Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We did indeed enter Parliament together, and in those early weeks when we did not really have an office, and we were adjusting to the long-hours culture, and we missed our children—I was pining for mine—he was kind enough to make me hot cocoa late at night. I have not forgotten those early times.

Let me update the House. My hon. Friend was the Member of Parliament who landed the prize of securing a change in the law of 1837 that did not allow mothers the same right as fathers in terms of marriage registration, but progress is slow on the accompanying regulation. My hon. Friend may wish to join me in putting some pressure on the future Government to complete that process, because there are practical steps that can be taken in the short term. The Church has offered to allow existing registration books to be used, and where it says “father”, the name of the mother can be added in brackets. If it is to take a while to take marriage registration into the digital age, many mums who are hoping to have that new right can achieve it in the short term by means of a simple practical solution.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

12. What assessment the Church of England has made of the effectiveness of the use of digital technologies to reach new congregations.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

During my time as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I have seen the Church of England transform its digital communications. Its annual mission statistics show, for example, that the Daily Prayer app has been downloaded more than 5 million times and is used on average for eight minutes per user per day; our social media now reaches 3.6 million people; the A Church Near You website allows people to google their nearest church and the times of the services there; and an Alexa skill set up by the Church has had more than 100,000 inquiries.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and for the incredible job she has done as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. She has been truly amazing and a great friend to many of us. I have fond memories of her not only in her current role but on many occasions in Switzerland on the annual skiing visit. I would like to thank her for her friendship.

The Church is central to all our communities, and engaging with the wider public is ever more important. Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about what the Church intends to do to ensure that wider engagement through the use of social media and digital is rolled out more widely across the whole country?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. For the record, I must say that being Second Church Estates Commissioner has been a great blessing. When I was invited to do the job, David Cameron said to me, “The thing about this role, Caroline, is that you are answerable only to the Queen and God.” What a privilege that is!

It so happens that I met the diocesan directors of communication yesterday at Canterbury cathedral, and they are all really aware of the transition that the Church needs to make into a fully digital version of what it does today. I have given the House an indication of that, but for those of us who still like a hard copy of things to inspire us, I draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that the forthcoming busy time will at some point be coterminous with Advent, for which the Church has published a “Follow the Star” booklet, which hon. Members are welcome to avail themselves of.

Wildlife Crime

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. There will, unfortunately, be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.27 pm. I call Sir David Amess.

Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who led the debate so well on behalf of the Petitions Committee. She said that she is no expert, but she put forward good arguments. As hon. Members will find out, I am no expert on the subject either, but I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is considering the relevant legislation, which is why I have been given the pleasure of summing up for the Scottish National party.

In a way it is strange to be having this debate about a petition against a suggestion from an animal rights organisation. People are so concerned about the suggestion that they are getting their retaliation in first by launching this petition. Usually, petitions are launched because of Government intentions or something the Government have already done, so it is certainly unusual that it is not the Government getting a bashing today.

I am a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and it sums up this place for me that—as the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), has said—we have already had a Minister in front of the Committee to discuss the existing legislation, but that Minister is a Lord in the other place, and therefore we have another Government Minister here to respond to the petition, rather than the Minister who is responsible for the legislation itself. It seems a bit outdated, to say the least.

Turning to the contributions, we heard first from the hon. Member for Warrington North. She started off talking about dangerous dogs and her experience of being bitten twice while out leafleting or canvassing. I share her experience because I have had the same thing. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the problem is the silent dog that lies in wait and manages to pounce way, way higher than anyone would ever expect a wee dog to be able to pounce. It was amazing how quickly I moved my finger, even though it was too late. I also discovered that trying to soldier on and do further leafleting was a bit of a lost cause when I was dripping blood on to the next door that I went to and on to the leaflets. I thought, “That’s no way to win votes,” so unfortunately I had to give up that day.

The hon. Member for Warrington North is also right about what happened in 1991. There were some high-profile cases and the media demanded some action, which resulted in rushed and flawed legislation. That legislation is still on the statute books, and it should certainly be reviewed. She said that from her perspective there are two questions that we must address: whether breed-specific legislation is the correct tool and, if so, whether Staffordshire dogs should be added to that. However, running through her contribution and those of others was the idea that it is not necessarily the dogs themselves but irresponsible owners who need to be tackled.

