Sale of Puppies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

Indeed, it would. What is the problem with third-party sales? The sale of puppies through commercial third-party dealers both sustains and is dependent upon the existence of puppy farms, where puppies are bred for maximum profit and with minimal regard for animal welfare. Currently, around 74 pet shop licences permit the sale of puppies in the UK, although very few high street pet shops sell puppies. But the third-party trade remains significant, with dealers operating from a diverse array of premises including private homes and puppy superstores. It is estimated that some 80,000 puppies may be sold by licensed third-party sellers each year. That legal, licensed puppy trade depends upon a fast transition through the point of sale. The incentives for a rapid turnover encourage purchasers to make impulsive decisions based upon an emotional response.

Puppies are sourced from breeding establishments in the UK and Europe—commonly, Wales, Ireland, Lithuania and Hungary—where output volume is often prioritised over welfare. That has a hugely detrimental impact upon the physical and mental wellbeing of the breeding dogs and their puppies, which are destined to become people’s family pets. The absence of any contract between breeders and the final owner helps to eliminate accountability, results in a dereliction of responsibility and provides no incentive for improvement.

The legitimate market for puppies bred in situations where welfare is a minor consideration contributes to the existence of establishments that fail to meet even the basic needs of abused breeding dogs such as Lucy. Overwhelming scientific research, together with evidence obtained from owners, conclusively demonstrates that this activity seriously harms animal welfare, through the trauma of transportation, the increased risk of exposure to disease, behavioural problems resulting from premature separation from the mother and lack of appropriate socialisation.

Puppies may be born with debilitating inherited diseases that are life limiting or require lifelong medication, and are at a high risk of catching life-threatening canine diseases, such as parvovirus. That often costs buyers hundreds of thousands of pounds in veterinary treatment. It is not uncommon for puppies to die within days or weeks. A sad litany of such examples was highlighted in the personal experiences of those who responded to and commented on Parliament’s digital engagement before this debate.

There are alternatives. My sister purchased her dog 14 years ago through a reputable breeder who had connections with the Kennel Club, and saw the mother in situation. The dog is very happy; it was at the Sunday family dinner last night and is doing well. Everybody needs that kind of family commitment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Was it at the table?

[Martyn Day]

No, but it is trained, which the breeder does not necessarily do and owners have to do themselves.

Poor hygiene standards throughout the chain frequently mean that many puppies are infected with bacteria, viruses and parasites that in some cases can be transmitted to humans, for example rabies in inappropriately vaccinated imported pups. Puppies may exhibit significant behavioural issues such as separation anxiety, house soiling and nervous aggression. It is not known how many puppies die before they are even sold.

The puppy market is very lucrative, which means there are big financial incentives for breeders and sellers to minimise costs to maximise profits. Incredibly, and despite all that, the number of links in the chain means that often it is impossible to determine where the specific problem originated, and therefore extremely rare for any formal action to be taken against breeders or sellers.

The third-party trade via dealers and pet shops is regarded worldwide as a significant welfare issue, with an impact on breeding dogs, puppies and their new owners. Consumers are universally advised to see a puppy interacting with its mother in the place the puppy was born as the most fundamental step towards responsible pet ownership. This advice—rightly promoted by the current Government—is clearly in direct conflict with the ongoing legality of motherless third-party sales.

Today’s main question is, why is a ban necessary? Quite simply, a ban on third-party puppy selling removes the legitimacy of a source where adequate welfare cannot be ensured. That is imperative to assist purchasers to make an informed choice and to encourage responsible buying decisions. As mentioned, it ensures consistency with the Government’s own advice that purchasers should always see puppies with their mother; it aligns with the Government’s objective of improving dog breeding welfare; and it helps to tackle puppy dealing and trafficking.

A ban is vital to incentivise welfare improvements in high-risk commercial dog breeding establishments, through ensuring transparency, accountability and even increased financial gain for breeders. A ban will prevent the sale of puppies who have not been bred to welfare standards recognised by the national and devolved Administrations, and will remove the legitimate market for puppies who are bred in European countries where dog breeding welfare may be inadequately regulated. Ultimately, that will improve consumer confidence in the industry, and transactions would benefit the UK rather than breeders based abroad.

A ban removes the need for transportation from the breeding establishment, eliminates risks posed by exposure to pathogens in vehicles and the sale environment and prevents the transmission of disease between animals originating from different sources. A ban will improve the overall health of the UK dog population, by compelling and incentivising all UK breeders to adopt more responsible breeding practices and by reducing the risk of outbreaks of disease. There may also be a reduction in incidents of dog aggression arising from poor breeding and inadequate socialisation. A ban would reduce the regulatory burden on local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing it and for presenting his case so well. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I obviously support Lucy’s law. I will comment on the situation in Northern Ireland, because some stats that have come through today will be helpful in backing up the debate.

I believe that the debate being secured through the petition mechanism demonstrates the will of the people. The people out there have clearly said that the issue should be debated in Westminster and that we should raise awareness of it. It means that we in this place can determine how better we can safeguard animals—dogs, in this instance—during the sale process. More than that, we are morally obliged to address it.

I do not remember ever not having a dog. I had one from the very early years of my life, whether Pomeranians, corgis, collies or Jack Russell terriers. They say that no one ever actually owns a Jack Russell terrier—it owns them. That is probably true. We now have springer spaniels, because we use them for hunting. I have never not had a dog.

When my wife and I first got married, I was not keen on cats, to be truthful, but she was, and therefore my life changed. That was the way it was. We now have four cats in the house, and one dog. The cats gather around the dinner table when we have our Sunday lunch and they all sit and look at us as if they are ravenous for whatever is on the menu. Every one of those cats was a stray that came to stay with us and never left, because they were well looked after.

The dog that Sandra had was badly abused and badly beaten. She became passionate about it and brought it home. It is now clearly over its fears—it does not run when we speak to it. It was probably a hunting dog at one time, and my wife lets me take it hunting now and again. She says it is not a hunting dog, but if I am free on a Saturday afternoon I usually take it over the fields for a run. It does not always listen, but that is just the way some dogs are. The point I am trying to make is that people can take dogs and the dog will always show them affection and love. All they have to do is show the same to it. When our dog is shown affection and love, it all of a sudden responds very positively.

Back home, I have heard on too many occasions of heartbroken children having their animals removed because they did not fulfil the injection and visa requirements for pets brought into Northern Ireland. The parents are left out of pocket and the children are devastated, but the person whose responsibility it was that those requirements were met often gets away scot-free. They do not care. They are just about making money. This scenario must stop.

