Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026
Lord Swire Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who lives in Devon, I look forward to a long period of the cream teas of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for which he will regrettably have more time to produce as a result of the delinking of the hereditary peerage and the legislative process of this country.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement, and several things strike me. The first is that this assault on the rural community and the farming community is not a perception but a reality. We have seen farm incomes shrinking year on year, rapid increases in costs—not least, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Redwood, the problems we now confront with fertiliser, which are very serious indeed—as well as the tremendous growth in bureaucracy, the chopping and changing of government policies, and the bringing forward of this latest government policy, which creates huge amounts of paperwork for farmers who should be out there farming.
The missed opportunity presented by this rethink on farming in this country concerns me. At a time when we should be looking long term at food security and food production, we seem to be thinking in the short term. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to encourage younger people to come into the industry just at a time when we are seeing it getting older, with more and more people giving up—or wanting to give up—their farms? What hope can she hold out to a younger generation that there is a career and a life in farming for them as well? What more can she do to encourage the land-based colleges up and down the country, which have often suffered from very poor financial support, to get younger people into the industry? Only in that way will we preserve the landscape in the way that she envisages.
We can divert every kind of subsidy into all these initiatives—I have no problem with some of those at all—but, at the end of the day, it is a manmade landscape that we enjoy. It is made and preserved by the land managers and the farmers. Without them, it will not continue to exist, and nor will the food on which we have come to depend.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Devon, this is my final speech in the Chamber, so it is a rather poignant moment. It feels rather odd speaking on this topic today—as if, after 24 years, I have come full circle. I found this rather interesting report when I cleared my desk last week, which was written by a chap called Curry in 2002. Let me read a sentence from page 23:
“The guiding principle must be that public money should be used to pay for public goods that the public wants and needs: remaining price supports and associated production controls must go; direct payments should be phased out as quickly as possible”.
Here we are, 24 years later, completing that process.
The journey to this point has been anything but straightforward. I must say that, 10 years after leaving the European Union and 10 Secretaries of State in Defra later, successive Governments have failed to provide the leadership that the farming industry deserves. We had a unique opportunity, whether or not one agreed with Brexit, to write a new script and to design a plan to deliver all the public goods that
“the public wants and needs”,
to use the phrase in the report. What we have had is 10 years of dithering, indecision and procrastination. Of course we had Covid to disrupt the process, but here we are, still with no plan, vision or clarity on our future ambitions for this crucial industry of ours. To give the current Government some credit, we now have a land-use framework after five years of gestation, and the promise of a farming road map, which the Minister mentioned. Meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo, unclear of what is expected of them. The transition journey is ending with this debate, but the train does not have a destination.
What, therefore, are the public goods that the public need and want, which farmers and land managers can deliver? We have wrestled with this definition of public goods, and with which public goods require government intervention because there is no functioning market for them. Carbon markets are still immature, and natural capital is still a great idea, but most environmental outcomes still require government intervention: restoring and maintaining habitats, cleaning up and managing water, carbon sequestration and so on. We need clean air, clean water and healthy soils. One outcome that farmers can deliver, and are delivering, successfully is renewable energy. We certainly do not need any further financial inducements to deliver that, particularly solar. I hope that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has read the land-use framework document and begins to think about it before completely ignoring local opinion when he blindly signs off every large solar application to cross his desk.
The $64,000 question is about food, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, has stated. If, as the Government have recognised, food security is national security, what does this mean? Food is the outcome from the management of the countryside that most farmers want to deliver; it is why they came into farming. So if it is a public good—I think the Government now accept that it is—is there a functioning market that supports the production of food at a price that provides farmers with an adequate return without government intervention? This, it seems to me, is the fundamental question, and it was of course the challenge given to the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. We wait with keen interest for the Government’s response to her important report.
Two factors are important. For the market to function well, it requires fair competition, so there is a need for an adjudicator to oversee a market dominated by powerful players. I welcome the move of the GSCOP adjudicator to Defra. I hope this will lead to much stronger links to the sectoral adjudicators and a more forensic monitoring of market behaviour. The wider scheme also ought to include the processing sector, which it does not at present.