The Chair of the Select Committee said that he would not give away any preview of what will be in the Committee’s report, but it might have saved me a bit of work if he had done that. He highlighted the harrowing visit to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which illustrated to him the risks of breed-specific legislation and how it is interpreted, and the fact that dogs with good temperaments are being put down. That is inhumane, it makes no sense and it is illogical, and it underlines the flaws in the breed-specific legislation.

The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting statistic that, while 20% of bites can be attributed to terrier-type dogs, they make up a greater percentage of the dog population. That in itself shows that other considerations apply. He said that we need to look at the matter in the round, which I would suggest is a hint of what might end up in the report, because looking at it in the round would suggest to me perhaps having a risk register rather than breed-specific legislation that completely outlaws breeds. I may be wrong, but that is certainly something I am thinking about. He also highlighted the important issue that not all dogs are microchipped and the information in the microchips may not be valid; that is also something we need to look at to ensure that it is done correctly.

In a light-hearted anecdote, the hon. Gentleman also finished with a story about visiting a number of farms where he had to retreat using dustbin lids to fend off dogs. It reminded me of the Billy Connolly joke that what tigers fear most in the world is chairs, because that was what was used to control them in circuses of old. With recycling and the fact that our bins have changed, I worry about how the hon. Gentleman will now arm himself against dogs; I am sure that a wheelie bin is awkward to wheel at speed.

We heard from the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) who, not surprisingly, defended the honour of Staffordshire terriers, as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) also did. It was interesting to hear how the Staffordshire dog came to be the mascot of the Staffordshire regiment. I noted the hopes of the hon. Member for Stafford that the currently disbanded regiment would be reborn in the future. Unfortunately, given the cuts we have seen to the armed services, I think that is a forlorn hope, but I wish him well in lobbying the Government on that.

Importantly, the hon. Gentleman also highlighted the fact that the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and Blue Cross are against Staffordshire terriers being added to breed-specific legislation. Given the quality of the work those organisations do and their reputations, it is important that we listen to them, and their views underline the case. He concluded by saying that we should not vilify an entire breed.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I apologise that I was not here for the start of the debate; I was chairing a Delegated Legislation Committee. I have owned two Staffordshire bull terriers—in fact, I have had Staffordshire bull terriers for 25 years of my life—and they are the most amazing, gentle dogs. The very suggestion that they should be added to the flawed Dangerous Dogs Act—which should never have been brought in in the first place and which, in my view, has had no effect in making things safer for people in this country—is extremely foolhardy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that legislation on animal welfare and the safety of the public regarding dogs should be based on dealing with the deed, the action or the use of the dog by irresponsible owners, not on picking on Staffordshire bull terriers, or for that matter any other breed?

[Alan Brown]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. As he said, he has had Staffordshire bull terriers for 25 years. Loving, caring dog owners create loving dogs. That is how it is. Dangerous dogs are created by irresponsible owners, sometimes through neglect and sometimes through wilful behavioural training to create a dangerous dog, which is alarming in itself. We need to tackle those people, rather than worrying about specific dog breeds.

I will touch briefly on some of the evidence I picked up on in the Select Committee inquiry. This might or might not find its way into the report, and I might be at odds with other Committee members, but it seemed to me that the police have said that they are open to changes to breed-specific legislation. They say that other measures are needed to allow controls to be put in place and allow people to tackle dangerous dogs, but they are certainly receptive to changes to BSL.

There needs to be greater information-sharing between various local authorities and individual police forces across England and Wales, so that anyone who is banned from owning dogs because they have had dangerous dogs is tracked if they move from one area to another. That is something that needs to be looked at. Resources for local authorities seem to be an issue, and in some cases, a clearer understanding is needed between the polic and the relevant local authority as to who has most responsibility for enforcing the legislation on dangerous dogs.

As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Scottish Government have introduced additional legislation in Scotland, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which touches on the general theme of this debate—looking at deeds rather than individual dogs. That Act was,

“designed to highlight the responsibilities of dog owners by putting in place a regime that will identify ‘out of control’ dogs at an early juncture”.