With the surge in designer dog breeds, more and more people are trying their hand at breeding and selling. The conditions that these animals live in is not always healthy, and at times is simply inhumane. Many of us will know of examples of just that. With the rise of sales from houses, it is clear that we must regulate for the sake of the dog and her puppies, but also for the family who pay big money for what is probably their dream dog, only to have the dog be ill or aggressive as a result of bad treatment.

Last week I met a member of the Dogs Trust team to discuss this debate and what they felt was needed. My wife Sandra volunteers at the local Assisi Animal Sanctuary, looking after cats and dogs; it is something she has always loved and wanted to do. That is where our cats came from, and ultimately they took over. She has also made it very clear that Assisi—in the charity sector—thinks that things need to change, and quickly.

The Dogs Trust has stated:

“We want to see an end to third party sales and the sale of puppies in pet shops as part of a package of coordinated measures. There are some crucial steps that the government must take to make a ban, and Lucy’s Law, effective and avoid unintended consequences.”

On priorities, it states:

“The licensing and inspection of anyone breeding or selling puppies must be robust and consistent”.

[Giles Watling]

There has been a flurry in my area of dogs being stolen to be used for breeding. It is worth putting on the record that Lucy’s law would deal with that in some way, through its knock-on effects. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Jim Shannon]

I do. Too often, a dog is stolen or goes missing. We see the adverts in our local papers back home when a springer spaniel, corgi, Jack Russell or whatever has gone missing. It is a family pet, but also much more than a pet. That is true for all of us as well as for those outside the Chamber. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The hope is that Lucy’s law could tighten up the legislation and make it much more effective.

The quotation from the Dogs Trust continues:

“Before this can happen, inspectors must have the full support of both the government and their local authority to enforce the right standards.”

I wholeheartedly support that as a basic measure—as a start. If a person is prepared to allow people into their home to buy a dog, it follows that they would allow someone into their home to assess whether the dogs are healthy and happy while being bred and, indeed, afterwards.

The Assisi charity group for which my wife works, the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the RSPCA and many other charities have now adopted a new criterion, which is that before they will rehome a dog, they visit the home—my wife does this for cats as well, by the way—and it is only right that they should do so, because the home of the person who wants the dog or cat should really want the dog or cat; taking it into their home should be their full intention. I believe that home visits are one method of making progress. The Minister, who we know is very responsive to the debate on this issue, will probably take that on board. I would like to hear his thoughts on introducing Lucy’s law as well.

The Dogs Trust has further said:

“We want governments across the UK to regulate rehoming organisations and sanctuaries and we will continue to campaign against this gaping loophole…If a ban was introduced, the options for getting a dog would either be directly from the breeder or from a rehoming organisation.”

That would be with the criteria that those charitable organisations have set down. They are good, strict criteria that work. If a person wants to give a home to a dog or cat—this debate is specifically about dogs—we should ensure that that is being done for the right reason.

The Dogs Trust continues:

“As rehoming organisations are not regulated, and anyone can set themselves up as one, we are deeply concerned this would be exploited by puppy traders.”

Again, I believe that the point made is sensible and that what is advocated is only right and proper. Although we must not prevent those who have a heart to care for animals from being able to set up as a rehoming organisation, we must be able to stop people abusing that to circumvent the system. There are genuine people out there, and they would not fear regulation.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is raising a number of issues that touch on devolution and the cross-jurisdictional nature of the issue; it would be easy for the Minister to say, “We can deal only with England.” I well remember working with the former hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, Richard Arkless, in relation to the puppy trades that existed in the Republic of Ireland, came through Northern Ireland and abused the ferry systems going to Scotland and the rest of mainland GB, so may I, through my hon. Friend, encourage the Minister to think not only of the devolution issues that exist in the United Kingdom, but of co-operation and collaboration with those other jurisdictions that feed into a drastic trade that affects our country but starts in or emanates from others?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point needs to be put to the Minister. We all have concerns about puppy farming in the Republic of Ireland. Puppies can come through Northern Ireland and across on the ferry, but they can also come straight across from the Republic into Wales, so we may need to be doing things at that stage as well. I thank my hon. Friend for his wise words.

I believe that there must be an introduction of registration and licensing for all breeding and rehoming establishments, to create full transparency and traceability in the system. I support the calls that anyone breeding or selling litters of puppies should be registered.

Today’s Belfast Telegraph has some statistics on what is happening in Northern Ireland. It states that

“councils in Northern Ireland destroyed more than 300 animals in eight months.”

It says that 166 unclaimed and 144 unwanted animals were destroyed, and cites David Wilson from the USPCA:

“The volume of dogs abandoned to their fate by heartless owners remains a major…welfare concern”.

We need to put this on the record. Mr Wilson went on:

“There are still too many dogs being farmed for profit by callous individuals, many of whom flout the requirement for breeder registration…The availability of pets via the internet is entirely unregulated and contributes to the problem by encouraging impulse purchasing.”

I ask the Minister also to respond to that point.

The reason Assisi and other charities do home visits is that they want to see whether someone is truly enthusiastic about giving the dog or cat a home; they want to ensure that the enthusiasm has not worn off after a time. The report cites Mr Wilson saying that any would-be owners should

“‘purchase using their head as well as their heart’.

With lifestyle and financial implications…‘the only guarantee awaiting the unwary is often one of heartache and expense’.”

He urged people to “contact the USPCA”, or RSPCA,

“or visit a local shelter to adopt ‘a deserving animal in need of a home, as 1,500 others did in the period covered by these statistics’.

‘By doing so you will have played your part in addressing a problem that shames society,’ he added.”

Time has beaten me. There are many other issues that I would urge the Minister to consider, such as the Government and the animal welfare sector working together to facilitate a marketplace dominated by ethical breeders. The message must be sent loud and clear that prospective owners should always see a puppy interacting with its mum and littermates. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) illustrated that with the example of a Labrador: the mother and littermates were there; the family were very closely associated and playing a part. If that happened in every place, that would be the place to be.

There must be a co-ordinated package of measures to ensure that a ban on third-party sales is successful, and we must carefully consider the implications of legislation to prevent it from being exploited as other attempts thus far have been. There is much to be done. I urge the Minister to work with knowledgeable charities—the Dogs Trust, among others—to ensure that the legislation passed is the best that it can be and that it stops bad treatment of dogs as well as the heartbreak of children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

You are their conscience.

[Dr Cameron]

I am their conscience, indeed.

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

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We publicise any way we can the existing regulations, including the guidance that people should see puppies with their mother before purchasing them. That is long-standing DEFRA guidance. About two years ago, I had a discussion with some of the pet food manufacturers to try to persuade them that they should add this guidance to some of their packaging so that people who were considering buying pets would be reminded of it. I could not get the manufacturers to take up my suggestion, but it was worth a try. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If we introduced a change in the law, we would ensure we did everything we could to publicise that.

