife documentary of parent elephants mourning a dead baby elephant, or mourning one of their own group, will realise quite how important it is that we protect them.

It is important that we have a functioning ecosystem. It is not just elephants, because all the other animals that live on the African plains depend on elephants keeping the ecosystem healthy. Of course it is far more important than that. It is important for the animals, it is important for our environment and it is also important for the people, because we now accept in this House and across the country that we should be protecting, not plundering, developing countries. If developing countries have a resource such as eco-tourism, we realise that we should be helping them—not exploiting them but protecting and helping them to profit from eco-tourism.

I agree entirely with every hon. Member who has said today that they are standing up on behalf of not just current generations but their children. I have a two-year-old toddler, and I would like him to be able to go to Africa or to other countries around the world to see elephants in their natural environment. It is crucial that we do this.

The human impact is so important because it goes further than simply helping people. As with the illegal drug trade, the organised crime ramifications of wildlife crime are enormous. We have heard from a number of Members on both sides of the House that 100 rangers are killed by poachers each year as they try to protect elephants. We simply have to ensure that we stop the demand, and we can do that with the Bill.

I have sympathy for those who require exemptions for various reasons—for example, for cultural reasons—and I am grateful to the Government for thinking about those reasons and for introducing defined, narrow, clearly interpreted and well thought through exceptions, which I also support.

At present, unfortunately, the current regime simply is not working. I ask the Government to consider some of the definitions in clause 35, which other Members have raised. My constituency contains Cotswold Wildlife Park and Gardens, and I may be unique in being a Member of Parliament who has bottle-fed a baby rhino, which I was greatly honoured to do at that park. I am of course aware that rhinos could be affected and so it is strange that the explanatory notes state that the

“delegated power could…be applied if the restrictions under this Bill inadvertently lead to the displacement of the ivory trade from elephant ivory to another form of ivory.”

That is likely to happen and we ought to deal with it now.

In the last few seconds available, let me say that I am grateful to those from all over West Oxfordshire who have written to me to express their support for the Bill. They are on the right side of history and so are the Government.

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment

Robert Courts Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate, which is timely and extremely important and means a great deal to me personally. I am a lifelong conservationist. I am particularly interested in birds and marine life. I am a member of my local wildlife trust and, with particular relevance to this debate, a member of the Maritime Conservation Society and a diver. I am not only interested in the things we have been discussing today, but I can see with my own eyes the beauty of the oceans and have a real personal interest in ensuring that they are clean and fit for us and for future generations.

The interest in the oceans and our environment and in keeping them clean and pristine goes way beyond those who simply use them for recreation. The “Blue Planet” programme has of course been referred to. It is intrinsic in all of us that we have an affinity for the natural world, but particularly for the oceans. Perhaps we think of the Apollo photographs with the “blue marble” floating in space, that the oceans and our part in them are all wrapped up together and that they are intrinsic to our feeling for the natural world. Whatever the reason, it none the less matters hugely to us all.

My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), is landlocked, but a great many rivers run through west Oxfordshire and of course flow to the sea. Water pollution and quality are big issues in my constituency; they matter a great deal to my constituents. The statistics bear that out: 12 million tonnes were discarded last year, 80% of which was lost on land, in rivers such as those that flow through west Oxfordshire, ending up in the sea. Only 57% was collected for recycling, although west Oxfordshire has a relatively high recycling rate—one of the highest in the country—but more must be done. We must put a stop to the problem. We must work to eradicate plastics in the oceans, for all our sakes in the years to come.

A lot has been done—I welcome everything that the Government have done. They have already taken great strides, particularly under the current Secretary of State, and things have become turbocharged: banning microbeads; the incredibly successful approach to single-use plastics introduced under the coalition Government; the bottle deposit that has been mentioned already, and which is extremely encouraging; and the ban on straws, cotton buds and stirrers.

However, there is more to do. We must do more on recycling, and the issue must be introduced to people’s education. It is a question of personal choice: we have all had the battle between conscience and convenience, when we go to buy a coffee and wish that we did not have to use a disposable cup, or water and we wish we did not have to use the plastic bottle—but we do. That is why the Sky Ocean Rescue campaign was so significant. We can all get into the habit of using those water canisters every time we go to buy a bottle. The Government are consulting, in the 25-year environment plan, on free water fountains so that wherever people are they can fill a canister for free, without having to buy water and, as a by-product, the plastic they do not want.