It includes measures to try to change the behaviour of these dogs and, of course, their owners, because owners need to be able to train their dogs and implement the change before the dogs become dangerous. It is about early intervention. That buzz phrase is used quite a lot in politics, but it is clearly important in ensuring the welfare of dogs. The 2010 Act also created a dog control notice regime that permits officers—appointed and authorised by the local authority—to issue dog control notices to irresponsible owners of any dog found to have been out of control, while also setting out what “out of control” means.

The general theme of the debate has definitely been about tackling owners, rather than vilifying individual breeds. There is certainly a case for looking at the existing legislation and bringing forward improvements. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. We absolutely have to remember that it is often how we treat an animal that creates certain behaviours.

The RSPCA tells me that, year on year, Staffordshire bull terriers are the one breed that ends up in its centres most often, through no fault of their own. They can often be overlooked because of the preconceptions many people have about them, which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are simply wrong. As we have heard, Staffies can make great pets, with the more than 150,000 signatures to the petition demonstrating how strongly Staffordshire owners feel. Like any dog, with the right owner, they make great pets.

In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into dangerous dog legislation, the RSPCA said that it believes breed-specific legislation—BSL—is ineffective in terms of public safety and results in the unnecessary suffering and euthanasia of many dogs. It says that BSL should be repealed, and issues around human safety tackled using education and effective legislative measures that do not unnecessarily compromise dog welfare.

The RSPCA goes on to say that BSL fails to deliver what it was designed to do. It has not reduced hospital admissions from dog bites, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North. It has not improved public safety, and it has not reduced the numbers of dogs of the breeds or types it legislates against. The RSPCA wants dog control legislation reformed such that BSL is repealed and replaced, education is put in place to ensure that high-risk behaviour towards dogs is avoided, and all severe and fatal dog bite incidents are properly investigated.

Just before Easter, I was lucky enough to visit Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, and I again met an abandoned dog that was about to be put down after being typed. Staff had exactly the same concerns that we have already heard about. I also visited another rescue centre—Oak Tree, near my constituency, in Cumbria—and had the same situation again. This is not unusual; every time I visit a rescue centre, I am presented with exactly the same situation. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home believes that the Dangerous Dogs Act is ineffective at protecting the public, because, as we have heard, there has been no appreciable reduction in dog attacks since it was passed.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady say that. She is coming at this from exactly the right angle. The Dangerous Dogs Act was brought in in 1991 and was a knee-jerk reaction. It has never been effective and has always been completely flawed. There should surely be cross-party consensus to review this legislation so that we have an effective law that protects the public and is not cruel to animals—that have committed no crime and have never bitten anybody—because of their appearance or breed. As the shadow Minister for animal welfare prior to the 2010 general election, I championed reviewing the legislation; sadly, this Government have not yet looked at it properly and dealt with it. Will the hon. Lady work with the Minister to try to find a consensus? The current legislation has to be reviewed and changed.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would be happy to work with anyone to improve the legislation, because this is about animal welfare and treating dogs fairly, but also about protecting people. At the moment, the legislation does not work for either of those.

Battersea argues for the abolition or, at the very least, reformation of BSL. It calls it a sticking plaster that does not prevent public harm, and it wants the Government to amend the legislation to ensure that dogs are not put down simply because of their appearance.

It is also right that proper education and community engagement processes should be in place to help the public better understand dog behaviour and to encourage responsible ownership. I am a pet owner—I have a dog, a cat and all sorts—and being a pet owner is so rewarding, but people need to understand, particularly when taking on a dog, that it is a huge responsibility. People need to be better educated when they buy their dogs in the first place. It is clear that, in the wrong hands, any dog has the potential to injure either people or other animals. I have a Labrador, and when I was researching this issue, I was horrified to find out that many Labradors carry out attacks. My dog is so soft that I cannot imagine that it would do that. It just shows that, in the wrong hands, any dog can be dangerous.

To sum up, we need to ensure that we focus on ownership rather than on a particular breed or type of dog. I say to the Minister that it is really important that the legislation has a proper, thorough review. It would be good if that were carried out by DEFRA and we could have some timescales as to when he will be able to look into this issue, because it seems to me, from this debate and from discussion further afield, that there is a pretty broad consensus that what we have on the statute book at the moment simply is not working to protect either people or dogs.