Finally on enforcement—a number of Members raised the issue—we have provided in our new licensing conditions for local authorities to be able to go for full cost recovery to fund their work in this area. While the internet provides many challenges, it also provides a relatively easy way to identify people selling pets in the UK who are not legally entitled to do so.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. A great many charities do excellent work on animal welfare. We know who they are; they have been mentioned. Is it his intention to correspond with those charitable organisations to gauge their opinion on how animal welfare laws can move forward? I think it is important we have their input in the process. Have they been part of it?

[George Eustice]

We work very closely with all the animal welfare charities. As was pointed out earlier, a number of the charities had some reservations about going for a third-party ban. They felt there were other more significant things we could do to tackle the problem of online trading. Now we have done those things, there is a growing consensus that extending the ban might be worth considering. I do not think we should hold it against those animal charities that had some concerns about the measure, but just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, we regularly engage with a whole range of animal welfare charities on that and other issues, and they have all contributed considerably to the consultations we have run.

Environment Agency: Enforcement Action

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

This is my first end of day Adjournment debate in a very long time; however, I am glad to have secured it as it gives me the chance to raise an ongoing issue in my constituency that has been a source of great consternation to me and many of the residents of Teal Farm and the areas adjacent to the Pattinson Road waste processing sites cluster, which I will refer to collectively as Teal Farm, as that is quite a mouthful.

For more than two years now, or perhaps even longer, residents and local councillors—especially Councillor Tony Taylor, who has been vigilant and tenacious on this matter—have raised concerns about the activity going on in Teal Farm, especially on the industrial estates that neighbour the residential area. It has been going on for so long that I have been applying for this debate for months now, and my former researcher, Daniel Tye, who helped me prepare this speech, moved on months ago. I wish that the issue had as well, but alas it has not. That is what brings me here.

Let me give some context. Washington new town was built in the 1960s as one of a few new towns across the country to help with overcrowding and population growth in local urban areas. In Washington’s case, that means the neighbouring cities of Sunderland, Durham and Newcastle. Part of the planning was meant to allow it to be a town with residential estates and industrial estates that were side by side but did not interfere with each other’s daily lives. Although the planning was meant to reduce interference between the two, that has become more of a problem as the town has grown and more residents have moved into the area, making the luxury of quiet residential living more difficult than when the town was first founded in the 1960s.

Sadly, the situation in Teal Farm in Washington is a microcosm of that situation; the original idea of residential and industrial being in close proximity but not bothering each other has been thrown out of the window. That has led to tensions between residents and businesses alike, which have extended to organisations such as the local council and the regional branch of the Environment Agency. Unfortunately and annoyingly for the residents of Teal Farm, there seem to be endless cases of problems arising, and local residents have kept me abreast of all the issues through the residents association and the dedicated team of local councillors.

As I just set out, the reason I am speaking today is to document this officially on the record and to prise out of the Minister what more can be done to address the issues of industrial mismanagement that has blighted the lives of many of my constituents in Washington, especially when it comes to environmental issues.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue forward; these are always very important debates. Does she agree that it is essential that fines given by the Environment Agency should fit the crime, that legislation should also reflect that, and that the council and the Government need to act accordingly?

Homeopathy: Veterinary Medicine

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

This debate is very timely because of the recent changes that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has made to its guidelines, which have angered the public and homeopathic vets alike and triggered two marches to the headquarters of the RCVS and a rally in Parliament Square, at which I had the honour of speaking. I am happy to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in his place, not least because my family come from Redruth and were mining engineers—I am attempting to engender a little sympathy from him before I proceed.

The key issue is a new requirement in the guidelines that homeopathy should only be used in conjunction with conventional medicine. The second issue is the highly contentious assertions made by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons about a lack of evidence and safety and animal welfare, which are apparently related in this instance. The third issue is a lack of consultation.

The RCVS did not consult at all the people who know the subject—the Faculty of Homeopathy, the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, the International Association for Veterinary Homeopathy, the European Committee for Homeopathy and the Homeopathy Research Institute. None of those organisations was consulted prior to the issuing of these guidelines. After the second march, the RCVS graciously agreed to meet a delegation, but sadly the delegation wrote to me afterwards saying:

“It became apparent that there was a total lack of understanding of the principles of homeopathy.”

It invited the RCVS to visit a practice, but I am not sure that that offer has been accepted.

I wrote to the RCVS, and it replied to my letter with, I regret to say, three glaring errors. First, it cited the 2010 report of the Science and Technology Committee, which it said

“concluded that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious”.

It never did anything of the sort. I attended that Committee, and it was an evidence check. It only found that there was no evidence; it did not make any findings about effectiveness.

Secondly, the RCVS claims:

“we have not sought to remove choice as this remains”.

It does not. Choice has been removed, because before these guidelines came out, homeopaths could practise without using homeopathy and conventional medicine together.

Thirdly, the RCVS made claims about animal welfare issues. This is very important, and I asked a parliamentary question, to which my hon. Friend the Minister graciously replied:

“The Department does not have any evidence that shows that homeopathic vets are a risk to animal welfare by using homeopathy as an alternative treatment to conventional medicine options.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene, and I thank him for letting me do so. Does he not agree that with the rise in antibiotic use in animals—it is very pertinent at this time—anything that can prevent the introduction of antibiotics can only be a good thing and must be given full consideration? Perhaps the Minister could tell us in his response what he is doing through his Department to reduce antibiotic use in animals.

[David Tredinnick]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with wisdom and experience. No doubt, he too has looked at the European position, which is completely the opposite of the one taken by the RCVS. There is a European directive on organic products, which states in article 24(2) of Commission regulation (EC) No. 889/2008, that

“Phytotherapeutic”—

that is, herbal—

“and homeopathic products, trace elements…shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary treatment or antibiotics”.

That was because the European Union as a whole was so worried about the abuse of antibiotics, and I started speaking about the use of antibiotics in animals in the 1987 Parliament.

Let me give my hon. Friend the Minister the view of a farmer, who wrote to me, saying

“did you know that farmers often like using homeopathy for cows with mastitis because if they do so, they can sell the milk. If they use antibiotics, the milk must be thrown out.”

Safety is very important, and I hope the Minister will dispose of that point later as some homeopathic vets have simply stopped practising because they perceive themselves to be under a legal threat.

This is at a time when, according to the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, there is an explosion of interest in homeopathy, largely I would suggest because of the antibiotics problem. It says that

“there is an explosion of interest in CAM”—

complementary and alternative medicine—

“including Homeopathy”, in the agricultural sector where the drive is to reduce and replace dependence on antibiotics in light of Antibiotic Resistance…concerns”.

