Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Rutley and Alex Chalk

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I praise the work that is going on across the country. Clearly, there is important work going on in Scotland that we need to learn from. We are absolutely committed to taking forward this important work, as I know the hon. Gentleman is, because we need many more trees to achieve our targets in addressing and tackling climate change.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

6. What her timescale is for bringing forward legislative proposals to implement the single use plastics directive 2019/904.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Rutley and Alex Chalk

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to increase tree planting.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to increase tree planting.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

The changes to the woodland carbon fund and the woodland creation planning grant that we successfully piloted in 2017 have been made permanent. We also recently made the countryside stewardship woodland creation grant available all year. In addition, we are providing £5.7 million to kick-start the northern forest, and we have appointed a national tree champion to drive forward our tree planting manifesto commitments.

[David Rutley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically enthusiastic support for that project—we would expect nothing less for the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy initiative, which is truly excellent. I mention in particular the five saplings project, made possible by the work of the Woodland Trust, Sainsbury’s and ITV—the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is also to be commended. Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to planting saplings in my constituency soon, in Macclesfield, and I am pleased that many other colleagues across the House will shortly be doing the same.

[Alex Chalk]

Trees are carbon sinks that lock in greenhouse gases while promoting biodiversity, so what steps is my hon. Friend taking to press forward with forestry investment zones for large-scale woodland creation?

[David Rutley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and his keen interest in the need to drive forward ambitious plans to plant more trees. He is a tree champion in his own right. Our national tree champion, Sir William Worsley, is launching the first forestry investment zone pilot in Cumbria today. That new project will help landowners to create vital new woodland and unlock the economic benefits of forestry in areas not traditionally used for tree planting. The project will also provide lessons on how best to support forestry investment.

Ivory Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between David Rutley and Alex Chalk

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Workington has put it very well. I have nothing to add but, for obvious reasons, endorse the remarks she has made.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Lady makes some important points. I will wait for a little inspiration to help with some of them. It is important to recognise that accredited civilian officers are members of the OPSS and already have powers of entry and search under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in relation to products subject to trade.

It is about recognising the new role. The regulator is new and, therefore, we are trying to understand what it can do. They already have a pre-existing role and within that they have these powers to enter and search. They also have powers under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. These are specific servants given a particular role and they do have pre-existing powers that they could use in trying to prohibit the sale of ivory, or commercial activity relating to it, that does not qualify for exemption. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.

[Alex Chalk]

Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to indicate the training that takes place before someone is qualified to use these important powers? Bearing in mind that the individual would be entitled under the legislation to enter premises—albeit non-dwelling premises—and to search in an intrusive way, we need to ensure that the people exercising those important powers have been fully trained, so that civil liberties are protected.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, there will be a strong training regime to ensure that these individuals are able to carry out their current role and we want to ensure that they have adequate training to take on new roles related to the ivory prohibition. I will write to him with details of how that will be moved forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

I wish simply to underline a point that has been made already. Clause 27 creates offences of obstruction if anybody, without a reasonable excuse,

“obstructs an officer in the performance of any of the officer’s functions under sections 14 to 24.”

That includes an accredited civilian officer, so it is all the more important, given the potential criminal sanctions that can apply, that the individual who possesses these significant powers of search, seizure and requiring the production of documents is truly competent and capable of that task. I wanted to take this opportunity to underscore the point, given the severity of the sanctions, that this is not something that should be skimped.

[David Rutley]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not looking to skimp, and we must of course ensure proper training. I will write to him, as I have already promised. We are all getting our heads around a new regime, but I assure the Committee that it is not unprecedented for OPSS to exercise powers under legislation; it falls under the remit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and, as I have said, it has these powers already in relation to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We want to ensure that it has the proper powers and that there is proper training, because of the implications.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 28 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Meaning of “ivory”

Ivory Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between David Rutley and Alex Chalk

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 14th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

May I ask the Minister about clause 2(4)? It reads:

“An exemption certificate for an item may be issued only on the application of the owner of the item.”

Will he clarify that “owner” also includes an agent of the owner, as is normally the case in other legislation? It would be unfortunate, for example, if an owner had given a long-term loan to a museum and the museum was then barred from making an application on that owner’s behalf. We want to get these certificates done as quickly as possible and for there to be no bureaucratic hurdles.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill provides for that. The hon. Member for Workington raised some interesting questions around this, which we will debate shortly. For the reasons that my hon. Friend set out, agents will have the ability to get involved in that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Yes, there are different ways in which that could be reviewed; it could be by range or by definitive sizes. As I said in my earlier remarks, I think that the contributions made by Philip Mould & Company were helpful and we want to give them due consideration.

