Ivory Bill

Pauline Latham Excerpts

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

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said, this is good news. It is very rare to have good news that is supported by all parties in this House. I cannot say I disagree with anything that has been said by anybody on either side of the House, which is also pretty rare. I am delighted that the Bill has come before the House.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown huge leadership by pushing the Bill forward, and I think he will bring it in as swiftly as he possibly can. He is, of course, building on the work of other Secretaries of State before him, and particularly on the leadership of the right hon. William Hague—Lord Hague—and the former Prime Minister David Cameron, who said that we should leave this world a better place. I believe that by passing the Bill, we will do that.

Africa needs elephants more than it probably realises in many cases, because it needs the tourism they bring. Many people in the House have young children. I am fortunate enough to have five grandchildren, and I want them to see the elephants. My eldest granddaughter, who will be 14 next month, has seen elephants, but if the ban does not go through and other countries, such as China and America, do not support it in a more limited form, my youngest, who is only three, may not see those iconic creatures, which we all think are fantastic for every reason we can possibly imagine.

The saddest thing about elephant poaching is that it is the oldest elephants that are poached—because they have the biggest tusks, they are a target for the poachers. They are the wise ones of the herd, and they teach and explain to younger family members exactly how to behave. Unfortunately, we are getting some rather wild elephants that are delinquent because they have not had that training, so the sooner we can breed more elephants in the wild to keep the groups together and make those groups larger, the better. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we need to keep the beautiful savannahs as they are.

Poachers kill many rangers, and I would like more Department for International Development money to be spent on training more rangers. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke about using alternative technologies, and that is something that DFID could explore. We could spend more time training people in African countries to understand how they can best beat the poachers, who are pretty clever and ahead of the game. We need to beat them at it.

African elephants are important, but we need to look at other species with tusks that contain ivory, including rhinos and Indian elephants. We need to think hard about how we can include those species, but I do not want to water down the Bill. I want it to be specific, because it is important, but perhaps the Secretary of State will look at how he could include other species later, particularly to save the rhinos, which are on the verge of extinction.

There are many other things that we could do to help the world, including the rainforests. Tigers are endangered, as are gorillas, giraffes and many more animals. We need to save them from extinction because, as I have said, I want my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be able to go and see those different species. It is important for all of us to give future generations that opportunity.

There are a couple more points that I want to mention, but I do not want to take too much time, because this debate is fairly short. It would be useful if DEFRA published a register showing how many exemptions have been issued under the historical, artistic and cultural definition every year, so that a picture could be built up of all the relevant artefacts, which would be verified by people who know what they are doing, such as the V&A and other museums. That register ought to be publicly available, and it would demonstrate a commitment that the exemption is for the rarest and most important items only, not just any old ivory artefact.

Several Members have mentioned the National Wildlife Crime Unit. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to announce permanent funding for the unit, as its existing funding expires in 2020. That should be part of the UK commitment to enforcement. I also hope that the Border Force CITES team at Heathrow will have sufficient manpower and resources, as it will be the frontline of our defence against illegal imports coming into the UK and organised criminal activity.

Finally, I would like to discuss Hong Kong. Although the Chinese support the ivory ban and, I am pleased to say, were ahead of us, I am told that in Hong Kong—I have a nephew out there—ivory continues to be passed off as mammoth tusks. It is perfectly legal to trade mammoth tasks, so will the Secretary of State work with Chinese leaders to try to shut down that market? Perhaps he could include a ban on mammoth ivory to close that loophole. People can test the difference between mammoth and elephant tusks, but what border agent or police officer would know about that? They would not challenge it, so we have to be firm and make sure that we close as many loopholes as possible to save these iconic animals that we all want future generations to see. However, I continue to congratulate the Secretary of State on moving fast; I would like to see him do more and move faster.

Ivory Bill (First sitting)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

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

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Q Do you all feel that the scope of the Bill, about just elephant ivory, is broad enough? If we ban just elephant ivory, could there be a shift towards ivory and horn from other animals being targeted? If it is possible, should we broaden the scope of the Bill to prevent that from happening?