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this issue forward for consideration; I thank him for that. All the speeches so far have been excellent. I was raised learning that the Earth is the Lord’s and all within it belongs to Him. I was taught to be frugal and thrifty—or, as the girls in my office say, as an Ulster-Scot I am tight. Perhaps some of the boys, and ladies, in this Chamber will understand what that means. I do not like to buy things unnecessarily; that is a fact. If a mistake is made printing letterheads, the paper is turned over and used for other purposes. If envelopes have lost their stickiness, I put sellotape on them and make sure that they are used. It is a matter not simply of working to keep costs down, but of being a good steward. I believe that that is my job as an individual and one that we should be doing in the House.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) referred to plastic bags. I hail from Northern Ireland: we were the first country in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to introduce charges for plastic bags. We took the lead—we did the business, and everyone else followed. It is great to lead and have others follow; we enjoy doing that. The 5p per bag protocol was perhaps hard for some people to understand, yet as time has progressed there has been no more complaining, as people have got into the routine of putting bags in their cars. People adjust and get used to it; people do what has to be done.

The same goes for the introduction of recycling as a must for the local council. Black bins are collected in alternate weeks and recycling the other week. People have to think before they bin things, which, again, is the right way to do it. What are the results, from a local perspective? The local rates were kept down directly from money saved in landfill costs. Every year 8 child enjoyed a day seeing why we recycle and the difference that it makes. As has been said, it is a case of educating future generations to think differently from us. We as adults do not have the savvy that children have when it comes to litter and recycling, but we need to learn.

Has it been worth it thus far? The report that I read in a national newspaper, which indicated that the number of plastic bags found on the seabed has plummeted, suggests that it has. There have been some good things. It is all very well to be negative and critical, but at the end of the day we have to be positive as well. However, as is to be expected, plastic bags are not the only issue facing the marine environment. We are winning the war on plastic bags, and winning hearts and minds, but more has to be done.

As hon. Members have said, 8 million tonnes of plastic makes its way into oceans each year. Experts estimate that plastic is ingested by 31 species of marine mammal and more than 100 species of seabird. More than 9 billion fewer plastic bags have been used since the Government introduced the 5p charge. That is enough to wrap around the world more than 100 times. It is an outstanding reduction of 83%—good news—but we have to do more. The deep sea is now littered with plastic items, including bottles and fishing debris. The amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is touted to treble within a decade. If that does not shock us and make us want to do something, I am not sure what will.

The annual beach survey by the Marine Conservation Society recorded a 10% rise in litter in 2017. September’s “Great British Beach Clean” collected an average of 718 pieces of rubbish every 100 metres. There were 701 items per 100 metres in Northern Ireland—the second worst in the United Kingdom, so we have a lot to learn as well. It is good to highlight this matter, but it is equally important that we bring people along with us to understand exactly why steps are being taken and why we are asking people to remember to bring their reusable bottles and containers, and to stop using straws and so on.

[Douglas Chapman]

I get the impression that the public are a step ahead of the Government and legislation. They are already prepared mentally and attitudinally to make the change. I spoke to our friends from Plastic Free Dunfermline, a group in my constituency that tries to make our town plastic-free. They talked about not applying levies or negative instruments on people, but being positive by encouraging retailers to provide water in the town’s shops, so that people can take a bottle and have it refilled at any point. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with such simple ideas?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. If we have too many interventions, not everybody will get in.

[Jim Shannon]

So that more people can get in, Sir Edward, I will not take extra time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wholeheartedly support what he said.

Many people may knee-jerk react and resist, but we are not eco-warriors on the attack. We should be eco-educators coming alongside people, as that will be more successful. I look to the method of my local council with regard to those who persist in refusing to recycle: three strikes and your bin is not lifted. Then they know what they need to do. The gentle approach has meant that very few bins are not lifted, and people in the borough are coming to terms with recycling in a way that is not offensive but inclusive. That is the approach that the Government—I look to the Minister—should use. We have a duty of care to our environment, but also to help people understand. Our approach must reflect that.

Fishing: East Anglia

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Renaissance of East Anglian Fishing campaign.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I am very pleased to have secured this debate, as it provides an ideal opportunity to highlight the work getting underway in Lowestoft, in my constituency, and along the East Anglian coast to launch the campaign to deliver the renaissance of East Anglian fisheries. I am delighted that my neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), is responding for the Government.

REAF was launched last month, on 15 March, at the East Anglian fishing conference at the Hotel Victoria in Lowestoft. Up to 150 people attended, predominantly local and many from the local fishing industry. Many of the speakers were local, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), gave a keynote speech and we had a productive workshop in which some very good ideas were put forward for how best to revitalise the industry. Brexit provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do that—to start again with a clean sheet of paper and to have a complete rethink of how we manage these fisheries.

Fishing has taken place along the East Anglian coast for more than a thousand years. Lowestoft was previously the fishing capital of the southern North sea and was the hub of an industry that included many other ports, such as Kings Lynn, Cromer, Sheringham, Yarmouth, Kessingland, Southwold, Aldeburgh, Orford, Felixstowe Ferry, Maldon, Colchester and Southend. East Anglia sits next to one of the richest fishing grounds in Europe, but today little local benefit is derived from that. Most of the UK vessels registered in East Anglia and fishing off our coast are smaller than 10 metres and many of them target shellfish or fin fish in the inshore areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me permission to intervene beforehand. The bottom line is that, while UK vessels land 40% of their catch from UK waters, Norway and Iceland land 83% and 90% respectively in theirs. That shows the indisputable fact that the European Union has never given us our fair share and never will. As such, does he agree that it is imperative that we regain full control of our waters and do not accept anything that does not bring the control of fishing in British waters back into the hands of the MPs here and the people who we represent?

[Peter Aldous]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.

It is important that our region derives the maximum possible economic benefit from Brexit. REAF is seeking to achieve that goal, with the local industry taking the lead in planning the future of East Anglian fishing. The intention is to set out our stall, and to work with Government, to make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. That approach is consistent with the Prime Minister’s desire for the Government to work with the fishing industry to secure a better deal for coastal communities.

I shall briefly outline what I believe are the three ingredients to deliver REAF. First, East Anglian fishermen must be given the opportunity to catch more fish. The region’s catch sector predominantly comprises the inshore fleet, which, as has been well documented, does not get a fair slice of the cake. The six vessels in the Lowestoft Fish Producers Organisation land their catches in the Netherlands and Peterhead. We need to be in a position whereby fish caught in the exclusive economic zone off the East Anglian coast are landed in local ports, thereby benefiting local people, local businesses and local communities.