The second factor is that a well-functioning market requires a level playing field, with imports being produced to the same or equivalent standards as we have here. Despite regular reassurances that the new trade deals are robust, I am still concerned about this. The only way to be satisfied is to carry out a thorough and regular audit of supply chains in countries of origin, which requires resources and audit not only of food safety standards but of environmental measures and animal welfare standards so that trade can compete fairly.
Having satisfied ourselves on supply chain relationships and achieved a level playing field on imports, is it possible to produce food profitably without subsidisation? The most efficient farmers can—at least some of the time. Skills, training and technical knowledge are important. TIAH has been established to help with skills. Access to scientific knowledge is important, as are benchmarking, having excellent business skills, adding value wherever possible, applying risk management tools, and so on. Producing what the market wants is critical, particularly having access to local markets and the public sector. All these need to be in place, and the Government need to help.
Do we need to reconsider our attitude to subsidies? I do not think we should go back to direct subsidisation of food production. It distorts markets, distorts behaviour and puts developing countries at a serious disadvantage. However, there is much more we could do to assist farmers in their commitment to produce food, which is also in the nation’s interest. I have been struck recently, when rummaging through old documents, by how influential the development grant schemes were that I and most farmers took advantage of in the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s to improve our facilities and build fences, buildings, equipment, et cetera.
To extend the SFI application process to embrace and include productivity support, rather than a separate productivity grant scheme—to help improve business efficiency, alongside environmental management and environmental protection measures—would deliver multiple outcomes from a multifunctional landscape through a combined scheme. With today’s online technology, it would not cost much more to administer than the current complex mix of schemes we have. Every farm business should have the opportunity to participate, either individually or through a combined collaborative scheme. This should include tax allowances appropriate for investments. The Treasury should recognise the critical importance of this industry of ours and the importance of producing food.
After introducing the entry-level scheme following this report, we achieved over 70% participation in stewardship schemes. We have regressed since then. The current uncertainty and stop-start processes with the SFI will not deliver the landscape improvements in environmental management, including the species improvement and restoration that we need. Whole catchments need to be included and every farm needs to engage. All the agencies need to work together—all of them—to agree plans for the Wye Valley, the Tees Valley, the chalk streams and, importantly, the Tyne Valley. The list goes on.
We need to be bold in developing a new vision for farming and the management of the countryside that is agreed in partnership with the sector—I hope the Minister will confirm that the new partnership board will be given the authority it needs to develop that—not imposed upon it by government, so that it has ownership and buy-in: a vision that gives every farmer the opportunity to deliver the vital outcomes that the countryside is capable of, including wholesome and healthy food. In fact, most of it is in this report.
I add my thanks, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, did, to the whole team here in the House of Lords: the doorkeepers, the clerks, the staff and the restaurant staff—everybody who has made my life very easy. It has been a pleasure to work with them and to have their support, and a great honour to be a Member of this House.
Construction Industry: Timber
Lord Swire Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl is always very quick to talk about the grey squirrel, and rightly so. As he says, we have recently published our plan on grey squirrel management—if any Members are interested, they can find it on the Defra website. At the moment, the main way people manage populations is through culling as best they can. We would prefer to have more humane ways of managing pests. As the noble Earl knows, we are now investing in the scientific research on contraceptives that is taking place. If we can crack that, it would make a huge difference, but I urge noble Lords to read the document.
Lord Swire (Con)
I was slightly concerned when the Minister talked about the standardisation of house design. I contend that one of the reasons people are so negative about development is the standardisation of housing estates and designs up and down the country. With that in mind, what more can be done to encourage people to build in the vernacular—thatch and cob, in my part of the world—and, at the same time, improve the knowledge and understanding of local planning officers so that they properly understand the needs and demands of local architecture in the differing parts of our great country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need some standardised pattern books. We need a fairly extensive housebuilding programme and we must ensure that those houses are built to a minimum standard of quality. However, I take the noble Lord’s point about the importance of vernacular building in certain places. It is my understanding that, within its planning advice, the MHCLG is looking at how it can best train planning officers as well.