Will Travers: That is an important question. Context is important; we all feel that it is important that whatever other considerations there are for non-elephant ivory-bearing species, they do not blow this legislation off course or delay it significantly. We all share the view that it would be a tragedy, to put it in informal terms, if we worked really hard to save elephants and other species were collateral damage in the process. But we need to consider a number of species.

We suggest that the Government commit to a rapid consultation after the Bill, to look at hippos, narwhal, hornbill—which are also facing extinction because their bills are a surrogate for ivory—walrus and not just CITES-listed species but non-CITES-listed species. We recognise that the trade—particularly the legal one—is entrepreneurial and will move to wherever there is an opportunity. Species such as warthog could come into the frame very rapidly as interest in ivory shifts from elephants, which are getting a huge amount of attention, to other ivory-bearing species.

In summary, we would like real attention to be paid to the issue, but we want to make sure that that does not in any way delay this process. That would be detrimental to what is under way.

Cath Lawson: We endorse that opinion. We are happy that the Bill as it stands, which allows for consideration of other ivory-bearing species at a later date, is sufficient. We would be comfortable with Will’s suggestion of expansion to non-CITES-listed species, too, but our concern would be that to include other non-ivory-bearing species at this point would cause delays to the Bill. With the illegal wildlife trade conference in October, we are keen that the Bill moves quickly through the legislative process.

David Cowdrey: Again, I endorse what WWF and Born Free just said. There should be flexibility in the Bill to include other species in future, but at this time the focus should be on delivering for elephant ivory, which the consultation was about and where a lot of the research was. That flexibility should enable the inclusion of further species should they be exploited and should there be a need to add them.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Q That is interesting because the Bill has been a long time coming and it is great that we have got this far. To knock it off course would be perverse. As we have not consulted on all the other species, would the best thing be to get the Bill through and then all of you who are experts could meet Ministers to decide which species—particulary non-CITES species—ought to be included so that we do not have other species coming on to the endangered list simply because activity has been displaced? I assume that you would all be happy to consult Ministers once the Bill is passed to get that done as soon as possible.

David Cowdrey: I totally agree with that. We have all worked so hard to get to this point to deliver one of the strongest ivory bans in the world. The initiative that has been taken by all parties and the cross-party support shown on Second Reading have been superb, and there is an opportunity to provide that protection. As we said, as long as there is that flexibility, and consideration for other species, which can be applied in future, and as long as further consultations can be held and we can have those discussions, I would agree totally with that.

Cath Lawson: Yes, WWF would be happy to engage in that consultation process, but for it to be separate to passing the Bill.

Will Travers: Just for the Committee’s interest and information, we are talking about huge volumes of trade in non-elephant ivory. I have four figures that might be helpful. From 2007 to 2016—just under a decade—78,000 hippos and hippo products were exported by CITES parties. Hong Kong imported 60 tonnes of hippo ivory between 2004 and 2014. Between 2007 and 2016—those dates again—7,000 narwhal products were exported and more than 172,000 walrus specimens were reported to have been exported on the CITES trade database. Those are not insignificant by any measure—they are enormously significant. With that kind of volume now, as we have just mentioned, the shift away from elephant ivory could put insupportable pressure on these other species, which is why we would like to see an accelerated process for that after this process has been undertaken. That is a very helpful suggestion.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q It has taken a long time to get to the stage of introducing this Bill and I would think it will be a long time before the Government return to this issue. The figures you have given on other species are startling, and you say you want flexibility in the Bill to be able to amend it. Is there a way in which the Bill could allow for, perhaps, delegated legislation or some other way to revisit the issue without having to have an Ivory Bill mark 2, which could be quite a significant time down the road?

Cath Lawson: From WWF’s point of view, I cannot comment on the legislative process but we would certainly want to see a consultation process around those species before inclusion in a Bill. That is why it needs to be a separate process.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs Latham]

Q You mentioned Hong Kong and the fact that China is implementing this measure quite strictly. You also mentioned mammoth. I understand that in Hong Kong ivory is being passed off as mammoth tusk. Obviously the mammoth are dead—we are never going to save the life of a mammoth—but should we consult on a ban on mammoth ivory as well as on those species that might become extinct as a result of not being included in the Bill? If in Hong Kong, or anywhere else, people can say, “It’s all right; this is a mammoth tusk,” and sell it, does that not create the loophole that those who want to make money are looking for?