I am very pleased that the Government, in their response to the petition, have said that they have no plans to ban Staffies. I look forward with interest to the EFRA Committee’s report and hope that the Minister will pay close attention to its recommendations.

I shall finish with a plea to the Minister from dog owners everywhere. Let us get the legislation right to protect both the public and dogs. We need the right education to be in place, and we need to focus on how we can effectively tackle irresponsible dog owners, not just the dogs themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

To reiterate what I said earlier, the Government have no plans at all to add the Staffordshire bull terrier to the prohibited list. We have been clear about that in response to the e-petition. We have trained police officers who are skilled in identifying the breed and type of dogs, in particular the pit bull terrier, which is the main banned breed that we are concerned with.

In addition to the community protection notices, many forces use non-statutory letters and notices. Those can come in the form of “coming to notice” warning letters and voluntary acceptable behaviour contracts. The notices are simple to use and remove the need for a statutory notice or prosecution. The Government are also committed to public safety and to tackling dangerous dogs through communication and education. Co-operation between the police and local authorities is vital. That is why we have endorsed initiatives such as LEAD—the local environmental awareness on dogs scheme—which encourages the police and local authorities to co-operate and share information when there has been a minor incident, and to provide advice to the dog owner on dog control issues to improve public safety. We also support an increase in awareness at all levels of society, as the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) highlighted. We are aware that many police forces and welfare charities, such as the Dogs Trust, visit schools to help to raise awareness of responsible dog ownership, and we fully endorse that work.

As several hon. Members pointed out, we need to do more to ensure that dogs are properly socialised, whatever their breed. We have done a lot to tackle the online trading of dogs through our work with the pet advertising advisory group. Dogs that are advertised and sold online have often not been socialised or raised properly. We have also introduced new requirements on pet breeding, particularly dog breeding, and on the sale of dogs to tighten up the licensing regime for people who breed and sell puppies as pets.

We have had a good and thoughtful debate on this contentious issue. I do not pretend that the legislation is perfect, and I understand that some people consider elements of it arbitrary, but for the reasons that I have given, the Government do not believe there is a case for changing the legislation at this time. We believe that we can deal with some of those exceptional circumstances through the exempted index.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for the assurance that Staffordshire bull terriers will not be added to that list, which will come as a great relief to Staffordshire bull terrier owners across the country. People like me who have owned Staffordshires know that they are fantastic, great British dogs that are not a danger to the general public.

The Minister says that he does not intend to change the legislation, but will he at least consider reviewing it to create a cross-party discussion about how we can move forward? The legislation is flawed, and if the Government say that it will never change, that will condemn many innocent dogs to death unnecessarily for a long time to come, which would be wrong.

[George Eustice]

I had thought we were going to finish on a note of consensus. We can all agree that the Staffordshire bull terrier should not be put on the banned list. The Government have been clear about that.

On my hon. Friend’s final point, the Government are not persuaded at the moment that there is a case for change. I discuss the issue regularly with Lord Gardiner and, as I said, it is complex. We recognise some of the arguments against the current provisions, but we also recognise the risks of deviating from the rules and laws that we have in place.

Pet Theft

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that detailed intervention. He is absolutely right; he makes a fair point about gun dogs.

The number of reported dog thefts was 14% higher in 2016 than it was in 2015. Dogs are stolen to order, to sell, to breed, for ransom and even for use as bait and for dog fighting. The Staffordshire bull terrier remains Britain’s most stolen breed. Dogs are stolen from gardens, houses, kennels, from outside—

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I really commend the hon. Gentleman for leading this debate today. I have owned two Staffordshire bull terriers; sadly, they are no longer with us. The devastation of losing a pet in this way, through being stolen, is horrendous, so does the hon. Gentleman agree not only that the Government need to bring in much stiffer sentences as quickly as possible, but that we need to encourage everyone to scan animals—particularly vets, when an animal is taken to a veterinary surgeon—and we need to ensure that education about this crime is widespread so that people are aware that it is a potential threat? An animal should not just be seen as a piece of property; losing one is really like losing a member of the family.