Energy Market Reforms
Lord Swire Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend asks about marginal pricing and refers to gas, because gas and electricity prices have been coupled together for many years. The market currently operates on the principle of marginal pricing, and the cost of electricity often tracks the cost of gas because gas generation frequently sets the wholesale price. It is a complex area. There are good reasons why the electricity market operates on that basis. Comparable countries tend to operate in this way as well. Over time, we need to rely less on gas, which means that electricity prices will become increasingly detached from the price of gas and be more frequently set by other generation, such as renewables. We see that as the way to bring prices down to support vulnerable people and to enable them to pay their bills. That is why our focus is on increasing renewable energy.
Lord Swire (Con)
Increasing the capacity of the grid —particularly bringing more offshore power onshore—will see a dramatic escalation in the number of overhead power lines to distribute the power, as well as more onshore substations. Given the huge profits made by some of the energy companies, what are the Government doing to mitigate the visual impact of this increase in energy distribution? Can these energy companies not be invited to contribute towards a fund that will see, where possible, the burial of overhead power lines?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There are two aspects to this. There is the National Grid, and in Scotland there is ScottishPower. We also have the district network operators, so we have different levels of pylons. It is not quite as straightforward as having a simple pot. The important thing is that we build the renewable energy that we need. We also need to look at battery storage. Not all electricity generation needs to be connected up through power lines. The last figures I saw on burying power lines showed it to be about 11 times more expensive. It depends where they are—through a national park, for example—and what the current situation is. It is important that we have the renewable energy connection, and we want to bring down prices, but we must build the connections in the right place. Connections are not just built in a straight line. Electricity companies spend a long time ensuring that the route chosen is the best one: they talk to people. This is part of creating the renewable energy future that we need.
Wild Camping
Lord Swire Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This is exactly the point I was making about the difference between wild camping and illegal camping. I walked my dog at Ennerdale Water this weekend, and there were clear signs saying, “No camping, no fires”. Yet, as I walked along the lake, there were two tents. This is a real problem because these people often do not respect the environment that they are in. It is important that, while we encourage camping in the right areas and wild camping where it is appropriate, we also ensure that does not cause any damage to the environment or problems for landowners.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, as someone who enjoys larking around Dartmoor as much as possible, I can attest to the fact that it is a very finely balanced ecosystem. We will all be aware of the excellent work being done by the Prince of Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall in trying to regenerate some of the upland areas of the moor. Although I fully support responsible wild camping, unfortunately the same cannot be said for irresponsible wild camping. That was a particular problem in many national parks and lochsides across the country during Covid. Does the Minister agree that the Government must do everything they can to ensure that legislation and advice, such as that given by the Dartmoor National Park Authority on how to behave on the moor, is rigorously adhered to?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, it is a real problem. The noble Lord mentioned Covid, and the amount of rubbish left behind by illegal campers then was shocking. People abandoned their tents and all their rubbish. Who does the clean up? It is the National Trust, the national parks and the general public. He is absolutely right that this is not acceptable. However, at the same time, we have to recognise that some people camp very responsibly, in the right places and in the right way—and Dartmouth is an excellent example of that. As we develop our access strategy and promote the Countryside Code, which is also important, we will take all this into account.
Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination
Lord Swire Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is an interesting question. I do not know when we last simulated such a thing, but there was the issue quite recently in Devon, where there was accidental water contamination. There was quite a rapid response to that, including, importantly, communication to consumers and to the public. One thing we are looking at now is how we learn from that accidental contamination, because contamination does not have to come just from hostile actors.
Lord Swire (Con)
Will the Government consider increasing their investment in desalination plants to ensure the provision of safe drinking water in the event of a national crisis?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, safe drinking water has to be an absolute priority, and I am sure the department would consider all options.
Farming: 25-year Road Map
Lord Swire Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The land use framework will be critical in a lot of areas. Because we have only a limited amount of land, we have to ensure that we are using it in the best interests of the country, whether that is for supporting farmers and food production, for energy production or for housing and so on. It is important that we are bringing that together. I do not have a date for the noble Lord today, but I assure him that we are actively progressing the report.