Cath Lawson: It is certainly something that we would be comfortable with. I mentioned an amendment earlier. At the moment the Bill includes CITES-listed species, but mammoth, as an extinct species, are not a CITES-listed species and never will be. One option would be to remove that caveat in the existing legislation, but that could be part of a later consultation process.

[Sue Hayman]

Q Let us come back to the scope of the meaning of ivory. You talked about there being a delay if anything is added in. Given that this is the Ivory Bill, not the Elephant Ivory Bill, and that the CITES list makes clear that there is concern about species beyond the elephant, why would there be a delay if you added in the species listed by CITES? The consultation allowed for discussion of other species that are badly affected by this issue, and you have the figures.

Cath Lawson: During the consultation process, we did not advocate for additional species to be added. Our advice in the consultation response was to focus on elephant ivory.

Will Travers: We did comment on other species, and we did advocate that there should be consideration, which is what I believe clause 35 refers to. The definition of ivory in the Bill is ivory from elephant species. I understand why it is important to make sure there is consideration of other species, for which there has been no full consultation. We want to understand what is going on with hippo ivory, with narwhal ivory, with walrus ivory, with warthog ivory—non-CITES listed—and with extinct, non-CITES-listed mammoth ivory. There may be—I am just trying to think of the right way of expressing this—specific exemptions that would have been considered for inclusion specific to, for example, mammoth ivory that we would be discussing now had that been part of the overall process to start with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

Q I see your point on that, but we do not want to see, as a consequence of that, the increased killing of other species.

Alexander Rhodes: Without a shadow of a doubt.

Charlie Mayhew: Absolutely. The public, in whichever part of the world, who ultimately buy ivory do not necessarily differentiate where that ivory has emanated from. We have an opportunity here, in introducing this legislation, which as people have previously said is one of the toughest bans in the world, to send a message that ivory should now be socially unacceptable. If we can try to use this legislation, particularly with the upcoming illegal wildlife trade conference and attendees coming from all over the world, the rest of the world should follow suit.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Going back to what I said to the previous panel about ivory tusk being traded as mammoth, which is quite legal and would be quite legal after this Bill came in, is that something that we should consult on? Clearly we will not save the life of a mammoth—they are all extinct—but would it continue to save the lives of elephants if we banned that? It is not on the CITES list that we have heard about, but do you think that such a measure would be helpful to prevent elephants from being targeted? If someone can legally pass a tusk off as mammoth tusk, it will not stop anything.

Alexander Rhodes: Yes. Perhaps as a bit of context around that, it is interesting to note that the crisis that was recognised just before the last London conference came about because of the professionalisation of poaching. Illegal organised crime stepped in and added elephant ivory to its inventory because there was no legal international trade and there was an opportunity. That took place in circumstances where, internationally, there was confusion, and there was no common position on whether elephant ivory should or should not be traded—that rift had been in place since 1989.

Over the four years since the London conference, strong consensus has been built internationally that the ivory market should be closed. Importantly, that has taken the form of two international resolutions, one at CITES and one at the IUCN, that domestic markets for ivory—that is what we are talking about—should close, as should some of the other leading markets for elephant ivory, such as those in China and the US, and we are looking forward, beyond there, into Europe. That certainty about the illegality of ivory has significantly changed in the price of ivory.

When we started looking at this issue at the time of the first London conference, many people said that closing markets for ivory was a stupid thing to do, because all it would do is drive up the price. They said that destroying stockpiles of ivory, or locking them up so that they could not be traded into the market, was a stupid thing to do, because it would just drive up the price, and that the more scarce you make things, the higher the price becomes. Interestingly, David mentioned prices earlier, and the change that we have seen during this period, and the effect of the measure, has been that, in China, the price of a kilo of ivory between the time of the last London conference and now has gone from $2,500 to $450. In some African countries there has been a similar collapse in the price of ivory paid to gunmen. That wider context goes to the point about clarity on the legality, or illegality, of ivory.