[Mike Hill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He goes to the heart of the debate on many of those issues. I know that

Dogs are stolen outside shops and from cars, and while they are out exercising, on or off the lead. Nowhere is safe for unattended dogs. Owners of bulldogs, pugs, French bulldogs and chihuahuas, for example, have been stalked on walks. Some have had to fight off an attacker who is trying to snatch their dog, or have later been a victim of a home invasion where the only thing stolen was their dog.

Cats are being increasingly targeted. In 2016, 261 cats were reported as stolen to police forces—an increase of 40% on 2014. However, a 2017 study revealed that 360,000 adults believed their cat had been stolen in the past 12 months. SAMPA believes those figures only scratch the surface, as police forces record this crime differently across the country and theft by finding is never recorded in police figures. Everyone assumes it will not happen to them, but no one is safe from this devastating crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that colleagues now feel enlightened about the teeth situation.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

6. When he plans to publish the findings of his consultation on the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill; and if he will bring forward legislative proposals on five-year sentences for animal cruelty.

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

Our proposals to enshrine animal sentience in domestic law and to extend mandatory sentences for cruelty to five years received positive responses, and we plan to publish the findings of those consultations soon.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that five-year sentencing for animal cruelty has gained cross-party support from MPs, the animal sector and the public, will he tell us how soon he will announce the details of when sentences can be given to those guilty of such awful crimes?

[George Eustice]

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of this measure, and for some time I have pressed to have maximum sentences for cruelty extended, particularly for some of the most shocking cases of cruelty. The Government are committed to doing this, we have published how we intend to do it, and as soon as parliamentary time allows we intend to introduce this change.

Puppy Smuggling

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

I advise Members that if everyone is to get a chance to speak, they need to restrict their speeches to three to four minutes.

Animals in Peril

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

In September, I read an article in the New Statesman entitled “We Are Heading Towards a World Without Animals”. It was a shocking title for an article perhaps, but one that presents a truly horrific prospect for our world. Perhaps we need to be shocked—shocked into taking deadly seriously what must surely be one of the most profound issues our world faces today.

This powerful article, written by Simon Barnes, considered some of the most deeply concerning statistics, which highlighted the plight of some of our planet’s most gravely endangered species. The article quotes the Living Planet Index, compiled by the Zoological Society of London and the WWF, and warns of a dramatic decline in wild animals by 2020, with 13,000 of the 65,000 species listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as being under threat, with 3,000 of those being critically endangered.

For example, African grey parrots have declined in numbers by up to 79% in the past 47 years, lions by 43% in 21 years and giraffes by 40% in 30 years. Possibly the worst of all is the decrease in the number of black rhinos—95% in the past 50 years. Primates are also drastically falling in numbers: a study published in the journal Science Advances revealed that 60% are threatened with extinction, including gorillas and chimpanzees. In the British Isles, we are by no means immune from the decrease in native species, with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reporting the hen harrier being close to extinction in the UK, the turtle dove declining by 93% since the ’70s and the skylark having a population 10% of what it was 30 years ago.

We have also lost 8% of our butterfly species and 3% of the beetle population, and hedgehogs are in huge decline too, with their numbers plummeting to around 1 million, compared to 36 million in the ’50s. As we all know, the red squirrel population continues to dwindle. I could go on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this Adjournment debate and congratulate him on the hard work that he does on all these issues. May I say this to him very gently? Does he not agree that there is an onus on each of us not simply to refrain from harming animals, but to play our part in securing a better environment and habitat for animals? Will he join me in recognising the wonderful conservation work that is done in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the wildfowling clubs and, indeed, the country sports sector as a whole?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and agree entirely with his comments.

The author of the article does not pull his punches, stating that our planet is going through a significant change, that we are witnessing “right now” the process of widespread extinction and that humans

“seem to have accepted the idea that the loss of wild animals is the sad but acceptable price of progress…The loss of animal species is not seen as a serious matter—when did you last hear a politician talk about the extinction crisis?”

Well, tonight we are proving that assumption to be wrong: in this House of Commons and across the world, we must speak up about this crisis and do so with clarity, ever more loudly and with increasing frequency.