Lord Swire (Con)
Self-evidently there will be no food security without food, and there will be no food without farmers. What are the Government going to do about the ageing population of farmers and to encourage younger people into farming, at a time when the farming sector has been so horribly undermined by the Government’s own legislation?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The average age of farmers has been a problem for many years; there has not been succession planning in the way that perhaps there has for other businesses, because of the nature of farming. We are working closely with the Department for Education on skills. Young people can be encouraged to show an interest from an early age through going to agricultural college, for example, and all these things help. We need to look at how young people can get the right skills to want to go into farming in the first place. It is important that farms are available for new entrants, and that is something that we need to be working on—too many county farms were sold, for example. There is quite a lot of work to be done in this area.
Storm Bert
Lord Swire Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Swire (Con)
Will the Minister convene a meeting of local authorities to discuss the issue of the concreting over of many driveways up and down the country? Often, the problem with surface water and local flooding is that the water has fewer and fewer places to run off.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that the more concrete there is, the harder it is. The water has to go somewhere, and this is the issue. You can never stop flooding; you can manage it the best way you can. I would be very happy to convene a meeting, although I am not sure whether I am the right person. Perhaps it should be MHCLG, because often this is a planning issue—or it could be a joint meeting. I am certainly very happy to explore that.
Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill
Lord Swire ExcerptsTuesday 12th September 2023
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 View all Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Sep 2023)
Lord Swire (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I entirely agree with him that this must be evidence-based legislation, and a lot of a misleading and mischievous false information has circulated around this subject for some time. Does he share my surprise that the Minister for Environment and Tourism in Botswana felt obliged to issue today a press release, which I think was circulated to all noble Lords, refuting the allegations made by the acting CEO of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, Dr Adam Cruise, concerning trophy hunting in Botswana? Is that not precisely the sort of misleading information—rather arrogant and high-handed to a country such as Botswana—that we should avoid?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that the source of that misinformation will not be a surprise to him or anyone else. It is a regular source of misinformation, and it was quite correctly shot down in flames by the Botswanan Government.
My noble friend raised an important point, on which I will end. We should use the Bill to improve conservation by getting rid of bad trophy hunting practices, while at the same time keeping the good and improving standards and welfare for all. I beg to move.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, as we move through the early stages of this debate, I think it is important, first, that collectively, as a House, we recognise that there is a wide range of opinions not simply within this House but without it. I think it is right that we conduct this debate in a tone and a manner that does not denigrate anyone’s opinion. I think that what is held is held very passionately by a number of people and that both the movers and the opponents of the amendments are doing so in a very sincere manner.
I take exception particularly to one thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said: I think that every Member of this House has the complete right, irrespective of gender, to put forward whatever they feel to be in the best interests of legislation and to contribute to this debate. It will not come as a great surprise that I do not intend to undergo a course of gender reassignment or self-identification. As a DUP Peer, I think, to be fair, we have a reputation: we are not regarded as a particularly woke bunch, or indeed as people who would be naturally inclined to a left of centre approach to things. It therefore may come as a bit of a surprise that this may be the first time in my number of months in this House that I find myself, not necessarily in terms of tone but in terms of content, largely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and commending the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her actions in bringing this forward.
There will be others who speak in this debate who come with a greater level of expertise, and we can all trade statistics and representations that have been made to us. I have to say that I think the case for this amendment and from some of the opponents of the Bill has been heavily oversold. Trophy hunting does not create, as the impression has been given, some great utopia for society that will cure all our ills. It seems from the supporters of this amendment to simultaneously both preserve the ancien régime of indigenous peoples while at the same time being the principal driver of social progress within these countries: it seems to be the close correlation, if not the main motivation, behind female emancipation and education. If people are making the case for this amendment, it is important that it is not oversold.
I believe that trophy hunting makes an economic contribution to these countries, but there are some statistics that suggest that this is fairly minimal. As for the idea that this is being done as some form of benevolent social welfare for some of the residents, we know that, at the end of the day, for those on the ground this is making a very small contribution. The trickle-down effect is very limited. The range of these amendments would make the Bill much more complex and open to legal challenge than would otherwise be the case and create a regime which would enhance the level of uncertainty within the Bill.