If the quota system is to continue, there needs to be a radical reallocation in favour of locally based fishermen, so that they can earn a fair living and the full benefit of their hard work, which often takes place in extremely harsh conditions, can be secured for the ports and communities in which they live and work and for allied industries, such as local processors, merchants, ship repairers and maintenance services.

Secondly—this goes hand in hand with landing more fish in East Anglian ports—there is a need to invest in infrastructure, skills and supply chain businesses in those ports and their surrounding areas. Although in many respects it is surprising how much of the supporting sector remains in Lowestoft and other East Anglian ports, there is concern that it does not have the capacity to cope with a significant increase in landings. There must be a whole-industry approach from the net to the plate.

Thirdly, a new management system must be put in place that has the full confidence and respect of all those working in the industry. The system must be based on science and be local, sustainable and collaborative. Being based on science means making decisions that are established on scientific evidence, not political expediency. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which has its headquarters in Lowestoft, should be at the heart of that locally, nationally and internationally. The Government are to be commended for their foresight in investing in the redevelopment of CEFAS’s Lowestoft headquarters, which is now getting under way.

The system must be truly local and tailored to ensure the bespoke management of individual fisheries—a bottom-up approach to replace the top-down strategy. The new system must have sustainability ingrained in its DNA, it should guard against unsustainable practices such as electric pulse fishing, which is having a particularly devastating impact on local fisheries in the southern North sea, and it should ensure that those working in the industry can plan and invest for the future. Fisheries management must be a tripartite partnership of fishermen, scientists and regulators, collaborating and working together. We must do away with the current “them and us” approach that pervades much of the current regulatory system. That will mean fishermen taking on new responsibilities and regulators working with them.

People left the conference of 15 March in an upbeat mood. The following week, the Government published the implementation agreement for leaving the EU, which provides for the UK to leave the common fisheries policy on 31 December 2020, rather than at an earlier date, as so many had hoped. As a result, that positive outlook was replaced by anger and despair. Helpfully, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State subsequently have made assurances that on 31 December 2020 the UK will resume full control of the seas in our exclusive economic zone, that we will decide who can access those waters and on what terms, and that no deals will be done beforehand that use fishing as bargaining chip as part of the wider Brexit negotiations.

That said, there are issues arising from the implementation agreement that need clarifying. Notwithstanding the wording of article 125 of the implementation agreement, which sets out the specific arrangements on fishing opportunities during the implementation period, there is a real worry that the best interests of the fishing industry will be irretrievably compromised during this period. We will be subject to the common fisheries policy and the landing obligations with the maximum sustainable yield target, but we will have a significantly reduced influence on the annual negotiations. The discards ban will be implemented during this period and its negative impact on the inshore fleet will be significant, yet we will have a very much diminished opportunity to promote measures to alleviate its impact. In effect, we will be bound by the CFP during this period, but only consulted on fishing opportunities in UK waters.

There is also a concern that the provisions of article 125 may set a precedent for future policy and negotiations with the EU. There is a worry about paragraph 4 of that article, which refers to maintaining

“the relative stability keys for the allocation of fishing opportunities”

during the implementation period. The main challenge for East Anglian fishermen is that they are unable to land enough fish to earn a fair living or supply the local processing industry. “Relative stability” in many respects underpins the status quo, and it is important that, after we leave the CFP, we start again with a clean sheet of paper for allocating fishing opportunities. If we do not, any gains will be enjoyed by the few, not the many.

As I mentioned, the East Anglian fishing fleet is predominantly inshore, comprising what have become known as the under-10s. That part of the industry is hanging on by its fingertips, and there is a worry that it will struggle to survive to the end of the implementation period. Action is needed to address the situation. It is important that we use the additional preparatory time wisely, and I make the following suggestions for how we might do so.

First, on 29 March 2019, the UK will become an independent coastal state with duties and obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. We must be fully prepared to discharge those rights and responsibilities. Secondly, the fisheries White Paper and fisheries Bill should be published as soon as practically possible so that the industry and parliamentarians can help shape a future policy framework, which should have the flexibility to respond to local needs and demands.

Thirdly, East Anglian fishermen need to be able to land more fish so they can earn a fair living. In the short term, that can be achieved by reallocating a share of existing quota to the inshore fleet. In the longer term, we need to tackle the situation that fish caught in UK waters are not landed in UK ports. Much of Britain’s quota is currently held by overseas businesses. The economic link requirements of vessel licences must be reformed and then enforced. Fourthly, the UK will withdraw from the London fisheries convention on 3 July 2019, providing us full access rights to our fishing grounds in the zone between 6 nautical miles and 12 nautical miles from our coast. Consideration should be given to how best to take advantage of that opportunity.

Last Friday, Waveney District Council submitted REAF’s application for a European maritime and fisheries fund grant to the Marine Management Organisation. The proposed project will enable us to develop a long-term strategy for the future of the East Anglian fishing industry. It is a bottom-up initiative with widespread local and industry support. It is an exciting, innovative and compelling proposal that is a beacon of positivity at a time when the fishing industry is under intense pressure and there is anger and disappointment about the Brexit transitional arrangements. The project is designed to help shape a positive and profitable future for the industry as a whole, from the net to the plate. Its objective is to establish how the economic and social benefits of the fishing industry in East Anglia can best be captured and optimised locally and regionally.

There are three elements to the project: data and information gathering and analysis; a forward look at the prospective changes and the development of possible options for bringing benefits to the region’s fishing industry and coastal communities; and the preparation of a regional fisheries strategy. The project will examine why, despite the profitability of the UK fleet overall having increased year on year for the past 10 years, that improvement has bypassed Lowestoft and East Anglia. It will analyse the fishing fleets across the region to provide a starting point for developing a regional strategy. At local level, it will look at how a new management system can be put in place that takes into account the different sections of the fleet and ensures that they are managed in the most efficient and effective way. The project will assess the catch potential for East Anglian vessels and what changes should be made to the economic link requirements, and analyse the whole supply chain to establish how best to maximise the opportunity presented by Brexit.

In short, this is prudent and long-term strategic planning at its best. It is estimated that the project will cost approximately £160,000 and take nine months to complete. The application is for 75% of the cost of the project to come from the EMFF, and we are looking to the Government to contribute the remaining 25%. There is sound justification for them to do so, as the proposal has collective interests and beneficiaries and is highly innovative. We have looked at other sources of funding, such as councils, the coastal communities fund and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, but those options cannot be pursued, either because the money is not there or because a bid would not satisfy the various eligibility criteria.

The bid is compelling. It is exactly the sort of sensible long-term planning that should be done as we leave the EU to open up new and exciting business opportunities. It would be unfortunate if this highly innovative project stalled at a time when the industry is badly bruised.