I tend to agree with what Charlie said, which is that if you say, “Ivory is banned”—this is called the Ivory Bill, and the basis on which it was built was a commitment to close ivory market—that is pretty clear, and it falls within the international consensus that has been built on elephant ivory. My personal view is that, yes, it would make great sense to expand the Bill to cover mammoth ivory and other types of ivory for species that are threatened as a result of this trade. Such a measure would disincentivise people from going and killing those animals, whether they are doing it cynically for their own profit or because it is the only choice they have on the table—that is possibly something else we may discuss.

The real question in my mind, however, is whether, if we start trying to expand the Bill now, we will lose the effect that we can get, and the UK’s role in that momentum, which is already making a massive change. I return to what David said, which is that this is perhaps more your area of expertise than ours, but I think that is the balance to strike.

[Mrs Latham]

Q I agree; it is important to get the Bill—albeit a very narrow one—through as quickly as we can to set an example, and then consult for further species. Are you aware of any other country that has expanded beyond elephant ivory, and included mammoth tusk and all the other CITES species as well as the ones that we have heard about today?

Alexander Rhodes: I am not.

[Mrs Latham]

So us doing something like that would set a further example to the world.

Alexander Rhodes: Without a doubt.

[Anna Turley]

Q Some of the concerns we discussed, particularly with the first panel of witnesses, were about consultation and timeframes. I appreciate your point about losing momentum. Given that the only time we took previous action on ivory was in 1989, nearly 30 years ago, who knows how long it will be before we get another ivory Bill through? These things do not come along very often, and it could be several years. Is there not an opportunity here and now to broaden the scope as the Bill goes through? If the only barrier is consultation delay, is there anything in the consultation that we undertook for the Bill that would not apply to the other species? In amendment 8 we talk about broadening the scope to elephants, killer whales, narwhals, sperm whales and walrus. Is there anything in our consultation or in its outcome that would not apply to the species referred to in the amendment, and that would result in the concept of closing the markets not being relevant?

Charlie Mayhew: I am certainly not an expert in parliamentary process and the legalities of this, but if there was a way of extending the reach of the Bill to include those species without delaying the process, and without there being a threat of judicial challenge from any area, then we would all love to see that happen. Perhaps the issue really is where that challenge would come from if you were to extend the Bill to the other species. Representatives from the antiques trade will be coming in later today, and although I am not an expert in the area of antiques, I am not sure that they would object to hippo or walrus being included, because I suspect that their interest is in antique elephant ivory. I might be wrong on that, but it would be worth investigating. The point here is that we do not want to see anything that delays the progress of the Bill. The international momentum on the issue is very real, and we do not want to do anything to slow the process down, not least because we are losing 55 elephants a day to this illegal activity.

Ivory Bill (Second sitting)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Cameron]

Q But you said you work in partnership.

Grant Miller: Certainly with the unit, and it is about the added value of our relationship with them. Border Force could exist and we would go out, detect and disrupt the trade. If we were to lose the unit, the capacity to then investigate and prosecute would be lost, but our key function would still continue, and we would detect and disrupt.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Q I have a question for each of you. Chief inspector, you talked about this maybe not being seen as that important by some officers, because they obviously have lots of other things to do. What is the smallest artefact that you might have dealt with, and what is the largest—to give us an idea of the range of things that you do?

Chief Inspector Hubble: Would you like to ask Grant his question, while I ponder my response to that one?

[Mrs Latham]

Q But you said that you do intercept stuff, that you look on eBay and that there are 1,400 things that you have not got time to look at. What would be the smallest that you would—and I do not mean this as a criticism—bother with?

Chief Inspector Hubble: If we find somebody who is selling a few items, we would probably work with local police to go and educate that person rather than go for a full prosecution, because part of our work is about prevention. Ultimately, it is not about locking up the bad guys; it is about there not being any bad guys in the first place. If we can work with people and prevent them from committing crime, that has to be a good starting point. If we have low-level criminality, we would approach and deal with it that way.