I appreciate that the job, particularly in Committee, is to see what improvements can be made within the Bill. I have to say that, generally speaking—and I do not want to prejudice any of the arguments that will be made—it would appear that most of these amendments come from people who are vehement opponents of the Bill. That is a perfectly legitimate position, but let us not pretend that the intention of the amendments is particularly to improve the Bill. I think their impact would be to create the death by a thousand cuts of the Bill and to create a range of loopholes across the Bill that that would fundamentally weaken its purpose.
While I mention loopholes, I have not put down an amendment, but it may be useful if the Minister, whenever he is summing up towards the end, could deal with one loophole in the Bill that I think needs to be closed. In another place, my colleagues raised the issue of why Northern Ireland was excluded from the Bill. The argument was made that it would be in some way incompatible with the single market, to which Northern Ireland is apparently still subject. Leaving aside constitutional issues that I have some concerns about, I have to say that as an argument there has been a level of misinformation there. Irrespective of whether you are in favour or against these amendments, the single market is not an excuse for Northern Ireland’s exclusion, as four countries within the EU have either enacted very similar legislation or are in the process of doing so. So I urge the Government to consider this again.
For me—this may be a simplistic approach—this is about the signal that we send out as a civilised nation. Trophy hunting and taking back those trophies to the United Kingdom is something that is no longer part, if it ever was, of a virtuous, civilised nation. Therefore, I urge the Committee not only to reject this amendment but to oppose the amendments throughout the Bill, which will not necessarily improve the Bill but will act as a device, bit by bit, to water it down.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Weir, because I do not think that these amendments that some of us are proposing this evening are designed to wreck the Bill. On the contrary, the conversations I have had with my colleagues, who take this issue very seriously, are all about improving the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I think there is a better amendment coming from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but I think this is a good amendment and this is the role of the second Chamber.
Without giving too much away, some of us have been lobbied quite hard over the past few days about the Bill and told, for instance, in that famous Whips’ argument, “If you don’t accept this, you will get something much worse”. Well, if we accepted that as a serious argument, there would be no point in having this revising Chamber at all: we would just accept all bad legislation coming from the other place and roll over and have our tummies tickled. We might as well stay away. The point of this House, if it is to have a point at all, is to examine legislation, reject bad legislation and, where necessary and feasible, improve the legislation. So, I utterly reject the noble Lord’s comment that this is designed to wreck the Bill.
I have various declarations to make. My first declaration is that I have no desire to shoot an animal in Africa, nor to bring a trophy home. In fact, I believe that if my wife were to wake up in the morning and find a kudu head at the end of the bed, she might react in the same way as if it were the severed head of a horse, to use an analogy from a film—which is quite a dangerous thing to do and was recently done rather poorly by President Biden.
However, the point is not whether I want to import trophies here from Africa or elsewhere. I set aside my own personal views and want to look at the legislation as it stands. The other two declarations I should make is, first, that I consider the Minister to be a close friend of mine—I do not know whether he will consider me in the same light after this—and I am afraid that for him it is a question of the cab rank principle of KCs that he has to accept whatever brief is coming his way. However, he is nothing but a serious conservationist, and I slightly wonder what is going through his mind privately—but we will not dwell on his grief: he will do this job in the entirely professional way that he handles so much of his brief, which seems to be a brief without beginning and without end.
However, the second and more serious point I want to make—this is a proper declaration—is that I am the deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is designed to grow intra-Commonwealth trade. We heard in the previous Statement about the rise of Africa and how the African Union will now be represented at the G20, and Africa is coming of age. Everyone is looking at Africa. Hopefully, the British Government and our allies will look a bit more closely and try to fill the void that has been left by some countries to stop the Wagner Group, China and others exploiting that magnificent continent.