Keynote statistics about marine wildlife are also extremely alarming. The acidity and temperature of the seas are rising, and according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 2016 report, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture”, 90% of fish stocks across the world are fully exploited, over-exploited or in crisis. With the global human population increasing and the demand for all natural resources sky rocketing, scientists are understandably pessimistic about the future. Rationalising why these significant and deplorable animal population decreases have happened, and how to stop them decreasing further, is now a vital matter that we simply have to address. If we do not, we may suddenly find ourselves in a world with little or no large mammalian wildlife and a fundamentally disturbed nature across land, sea and air. What an empty world that would be. None of us could feel pride in handing it to future generations.

It is important to note that the animals in peril across the world are not just the large, iconic creatures we all love so much. Indeed, the vast majority are not. We all need to study the work of ZSL’s “EDGE of Existence” programme, which prioritises species that are both evolutionary distinct and globally endangered according to the red list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. An example is the Attenborough’s long-beaked echidna. Named in honour of Sir David Attenborough, it was previously believed to be extinct. The EDGE programme uses a scientific approach to allocate limited funding most effectively to unique and special animals that could otherwise be so easily forgotten. If such species are lost, there will be nothing else like them on earth. I hope that the Minister with reassure the House that Her Majesty’s Government regularly consult organisations such as ZSL and IUCN for their expertise and input on environmental policy on worldwide ecosystems.

During my time as an MP, as shadow Animal Welfare Minister between 2007 and 2010, and as chairman of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group since 2010, I have been privileged to work with many wildlife, conservation and animal welfare organisations, especially the ZSL and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and many esteemed environmental organisations devoted to protecting wildlife in all forms. Today, sadly, there is much pessimism about the future. The message from organisations such as the UN, the World Wide Fund for Nature, BIAZA, Fauna & Flora International and many others is clear: we are running out of time and more needs to be done—much more.

The scientific consensus for that point of view is global and extensive. Oregon State University’s “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: a second notice” article argues that humanity needs to be environmentally sustainable, and it has been signed by more than 13,000 scientists from across the world. How many scientists need to speak out before Governments, politicians and people from across the world realise that it is in mankind’s vital interests to ensure that our way of life is sustainable both now and in the future? The time to act is not next year or after the next election or at some point in the future; the time to act is now. For example, we are all aware of the dire threat to the bee population caused by some insecticides. Is it not obvious that we should be acting pre-emptively both on climate change and when the existence of vital ecosystems are threatened, rather than waiting for a real crisis point or, worse, for when it is too late?

Before I talk about the areas where I believe Her Majesty’s Government must do more, I want to mention the recently announced plans to ban the ivory trade in the UK. This ban is of course right, but it is long overdue. I commend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for taking the lead on the issue at long last and acting to halt the decline in the world’s elephant population. However, I fear that it may be seen in future years as too little, too late. The UK has been too slow to realise the enormous implications of the global ivory trade on the populations of large mammalian life, with the saddest statistics of all showing the ongoing collapse of the elephant population.

Around three quarters of a million African and Asian elephants exist in the wild today, but that number has fallen by 144,000 in the past seven years alone. I repeat: 144,000 in seven years. That rapid and seemingly out-of-control collapse is overwhelmingly due to the barbaric practice of poaching. Those numbers are astonishing and, on the face of it, show why the UK Government have done the right thing. However, why did we not act earlier? Of course we cannot turn the clock back, but we can learn from our mistakes and work to prevent a similar lack of foresight in future.

We must act faster to protect and save our wildlife by working with international organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, to do everything possible to crush poachers, to promote job creation in environmental conservation efforts across the world and, most importantly, to strive to rebalance our relationship with the natural world.

 In what has become an increasingly unstable world, I have no doubt that the United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in working with our allies on maintaining geopolitical stability and preventing humanitarian crises, but, as our world becomes more complicated and harder to govern, my fear is that nature suffers, often taking a lower priority.

Twenty years from now, what will we say if some of the world’s most iconic animals exist only in zoos and ecosystems across the world have collapsed or are on the verge of collapsing? How will we explain that to future generations?