We have an ongoing investigation at the moment, which I cannot talk too much about. We did a warrant earlier this year where we recovered a significant number of CITES specimens, including ivory, and we are continuing to push that forward. Watch this space for the outcome of that one. Our workload and work remit are significant across the whole spectrum of wildlife crime, from the really low-level individual to the significant traders making lots of money from the illegal wildlife trade.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Mr Miller, you said it was quite easy to detect mammoth compared with elephant ivory. We were looking this morning at whether we get this narrow Bill as quickly as we can and then widen the numbers of animals—that includes mammoth ivory—beyond the CITES regulations. If you are only looking at CITES, and we then passed a Bill with other things in the future, where we added in animals that are not on your list, such as warthog and mammoth—that is not going to save a mammoth’s life, but it will stop people in places such as Hong Kong selling ivory as mammoth to get it through customs—would your brief be able to encompass that? Would you be able to encompass that if we widened the brief beyond CITES, or are you strictly CITES-only?

Grant Miller: No, we are not. The Bill, as it is scheduled at the moment, would list those items as prohibitions, and Border Force’s role is to secure the border against all prohibitions. So that would naturally fall into our remit, and we would be in a position to police that, if that was Parliament’s wish.

[Mrs Latham]

Q It would not be a problem if we widened it out.

Grant Miller: No, it would not be a problem.

[Mrs Latham]

That’s interesting. Thank you.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q May I just return to what the chief inspector was saying about how to prove if somebody knows it is ivory, particularly if it has been misdescribed. We have discussed in the past adding something around misrepresentation of an item to clause 1 to cover selling something that has been fraudulently mislabelled so as to avoid detection. Presumably, you would still then have the difficulty of proving that somebody had misrepresented it—that somebody knew it was not bovine bone or whatever.

Chief Inspector Hubble: Yes, we would still have to prove that they knew it was ivory and that they had then mislabelled it, knowing that it was ivory.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay, thank you; that is on the record. Let us move on to questions.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Q I have a question for Emma Rutherford. This morning we heard that the size of miniatures should be specified, because a miniature in one person’s eyes might not be a miniature in another’s. Do you have any strong feelings about that—about whether we should specify and, if we did, about what the specification should be? I have a further question for someone else, but I ask that one first.

Emma Rutherford: The suggestion of 6 inches by 8 inches for portrait miniatures—I have some with me, because it is always easier to show an object—is very sensible. I have three very typical portrait miniatures here, painted watercolour on ivory, which represent 80% of 18th-century portrait miniatures painted on ivory—this is the kind of size we are talking about. Six inches by 8 inches will cover 90% or 95% of portrait miniatures.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Does talk of 6 inches by 8 inches include the framing, or is that simply the actual miniature without the frame?

Emma Rutherford: It is sometimes difficult to measure the actual miniatures because most of them are framed or cased, and we cannot get them out easily without damaging them. I would probably do it by sight of the ivory itself and not the frame, because the latter is probably unfair, given the differences in the scale of frames.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Yes. For the two musicians, Paul and David—I don’t know this—are musical instruments still produced with ivory in? Obviously, there is old ivory in musical instruments. Some very valuable musical instruments have ivory in, and I am sure that there must be bows used for violins or cellos that contain ivory, but they will be old ones—

Paul McManus: Correct.

[Mrs Latham]

There would be no new instruments with any ivory content, would there? When did that stop?

Paul McManus: We ceased in two real tranches: 1975 and 1989, when the two different types of element were made mandatory. That means that hundreds and hundreds of what we would class as vintage musical instruments are out there, belonging to musicians, and indeed representing their livelihood in many cases. But we ceased in modern manufacturing as the legislation came in. As an industry, we like to think that we have been very compliant with the right rules. We abhor the trade itself and have nothing but support for everything being done here, but equally passionately we support the exemption for these antique musical instruments that keep musicians in their livelihood.

David Webster: Absolutely. I cannot add to that. As we understand it, since ’89 there has been no use of ivory in the manufacture of accessories for instruments or of parts of musical instruments.