I am therefore very conscious of the role of the Commonwealth and of the perception that in some way the Commonwealth is a hangover from colonialism and the British Empire. Manifestly it is not; you only have to look at the most recent accession countries to the Commonwealth to see that they have absolutely no historic connection with this country whatever. However, it is there, and we should accept that there is that lingering suspicion. I am therefore enormously sensitive and immediately alert to the possibility that anything we say or do in this country about developing countries, particularly in Africa, could be conceived or misconceived as some form of neocolonialism. I know there is a temptation, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, from the other side tried to paint this as an all-boys club gathering—I was rather amused that the next, excellent speaker was the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which put paid to that rather cheap accusation.
The point is that Africa is watching. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, we had a delegation of Ministers from some African countries. As a Minister I certainly would never have gone to an African country in the same way they came here to make these points. They came all this way to talk about what they wanted to do in their own communities, with their own experiences, and not the great principle of whether trophy hunting is morally right or repellent—which some people feel, and I absolutely accept that—but what it means to their local livelihoods and their local population. We should factor that in.
It makes me feel extremely uncomfortable that here we are, sitting on our well-upholstered behinds in the lovely gilt and leather confines of the House of Lords, telling people in Africa, in this century, in this day and age, how they should go about making their living. What an appalling idea that we could think that we could replace what they are trying to do by making this illegal, destroying that part of their livelihood and saying that we will replace it with aid. That is not what aid is meant for. It is not meant to make populations dependent; it is meant to liberate people, to encourage them to get up, do their own thing to the best of their ability and trade their way out of poverty. I will never vote for anything in this House which has an adverse effect on the livelihoods of people in those countries. We should think very carefully before we start telling those people what they should be doing.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading; I found out that it was scheduled only after the speakers’ list had closed. However, I have read the Hansard for that debate.
Like others, I am now struggling to find a rationale for choosing which amendments to support and which to oppose. This is difficult, as the Bill is flawed. Its stated aim, found in the impact assessment, is
“to ensure that imports of hunting trophies to the UK are not placing additional pressure on species of conservation concern”.
This muddles up two completely different objectives, the promotion of conservation and limiting import of trophies. The link between the two is tenuous. Acting on trophies will do precious little to promote conservation. As the Bill applies only to imports into the UK, it will do nothing to curb the appetite of the legendary Minnesota dentist.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Anyway, to go back to the matter in hand, I would say that, when I and several other noble Lords here met a delegation from countries from sub-Saharan Africa, as I recall, there were two female African Ministers who came to talk to us—so it is not purely men who take a view on this.
Lord Swire (Con)
Just for clarification, when these Ministers and MPs took all the trouble to come from Africa to put their point over, is my noble friend aware of how many of those who support the Bill actually had the politeness to meet them?
Lord Robathan (Con)
Yes, I am indeed aware: none. Which was a pity, and it was especially a pity that my noble friend Lady Fookes did not come to hear what had to be said by people who actually know a great deal about the issue because they live with it.
I said I would make some general points because I was unable to speak properly on Second Reading. I have a farm in Leicestershire. I farm for conservation, in my opinion—conservation and subsidy, but the latter is not doing so well at the moment. It is covered in birds and hares. I also shoot, but I only shoot birds and animals that I can eat. I certainly do not want to shoot trophies, such as described by the proponents of the Bill; indeed, I find it rather distasteful. But that is not really the point.
My first point is that this Bill is neo-colonialist. I find it extraordinary that the left backs it, because we are trying to tell independent countries in Africa and elsewhere how wicked their policies are. The second point is that we are ignoring the wishes of these countries, especially those from sub-Saharan Africa. To suggest that we replicate the money that is made from trophy hunting with overseas development assistance is basically treating Africans—nations and others—as supplicants. It is an arrogant zeal that pushes this forward. We are treating them as people who are unable to manage their own wildlife, or indeed their economies, without us telling them what to do.
As we have just heard, this is a terrible Bill in so many ways. It is absurd. I do not think that anybody has ever hunted a mollusc as a trophy, but there it is. It is almost unenforceable and is pretty unintelligible. My noble friend the Minister, for whom I surprisingly have great respect, talked about dancing on a legal pin. Well, should the Bill come to a court—I hope that it never does—there will certainly be the possibility of dancing on legal pins here.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said no one asked him about this. My noble friend Lady Anderson and I were in the House of Commons more recently than he was, and we had a great number of letters on this issue. On the other hand, it could be that only socialist ladies get them.