We must surely make protecting our environment a key priority and a major destination of our resources. Our political system is designed to introduce, debate and pass legislation incrementally, and in this complicated age of domestic and international politics it is straining to find the time and energy to devote to such a big problem. With animal populations decreasing at such a dramatic rate, and with the global human population increasing by 83 million a year, we may need to be more radical in our approach.

I call upon Her Majesty’s Government to do the following. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs greater resources to place more people on the ground to protect animals and plants in peril across the world. The Department for International Development should also re-evaluate how it allocates money and consider how it might provide more help for anti-poaching efforts and environmental conservation.

The Government should also allocate more time in both the House of Commons and in the other place for debating environmental issues. Given the significance of some of the challenges we are discussing, using more of our time on this matter would not only be appropriate but would gain widespread public approval.

The Government also need to make greater commitments to international conventions and agreements and push for further-reaching targets, especially as we leave the European Union. For instance, will the Government commit to replacing the biodiversity strategy, adopted by the European Union in 2011, with an equal or greater British strategy? The United Kingdom has led the world on these issues in the past, and I have no doubt that the Minister will agree that Britain can and must do so again.

Additionally, the Government need to continue to commit to the UN’s sustainable development goals. Although those goals do not necessarily focus on the protection of wildlife alone, it is beyond question that to ensure wildlife is protected and sustainable, both in the UK and worldwide, we need to counter issues such as poverty, health, education and sustainable cities. On the last of those issues, it is important that in the UK we ensure our cities can be a home for wildlife. We can help people and nature by improving air and river quality, and by expanding the size and improving the health of green spaces in every urban area. In short, we must ensure that future legislation uses every opportunity to promote conservation.

Finally, we must use our international influence to help, persuade and, if necessary, press Governments across the world to be more environmentally sustainable, which I consider to be an appropriate use of British influence and power. We must lead the world by example, educate and persuade, and we must never give in.

I draw my speech to a close by reflecting on the good that can be done when animals and plants in peril are identified and helped. There are teams of scientists, conservationists, zoologists and environmentalists across the world, many underpaid or just volunteers, who are dedicating their lives to helping the environment in all ways. It is right that we in the House pay tribute to what they have done and continue to do in working so hard to study these issues, often with their feet on the ground, to protect and guard our wildlife and natural environment.

Many such examples, I am proud to say, are some of the excellent conservation projects on and around our overseas territories. The UK and its overseas territories combined represent the fifth largest marine estate in the world, and have been at the vanguard of global efforts to increase ocean protection through the blue belt policy to create the largest marine sanctuaries anywhere on the planet. The UK is custodian to a third of the world’s albatrosses, the world’s largest coral atoll and, believe it or not, perhaps more than a quarter of the global population of penguins; 2018 represents the first milestone in this Parliament for the blue belt, with the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands conducting a review of the sustainable-use marine protected area, encompassing more than 1 million sq km of its exclusive economic zone. The Great British oceans coalition, comprised of the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Greenpeace, BLUE, the Marine Conservation Society and the ZSL, is calling for the reclassification of the South Sandwich Islands as a fully protected reserve, highlighting that by safeguarding more than 500,000 sq km of pristine sub-Antarctic habitat, the UK can reaffirm its standing as a global leader by becoming the only nation in the world to create fully protected marine areas in the Indian, Pacific, Atlantic and Southern oceans.

When I learn of such fantastic and ambitious work being conducted in all corners of the planet, with Britain taking the lead, I am reassured. However, it cannot be business as usual. Although we are trying so hard to reverse and heal the damage caused to animal populations and wildlife across the world, it is pointless if we do not stop the cause of the problem. We need to engage ourselves in an enormous effort to guarantee the future of the wild, and the many animals and plants in peril, so that our successors can enjoy the knowledge of there being a wild beyond our shores, within these islands and on our very doorstep, and not find themselves in a world without animals.

In short, we as a civilisation, have to face up to one of the biggest challenges we will ever encounter: rebalancing how we fit within the natural world. As the great pioneer of conservation and founder of Jersey Zoo, Gerald Durrell, stated a generation ago:

“People think that I am just trying to look after nice, fluffy animals. What I am really trying to do is to stop the human race from committing suicide.”