Special thanks are due to the local community champions who came together to form REAF, some of whom are here today. There are many of them, but I pay special tribute to June Mummery and Paul Lines, whose passion and determination have been so important. REAF provides a great opportunity to revitalise a uniquely East Anglian industry for the benefit of local communities that feel they have been dispossessed and ignored for too long. In policy terms, the Government need to provide a national framework for fishing that has the flexibility to respond to different local demands and allows the industry to flourish all around the coast. REAF is looking to provide the cornerstone for that in East Anglia, and I hope that the Government can work with and endorse its locally derived, innovative and well thought-through initiative, which has strong local backing.

Livestock Worrying: Sussex

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I entirely agree. It is also important to put on record the contribution made by farming, not only in Sussex but to our wider economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union. Livestock worrying costs the farming community some £1.6 million a year, and in Northern Ireland, for instance, about 60% of dog-walkers are letting their dogs off the lead in the countryside. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to educate dog owners, so that they understand that all the responsibility lies at their feet and their dogs could be put down if they worry sheep or other animals?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I do agree. I shall be dealing with some questions and points that the National Farmers Union and my local farmers have raised with me, which I know have also been raised with a number of other Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. The difficulty is that, although most dog owners whom I speak to say, “My dog is perfect: he is a saint” —or “She is a beauty”—“who will do nothing to harm anyone”, the fact is that dogs are animals too. They have urges to play with other animals, and they often think that the sheep are enjoying being chased around. Their motivation is not necessarily malicious, although it may be sometimes. Dog owners need to understand the effect of letting dogs off leashes when there are livestock around.

Livestock worrying must be treated as a recordable crime. Dog owners must be given consistent information and act accordingly; farmers must report all instances, and the police must take them seriously. Livestock worrying is one of the greatest problems affecting farmers in Sussex. As we have heard, there are more than 130 cases a year, more than the number in Scotland.

[Jim Shannon]

At this time of year—spring in particular —when sheep are in-lamb, there is greater onus on dog owners to keep control of their dogs, because dogs chasing ewes across fields can lead to lambs being aborted.

Leaving the EU: Fisheries Management

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, it is absolutely the case that we want as friction free a trade arrangement as possible with the EU, and indeed with other nations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In my constituency on Friday, the talk of the day was: let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. In ’74, when we joined the Common Market, Edward Heath sold the fishing sector for a bowl of pottage. In 2018, can the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that the fishing sector in Portavogie, in my constituency, and also at Ardglass and Kilkeel, has not been and will not be sold out by a transitional arrangement that leaves the EU in control of fishing policy?

[Michael Gove]

I appreciate the issues the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will do everything possible to address the concerns of fishermen not just on the Ards peninsula but in Kilkeel and elsewhere. I look forward to working with him and colleagues across the political divide in Northern Ireland to provide that reassurance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have made good progress in the UK on reducing our use of antibiotics in agriculture. There have been notable successes in the poultry industry, and the pig sector is also making improvements. In our future agricultural policy, we want to support approaches to livestock husbandry that will enable us to reduce the use of antibiotics further and, as I said earlier, we will not compromise our food and animal welfare standards in pursuit of any trade deal.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to support the sale of game in shops and restaurants.

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

Game is an important part of our food heritage, and it is a draw on menus across the UK and served in many establishments. Exports of game meat were worth £9 million in 2016 and £7 million in 2017. We have no specific plans to promote UK game meat, but we continue to raise the profile and reputation of UK food and drink overseas through the Food is GREAT campaign.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister will be aware that the game sector is worth £114 million to the industry back home. I suspect he will also be aware that the European market, in particular in France, has decreased. Is he prepared to consider introducing and promoting game in the far east, especially in China, because that market is just crying out for game for people’s plates?

[George Eustice]

I regularly take part in trade delegations with the UK Government, and a couple of years ago I attended the Anuga food conference in Cologne, where there was a producer and exporter of UK game meat. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and consider his proposals in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The Church of England has put its entire assets at the disposal of the Government to help crack the problem of the not spots—that includes its churches, its schools and its land, where necessary. For example, we can beam a signal from a church spire to the brow of a hill—the land may belong to the Church—down into the next village, which does not have a signal, and thereby get coverage. Those assets are all bound up in this accord.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her responses. It is really good news that the Church of England is making its buildings available for this purpose. However, does she agree that it is equally important that historical artefacts, which can be displayed tremendously in small parishes in rural communities that have dedicated Royal British Legion facilities, could also be displayed in buildings owned by the Church of England across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

This new accord on wi-fi and mobile coverage will make the churches a hot spot, not a not spot, in communities. That may well bring in people who want to have the benefit of a good signal and, by the way, to discover the wonderful heritage and artefacts that the churches offer. I should add that although this accord has been signed with the Church of England, the Government want to offer the same opportunity to other denominations, because the aim is universal coverage.

Anti-Corruption Strategy: Illegal Wildlife Trade

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It thank the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for introducing the debate.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) issued a challenge to the House to hold wildlife in trust for those who come after us. We all have that challenge in our hearts. We must try to do it. I recently saw a video making the rounds on social media of a baby rhino in South Africa lying by the side of its dead mother, seemingly crying—it looked like that on the video. Such things are an unfortunate reality in the world we live in, but what caused that death should not be. The mother’s horns had been ripped from her body. Stats sometimes bring things home to us, because they show the enormous scale of what is happening. Rhino poaching has increased between 2007 and 2013 by 7,700% from 13 per year to 1,004 per year. That is incredible. The significance and magnitude of the figures cannot be stressed enough.

I was interested to hear about the hidden talents of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on the bagpipes. I would not have known. I am fond of the bagpipes, by the way. I love them, and they are very much part of life and tradition in Northern Ireland. Perhaps one day we will have the hon. Gentleman over to entertain us—12 July would be the day to come, but that is by the way.

The illegal wildlife trade is worth more than £15 billion a year. It is the fourth most lucrative illicit trade in the world after drugs, weapons and human trafficking. The very thought makes me ill. I have had a surprising number of emails from constituents about the debate. The more I have looked into the facts and figures, the more I have seen that, while we clearly have taken steps, we are not doing enough. We should be stepping out on the world stage, playing a greater role on behalf of those we could help, and bringing about the end of a vile trade.

I firmly concur with the aims and goals of the Worldwide Fund for Nature with respect to the end of illegal trade in animals: we must be clear, first, about adopting

“zero tolerance policy on corruption associated with the illegal wildlife trade, recognising with great concern that corruption is an important factor facilitating the criminal activities associated with the illegal wildlife trade.”