[Alex Chalk]

I am reassured by the Minister’s undertaking to give this important matter, raised in good faith by the Opposition, full consideration. Can he clarify that in the course of that consideration he will seek the best possible range of expert advice, to ensure that any future amendment will not have to be amended further in due course, and will truly meet the point that has properly been raised?

[David Rutley]

Absolutely; we want the best advice, and I think we have received some very good advice. We just need to give it due consideration as the Bill progresses.

Ivory Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between David Rutley and Alex Chalk

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 14th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I want to make a few remarks about clause 7, and I do so having in mind the views of some small-scale auction houses that have raised concerns with me. The concerns are intended to be constructive, and I recognise that there are important competing arguments, but the question is whether it is really necessary to require the registration of pre-1947 items with low ivory content. The concern has been raised that that could lead, however unintentionally, to the law of unintended consequences such that a clause that was designed to preserve and exempt could inadvertently lead to damage and destruction, and I will explain why.

The first thing to note is, of course, that clause 7 is designed to catch items with a low ivory content of below 10%. I am advised that 10% is in fact the lowest or equal lowest figure in similar jurisdictions and that ordinarily 20% tends to be the threshold.

What sort of items are we talking about? We might be talking about an oak chest that has ivory escutcheons—the small amount of ivory that might be around a keyhole—or a teapot, which the hon. Member for Workington referred to, that has an ivory spacer. In other words, there is a small sliver of ivory between the teapot and the handle that is designed to insulate the handle and ensure that the heat is not conducted along it. We are talking about very small amounts of ivory. Such items cannot sensibly be referred to as an ivory object, because the volume of ivory is so tiny.

The auction houses make the point that these items do not really contribute to the ivory trade. I will explain their concern. Let us suppose that items come to light in the course of the sale of a deceased relation’s property and it emerges that one item contains a vanishingly small amount of ivory. Their concern is that there could be a perverse incentive on the part of the owner to say, “Oh, for goodness’ sake, registering this is going to be onerous and difficult. Either we should simply try to prise out the piece of ivory, thereby damaging the item itself, or we should destroy it altogether.” I am also advised that some of the items that we could be considering are brown wood furniture, which is not as desirable as it once was, and therefore there is a risk that the items could end up in a skip, which is clearly not want anyone wants to achieve.

I absolutely recognise that there is a powerful counter-argument, which is that if we want the whole exemption regime to be coherent, it is important that every single ivory content item that is exempt is properly registered, and there is a risk, therefore, that we could create inconsistency. I entirely acknowledge that powerful argument, but it seems to me that the auction houses have a point, so I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the issue of registration.

It is key that we ensure that the registration process is quick, affordable and not too bureaucratic, so that when an item is discovered in the course of a furniture sale, instead of being told that it will cost a huge amount of money and time to defer the process, an individual can be advised that it will be a matter of a short, proportionate pause and a small, proportionate outlay to ensure that the item becomes legal. The undesirable incentives that I have referred to would, therefore, be avoided.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and thank you for keeping me in order. Like other hon. Members, I was keen to get to my feet to talk about this important Bill.

A few points have been raised. I am grateful for the broad support for the de minimis category. The hon. Member for Workington asked whether we had heard from any art galleries and so on about the 10% threshold. In general, we monitor their feedback following our Tuesday evidence sessions. So far, interestingly, there has been very broad support for what we are doing. In the spirit of being collaborative, as we have been today, we will share any further information with her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham raised several important points about the registration process. It is important that we are trying to establish a prohibition and that only small exemptions would be available. Sometimes, when we start to think about those exemptions, there is a tendency to want to try to open them up, but actually, we are trying to narrow them down. That means that we need to have a consistent approach and to be able to monitor the application of the exemptions using the electronic database that we are setting up. It will not be burdensome on resources; it can obviously absorb large amounts of data. Those resources will be needed to carry out spot checks and compliance checks.

The Government want to ensure that we have as limited a burden as possible on the application, so it will be easy to do online, but it is critical—my hon. Friend caught the balance in his contribution—to ensure that data is available to enforcement authorities and potential purchasers of the item to ensure that they act in compliance as well.

[Alex Chalk]

I appreciate that the details may have to be settled in due course, but can the Minister give an indication of the approximate cost of an application and the approximate length of time it will take to complete?

[David Rutley]

It will be a relatively speedy process. On the cost, we have said that small fees will be involved. That will become clear as we carry out the work. The aim is to recover the costs involved in establishing the IT system and the compliance arrangements, rather than to create surplus funds. The fees will be small and the process will be as simple as possible, but it is there to create a consistent approach.