In addition, we must simply reduce the amount of packaging that we use. I commend Iceland for its attitude to reducing its plastic use. I echo all that has been said about working with industry. Producers have a role, and there are excellent innovators looking at ways to find better plastics, or to reduce or reuse plastic—perhaps using biodegradable materials when plastics are unavoidable.

The UK is leading the world. The Government have taken necessary and brave steps and the 25-year environment plan is a big part of what they are doing. We are on the right track, but the oceans are our shared heritage. Their health is our responsibility, and we must get things right.

Electric Dog Collars

Robert Courts Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are many different positive, reward-based training techniques out there to train our dogs. Guide dogs are one of the greatest examples. People do not have to electrocute guide dogs to get them to carry out the marvellous, wonderful things they do. I experienced it for myself when I went out in my constituency blindfolded and with a guide dog. They are incredibly intelligent and they save people’s lives. People do not need to electrocute them to do so. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are going to do this properly, we need to ban the sale and use of these devices.

Since launching the campaign, many people have been astonished that these so-called training devices are still so prevalent when there have been significant advances in positive, reward-based training. I recently met the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust with the Secretary of State, and we made that case forcefully. The Secretary of State was struck that such devices of torture are still available. Although I welcome the announcement of a consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is clear that the campaign cannot and should not end there. We need to continue to make the argument that someone does not have to own a pet to understand that an electric shock collar is cruel and unnecessary. They are openly marketed and sold as training aids, and they work by instilling in the animal a fear of punishment.

When fitted, shock collars deliver an electric shock either through a remote control or an automatic trigger such as a dog’s bark. The punishment can last for up to 11 seconds. In some devices, the punishment can last as long as the owner holds down the button on the remote. The theory is that having received a shock the dog is more likely to do what it is asked, rather than that coming from a natural willingness to obey. Research commissioned by DEFRA showed that one in four dogs subjected to shock collars showed signs of stress compared with less than 5% who were trained by more positive methods. It was found that one third of dogs yelped when they felt a shock, and a further quarter yelped again when the punishment was repeated. The research also found that even when used by professionals, there were still long-term impacts on dog welfare.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I congratulate him not only on securing this debate, but on the campaign he has been running so successfully over the past weeks and months. To declare an interest, I was lucky enough to prosecute animal cruelty cases at the Bar and to work for some time in the animal sphere with regards to the law. In that context, I came across and worked with a lot of animal behaviour experts. Perhaps he will discuss this in due course, but does he agree that canine behaviour is incredibly complex? That has become apparent to me. He has painted a vivid picture of the distress caused to animals by these barbaric devices, but in addition, does he agree that they simply do not work? They are counterproductive, given the complexity of dog behaviour and dog society.

[Ross Thomson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. His intervention comes at a timely point. He talked about his experience prosecuting animal cruelty cases. He mentioned how it can be complicated to time when the shocks should be given. The dog might not understand, and that can create unwanted behaviour. When I met the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, they raised that very concern. Owners of the devices often do not get the timing right, and that leads to unwanted behaviour.

There is a dangerous dogs case that is cited. Ostarra Langridge was prosecuted in 2001 when one of her dogs attacked and killed another dog while on a walk. A control order was imposed on Miss Langridge’s dog because of its aggressive behaviour, which was attributable to the effects of the shock collar. Miss Langridge sought the help of a behaviourist when her dogs started to run away from her on their walks along the beach. The dogs were given shock collars, which Miss Langridge was told to keep on for three months and activate whenever they misbehaved, but the first time the dogs got a shock was by mistake, after a small dog they were walking past made Miss Langridge jump. From then on her pets associated the shocks with small dogs and became afraid of them. When Miss Langridge described the day in July that her dogs turned on a shih tzu, she had tears in her eyes. She stated:

“They connected the pain of the electric shock with little dogs because of the first time I used the collar. The day that machine came in this house I regret.”

There should be no place for this type of outdated practice, particularly given the recent advances in positive, reward-based training. In my view, it is not enough to simply tighten up regulations. We need to outlaw these devices altogether as soon as possible.