Secondly, we must urge countries where poaching, trafficking and buying take place to commit to supporting strategies that deepen understanding of corruption risks, and mitigation strategies to address the corruption that makes the illegal wildlife trade possible. We must review progress on existing high-level commitments such as those made in the London declaration of 2014 and the Kasane statement of 2015. We have made lots of statements and verbal commitments, but we need something that stops what is happening. We need to address the problem of corruption facilitating wildlife trafficking and related offences by reviewing or amending legislation as necessary, and criminalising the corruption that facilitates the trade. We should strengthen the legal framework and facilitate law enforcement to combat the illegal wildlife trade and assist with prosecution and the imposition of penalties that are an effective deterrent.

The illegal wildlife trade is made possible by corruption, and it fuels further corruption. Only if we tackle corruption can we eliminate the trade. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in an intervention mentioned steps taken by China, which I hope make a difference. China sometimes says it will do something, but ivory trading seems to continue. Let us see how that works. Corruption can take place at every stage of the chain—poaching, trafficking, trading and laundering of the illegal proceeds of crime. It can be at the highest level, sanctioned for individual gain.

I had the pleasure of going on a half-day on safari in Kenya, with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was an opportunity for me to watch some of the creatures that God created. They must have been looking at me, as I had a white shirt on—of all the things to wear on safari. The sheer power of the lions, the beauty of the giraffes and the intelligence of the elephants is something that remains with me to this day. I thank my creator, God, who made wonders for our enjoyment—certainly not for our abuse or for the illegal animal trade. That is an abuse of God’s creation. Lions are being hunted for the thrill of the ride and as a trophy, and elephants for their ivory, with more than 100,000 killed by poachers between 2010 and 2012. Twenty thousand elephants are killed every year for the illegal ivory trade. The numbers suggest that, in the two months since the closure of the consultation at the end of December, approximately 8,300 elephants have been slaughtered, not for meat or to feed starving families, but to decorate people’s houses with ivory. That is not acceptable.

As hon. Members have said, we need to stifle the demand and end corruption and illegal killing. What help can the Minister give to countries that are trying to stop illegal poaching? The training and equipping of rangers is perhaps the sort of help needed on the ground.

[Zac Goldsmith]

A staggering quantity of illegal wildlife trade happens online, so one way to deal with demand would be to tackle that trade online. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute and offering huge thanks to organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare that have done so much to persuade big online retailers to weed illegal wildlife trade out of the way they do business? Taobao, Alibaba and eBay have massively changed their policies as a consequence of campaigning by groups such as IFAW. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of long interventions and there is one more speech to go.

[Jim Shannon]

It is my belief that we need to introduce legislation quickly to play our part in reducing the number of animals killed by poachers, and ensuring that narwhal, walrus and hippopotamus ivory will not be used as replacements so that those animals become next in the firing line. We must end the trade. We can up our game and do a better job of playing our part. That can begin today, with this debate. Let us set the scene. I ask the Minister and her Department to take heed and urgently implement the steps to legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mrs Moon; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this important debate on the anti-corruption strategy and the illegal wildlife trade. I welcome the debate, which is timely because we are preparing for the illegal wildlife trade conference in London in October, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out.

The UK Government’s anti-corruption strategy was published in December. It provides an ambitious framework for tackling corruption to 2022 and includes significant international and domestic commitments. The strategy describes the illegal wildlife trade as the fourth most lucrative trans-boundary crime, with an estimated value of up to £17 billion a year. We recognise that it damages economic growth and undermines state institutions and the rule of law. It relies on and exacerbates corruption, cultivating discontent and undermining security. Seizures of illegally traded species have been recorded in 120 countries and include approximately 7,000 species.

I am very conscious that the illegal wildlife trade threatens some of the world’s most iconic species, such as elephants and rhinos, with extinction, but it is not just those majestic animals that are threatened; birds, flora and invertebrates are also among the thousands of species at risk from illegal trade. For example, tropical hardwoods are illegally felled and shipped around the world, with impacts on forest fauna, water quality, medicines and building materials for local people.

CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—protects more than 35,000 species. The UK is fully committed to its obligations under CITES to act against unsustainable trade that threatens the survival of species in the wild. We are pressing ahead with activities inspired by the aims of CITES to ensure the sustainability of legal trade in wild flora and fauna and to protect species ranging from lions and goshawks to cacti, coral and rare orchids.

The UK chairs the CITES working group on proposals to combat illegal killing and trafficking of rhinos. We take an active role in the implementation and development of CITES controls and are actively involved in working groups on species ranging from great apes to sharks. Our aim is to ensure that the international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

International trade in hunting trophies is controlled under CITES. Although there are examples of negative effects from big game hunting caused by poor or inappropriate management, scientific evidence shows that in certain limited and rigorously controlled cases, trophy and big game hunting can be an effective conservation tool, supporting local livelihoods and attracting revenue for other conservation activities. That was confirmed in the report that was prepared for the Government by Oxford University. That said, we will continue to look very carefully at big game imports, to ensure that they do not impact on the sustainability of endangered species in the country of origin.

The UK anti-corruption strategy recognises that countering the illegal wildlife trade requires concerted multilateral action to raise awareness, eradicate markets, strengthen legal frameworks, strengthen law enforcement and—critically—promote alternative livelihoods. While I in no way excuse such activity, if somebody can earn in one night what it would otherwise take them five years to earn, one might understand why people commit these crimes. However, there is no excuse for doing so. We are working with global partners, including the G20 and UN, to achieve the aims that I have outlined.

Progress is being made. UN resolutions, co-sponsored by the UK, recognise the links between IWT and corruption. In 2015, the UN General Assembly called upon member states for the first time

“to prohibit, prevent and counter any form of corruption that facilitates illicit trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products.”

Last year the UK worked successfully with Germany’s G20 presidency to agree high-level principles on combating corruption related to the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products.

The UK has shown global leadership in tackling IWT, and I thank right hon. Members and hon. Members for their generous comments about that. We hosted the first, groundbreaking London conference in 2014, which secured ambitious agreements from more than 40 Governments to take urgent, co-ordinated action and was hailed as a turning point in global efforts to tackle these damaging activities. We also played a leading role in the subsequent conferences in Botswana and Vietnam.

Previous conferences have achieved an international consensus against IWT, but we recognise that there is more to do. The levels of poaching of many species remain unsustainably high and, as has already been pointed out, organised criminal networks continue to benefit from the proceeds of IWT. That is why urgent, united action by the international community remains vital.

Our work on IWT fits within the four strategic pillars that were agreed at the first conference in London in 2014: eradicating the market for illegal wildlife products; ensuring effective legal frameworks and deterrents; strengthening law enforcement; and providing sustainable livelihoods and economic development. These four pillars are well established and are used globally to focus on IWT.