Lord Swire (Con)
The noble Baroness may well be right, because I was in the House of Commons until 2019 and I got no letters on this subject. I was on the Hunting Bill committee when I first came into the House of Commons and I got a lot of letters about that, mainly because all the evidence was being ignored in favour of prejudice.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
If we are all making confessions, I was not in the House of Commons and I never had a letter, but I had a bomb delivered to me in this House from the very nice animal rights people. I also had some threatening letters describing precisely what they were going to do my six year-old daughter, when they followed her to school here in London. Luckily, special branch was very helpful about that. So I am delighted that I did not get any letters, but I know an awful lot about the people who send them.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I too will be very interested in my noble friend the Minister’s reply to this amendment. It gets to the kernel of the argument, and actually teases out whether or not this whole Bill is about conservation or something completely different.
This amendment is suggesting that it would apply to
“a species classed as threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List and”—
critically, where that list records trophy hunting as a threat to that species. It does beg the question: if it does not record trophy hunting as a threat to that species, and if the animal is not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, why are we gold-plating legislation which would be perfectly palatable to most of us, and at whose behest?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, having listened to the debate so far, I think that this amendment is slightly closer to Amendments 14 and 33, which are in my name, so it might be for the benefit of the House if I say my remarks now rather than repeating them at a later stage—if such a thing happens.
The Government have not told us why the present licensing system does not work. I think it is important for us to recall and think about how the present licensing system works. If anybody wants to import a trophy into the UK from a species that is listed in CITES appendix 1 or 2, there is a requirement for an export certificate from the country and an import certificate from the UK. The issuance of these certificates is based on a science-based assessment that there will be no harm to the species—that is worth stressing. In CITES terms, this is called a non-detriment finding, or NDF.
In the UK, implementation of CITES happens domestically via the principal wildlife trade regulations referred to in the Bill. The two annexes of the wildlife trade regulations that are referred to, annexes A and B, are broadly aligned with the CITES appendices. In the UK, the JNCC, as I have said before, is the relevant public body for overseeing imports of animal species, including hunting trophies. For any species listed on annexe A, JNCC is required to determine, first, that the import will not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species—this is the NDF—and, secondly, that the import is taking place for one of the purposes referred to in CITES Article 8(3): that is, for research, for education, for breeding aimed at the conservation of the species, or for other purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species concerned.
The JNCC has interpreted other purposes that are not detrimental as including hunting trophies—as long as trophy hunting is part of a careful species management plan that should, as appropriate, be based on sound biological data collected from the target populations; clearly demonstrate that harvest levels are sustainable; be monitored by professional biologists; be promptly modified if necessary to maintain the conservation aims; demonstrate that illegal activities are under control; produce significant and tangible conservation benefits for the species; and provide benefits to, and be in co-operation with, the local people who share the area with, or suffer by, the species concerned.
For species on annexe B, the measures are less strict since, by definition, the species on this annexe are less threatened by trade, and no certificate is required other than for six exceptions: the African lion, African elephant, argali sheep, hippopotamus, polar bear and white rhinoceros. For these species, the UK has the equivalent stricter measures that it applies to annexe A species, meaning that import permits are required—including an NDF. Thus, if a hunting trophy has been issued with an import certificate by JNCC, we can be confident that this is because due process has been followed: a non-detriment finding assessment has been conducted and the assessment has indicated there is no risk to species survival.
This Bill is about conservation and preventing the further endangerment of threatened species. The system in place under CITES already performs this function through a process that has been agreed multilaterally by over 180 countries. The Bill does not need to concern itself with those species that are not under annexes A or B. I have an amendment coming up to delete annexe B. However, the amendment before us is a better one and I would be very happy to support it should it be taken to a Division. However, if it is not, I give notice to my noble friend the Minister that I will wish to divide on my amendment in due course.
Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill
Lord Swire ExcerptsFriday 16th June 2023
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 View all Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 March 2023 - (17 Mar 2023)
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow on from some of the speeches we have had so far in this debate today, not least the noble Lord, Lord St John—I second him in his praise for Tusk, an organisation for which I have raised money in the past and of which I know he continues to be a trustee—and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, about his cousin Iain Douglas-Hamilton, who I met in Kenya some years ago. I am aware of his work; he was, of course, one of the founders of Save the Elephants. I listened closely to what they said.
I was going to say that I have no dog in this fight, but I thought that might set a hare running. What I will say is that I have absolutely no desire to kill any of these particular animals myself, nor do I particularly like seeing photographs of pot-bellied Texan dentists with sets of improbable teeth kneeling next door to their fallen prey like Cecil the lion. We must all agree that the optics of that sort of behaviour are atrocious. But good legislation looks at unintended consequences not at headlines.
I was taken by the fact that paragraph 37 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill talks about the financial implications of the Bill. Well, here is the problem: it only alludes to the financial implications of the Bill so far as it affects the United Kingdom. Of course, the financial implications of this Bill are surely about the negative consequences to the finances of those countries which would be affected were this Bill to become law. I note that my noble friend Lady Fookes quoted a letter, which I have just read online, from a whole raft of people across Africa and wider afield. But she did not refer to the letter in the Times—yesterday, I think it was—from the high commissioners and ambassadors from Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, which makes a very different argument.
I gently ask my noble friend whether she has had any discussions with these high commissions and ambassadors, and if not, why not? Frankly, it is condescending to tell these countries how to run their internal affairs and to second-guess them as they struggle to keep poaching under control, very often risking the lives of their game rangers in so doing. What nobody has said so far today is what happens if these animals are not in some sense controlled. If there is no economic interest in preserving them, they run amok, running down crops, endangering lives and villages and becoming prey to even more poaching. That is the reality, so anyone who genuinely cares about animal welfare and the survival of species rather than favourable headlines must, by definition, oppose this Bill.
The British public will be rather amazed that we are debating this with the cost of living crisis, Ukraine and so forth, and I suspect a lot of them are, like me, made uneasy by the somewhat high-handed and neocolonial tone of this Bill. I think they expect better of us, as do those countries that will be affected by it, to which we should say, “We stand with you, we support you, we hear you and we will learn from you. We will work with you, not against you, to help put in place the best possible protocols which enhance conservation.” That should be our aim. I rather regret to say that this no doubt well-intentioned Bill does not achieve that. Regrettably, it suggests that if it were to become law, it would ensure the precise opposite.
Environmental Improvement Plan 2023
Lord Swire Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
I refute the idea from the noble Duke that this is not ambitious. I urge him to read all 250 to 300 pages of the document and see the lengths that it goes to to put our natural environment first in a way that we have not done for decades. This really is a moment when we can do this. The noble Duke will remember from the debate on the Environment Act that a crucial part of it says that the targets we have must be achievable. The Secretary of State of the day must believe that they are possible. To an extent, we cannot do more than what the scientists say is achievable and we have set out how we can do this.
On the data on leakage, I assure the noble Duke that it is not just this target that is pushing that goal. We are giving direction and encouragement to Ofwat and our water companies to invest more in preventing leakage. Of course, it is not a single line going to 2050; there will be a dramatic increase in improvements from the investment we are putting in—in the easier-to-target areas first. We will then see that target of 2050 being met, we hope, before that date.
Lord Swire (Con)
Will the Minister commit to providing continuing assistance to South West Water? In the south-west, we have a disproportionate amount of the country’s beaches and there has been support from the Government in the past. Will they continue that support?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I was the Minister responsible for delivering on the coalition Government’s clear commitment to reduce bills for water charge payers in the south-west because of the extra effort they had to make to protect their bathing waters and waterways. I do not know what plans there are for the future but it has certainly been extremely successful, particularly for those on low incomes. We still have measures to provide for those who are very challenged economically, so that they can have a social tariff. We will continue to work with South West Water and all MPs in that area, who are lobbying hard on this issue.