To help to reaffirm political commitment, we are bringing global leaders back to London this October for another conference. I understand that the invitations have gone out and we want to welcome people from around the world, so that we can come together to focus on tangible outcomes for delivery. In particular, we intend to focus on law enforcement and tackling the corruption that facilitates IWT. The conference will recognise IWT as a serious organised crime that affects people as well as animals, and it will harness the power of the private sector, non-government organisations, academia and technology to strengthen global action.

To support our global leadership on tackling IWT, the UK Government are investing £26 million in practical action around the world to reduce demand, strengthen enforcement, ensure effective legal frameworks and develop sustainable livelihoods for affected communities. We are providing funding to Interpol to expand its work on tracking and intercepting illegal shipments of ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products.

Also, the four-year Waylay II project starts this year. It will improve awareness and understanding of advanced investigative techniques in Kenya, Uganda, Singapore, Vietnam and China. We have funded the British military to provide tracker training for park rangers in African states. We have also worked with China to deliver joint training to African border forces, and we have committed up to £4 million to the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime—Interpol is one of the five organisations involved in the ICCWC—to help to strengthen criminal justice systems and co-ordinate support at regional, national and international levels to combat wildlife and forest crime. We have already paid £1.6 million of that money this month.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister has touched on this, but I asked in my contribution what help was being given towards training and equipping the rangers. Can she confirm that she has been able to help with that?

[Dr Coffey]

I have already pointed out that we have funded the British military to provide tracker training. I attended a project in South Africa, where we have worked with an organisation involving the Tusk Trust to increase anti-poacher training and the techniques to do that. More than one Member has asked about this, but we are investigating, as the 25-year environment plan said, the feasibility of a more established poaching taskforce. Just last week, I was in France speaking to my opposite number and we will explore options together. This work does not need to solely involve the UK Government or the British military; there should be a collective effort to extend it.

The Crown Prosecution Service has worked with officials in key states such as Kenya and Tanzania to share its expertise and to help to strengthen the enforcement activities in those countries. Part of the UK Government’s funding is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ IWT Challenge Fund. It funds 47 projects around the world and has a value of just over £14 million.

Those projects include training of rangers, border force agents and prosecutors; campaigns to reduce the demand for products in key markets; supporting legislative reform; and helping communities to manage their wildlife and benefit from it, for example through tourism. It also funds projects aimed at tackling corruption, by engaging with Governments, enforcement agencies and the private sector. There is also mapping of one area, as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton referred to. The next round of the IWT Challenge Fund is expected to open for applications later this year. I am sure that we will welcome any new projects, and I hope to announce the successful applicants to round four of the fund later this spring.

We are also strengthening action against IWT at home. We have consulted on proposals to introduce a total ban on UK sales of ivory, with narrowly defined and carefully targeted exemptions. It was welcome that we received more than 70,000 responses, with overwhelming support for a ban. A response to the consultation will be published shortly.

I know that hon. Members often ask, “What is ‘shortly’? When will it happen?” We want to ensure that any ban we propose will be effective and will not be open to legal challenge. That is why we need to go through, very carefully, every representation that has been made to us. If we did not do that, we would be subject to legal challenge, which could derail the legislation that is already being drafted on some of the big items, where there is no dispute about what we want to take forward. I can assure the Chamber that officials and lawyers are already actively working on this issue.

In the short time I have left, I will again mention the London conference. It will have three main themes—

UK Fisheries Policy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your authority, Mr Paisley. I did not expect to be called first. I was hoping for more than four minutes, but that is by the bye; I will work to your guidelines.

I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for initiating the debate and giving this chance to those of us who represent constituencies where fishing is important. I know that every fifth word in this place seems to be “Brexit”. That term was unknown five years ago, but now the very state of the UK depends on the success of Brexit and the negotiating team. That is one job that I would not want to have, and I thank those who are so diligently putting in the work to make the exit from the EU as smooth and rewarding as possible. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution today. I know that it will be very positive, as it always is. Who would have thought when we joined what was purported to be no more than a trade and customs group that we would be in this position today? The lesson is clear: sovereignty is easy to let slip through our fingers, but infinitely harder to regain.

One of the industries that have been worst affected by a biased Europe is fishing. I had in my area a tremendous working fishing village in Portavogie, with two fish-producing factories and 120 boats. That is now down to 70. Why did that happen? Because of the European bureaucracy imposing quotas and days at sea—all the things that made fishing not work. At the same time, the Irish sea abounds with cod, yet all the scientists in Brussels, who never get off a warm seat, have the audacity to tell us that there is no cod there when there clearly is. The people who know that are the people who fish the sea. There are, therefore, very big issues to address.

When the nation voted to leave, the fishermen rejoiced. Indeed, every man, woman and unborn child in Portavogie voted to leave, because there was no doubt that that was what they wanted to happen. Nobody in Portavogie wanted to stay in Europe, and my constituency clearly reflected that opinion because a majority voted to leave. Our seas will be ours again. We will be able to thrive. We can pass our trade on to our families. We can hire the wonderful Filipino fishermen, who so greatly enhance our crews with their skill, dedication and commitment to our community, without the impossible red tape that forces us to take on European workers who do not have the same skill set or mindset. We can sell our products to our people at decent, affordable prices, which will benefit the restaurants and the consumers alike. However, the March 2019 deadline is striding towards us, and as yet our fishermen have none of the certainty that they crave and, indeed, deserve. Again, we look to the Minister for some confirmation in that regard.

I, along with many others in the Chamber, have seen the letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. The letter clearly outlines the needs of the fishing community and the villages and towns that rely on that community. It is crystal clear about the need for an immediate red line around our waters and the ability for fishermen to be just that: men who fish, and women who fish, without being used as political pawns. I for one do not see the families of Portavogie and surrounding areas or the families of Kilkeel or Ardglass as expendable. I see them as people who voted to leave, along with the majority of the United Kingdom, and who therefore deserve to leave at the same time as everyone else, in March 2019. No one has been fooled by the most recent Brussels fishing convention, which saw our quota increase, just in the last year. The fact is that Europe puts the true Europeans first. We are leaving and we are looking forward to the day when we do just that.

I am standing in this Chamber today to say that we cannot give a sop to the Europeans. For too long, they have controlled British waters with anti-British policies. That must end in March 2019. Would that it could end in March 2018. Boy, that would be an even bigger day. The cries of joy and relief would be heard from the most easterly port of Ballyhalbert right across the Irish sea to the coast of Scotland, where the Scottish nationalists would also want to take note of the message that was coming through very clearly. Their fishing communities would be echoing those cries.

Fishing is not a sop; it has been the lifeblood of coastal communities and other, supplementary industries and it has the potential to be so again. We must extricate ourselves from the EU muddle and do what is right. Leave means leave now, and that is exactly what we are demanding of the Minister.