[Mrs Latham]

Q That is very useful to know. In terms of the antique ones, clearly the musicians will value them because they are used to them and have a special feel for them. We have been looking at the exemptions, and is not the most important thing that musicians should be able to continue to use them, if not necessarily to sell them? Surely, it should be very specific exemptions for particularly fine instruments that are verifiably that old—they should be very specific and of particular value, rather than just anything over 100 years old.

David Webster: A musical instrument is a very personal item. For our members—musicians—it is probably the biggest investment they are ever going to make. In some cases, that investment needs to be of some value to them, for example if they need to retire due to ill health or they get to the end of their playing days and they wish to retire with some kind of dignity, which it is everybody’s right to do. The investment in that instrument is the most important thing they have. The ability to trade that instrument is the key to their being able to retire with some dignity and comfort, which is the right thing to do.

[Mrs Latham]

Q What sort of figure are we talking about?

David Webster: In terms of—

[Mrs Latham]

In terms of what they would pay.

David Webster: There is no one figure, but it is hundreds of thousands in some cases, tens of thousands in other cases and thousands in others. It all depends on the instrument, when it was made, who made it, its tonal qualities and who has played it before the current owner. You cannot pin it down to one particular price.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Can you give me an example of something that would be hundreds of thousands?

David Webster: A Stradivarius. Some old and ancient cellos.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Would they have ivory in them?

David Webster: They might do. It might be in the bow. The very small amount of ivory in a violin or a stringed instrument would generally be in the tip or the frog of the bow, and it is a very small amount. There may be a little on the tuning peg. It could be an antique guitar.

Paul McManus: It can be pianos, too. In the 1960s, we had 40 companies manufacturing pianos in the United Kingdom. There are hundreds of old ivory-keyed pianos in circulation around the United Kingdom. They were made when other materials were not readily available. That all stopped back in 1975, but to take a good example, the largest piano auction house in the world is in the United Kingdom. It is called Piano Auctions Ltd. It sold nearly 500 pianos at auction last year, some 60% of which had old ivory keys. Frankly, it would not be in business if it was not selling them. The only alternative to the exemption—I know this would happen—is for piano shops to strip off those ivory keys, throw them in a bin and replace them with plastic ones. To me that would almost seem a double tragedy for the poor animal that gave up the ivory in the first place. Right down in the hundreds of pounds range, there will be an old piano that someone’s grandmother used to own that they are trying to move on to a school or whatever.

[Mrs Latham]

Q They can gift it.

Paul McManus: They can gift it, but lots of people are still trying to make some money from these products. There are hundreds of them around the United Kingdom. These are all one-on-one transactions. There is no trade here. These are just individual transactions between a musician and another musician. That is the way our industry works.

[The Chair]

Before I call Liz Twist, I want to say that members of the panel should contribute, even if you are not addressed by name, if you wish to. We can make this more interactive. If your contribution is relevant to the organisation you represent, feel free to make it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is on the record.

[Mrs Latham]

Q We have heard from a lot of people about the ivory trade today and the Bill, which is very narrow. For a number of years I have been advocating that, if we have the ban, which hopefully we will, some specific organisation should verify artefacts as being internationally significant. Do you feel that you are sufficiently qualified to do this job? Clearly, we will look to your organisations and perhaps some others to ensure that we are not just allowing trade in any old rubbish, but that artefacts are very significant. Do you feel sufficiently qualified to do that?

Hartwig Fischer: I am confident that museums in Great Britain and universities have enough experts to be able to deal with these questions and to come up with very sound judgments on the aesthetic or historical cultural significance of any object.

Dr Boström: I concur with that. We have world-renowned experts at the Victoria and Albert Museum in the history of ivory sculpture and objects.

[Mrs Latham]

Q How would you fund that? If people came to you with their particular pieces of ivory, or ivory as part of something, how would you fund that? There would be a cost to you. Would you think of charging whoever it is that wants it?

Dr Boström: We already have an opinions service, which is a public-facing service. Each curatorial department, on the first Tuesday of the month, has a public opinion session. We would certainly be able to offer the service through that. Whether a more robust service beyond that is needed, and what that might be, is one of the discussions that is on the table, I think.

Hartwig Fischer: In view of the importance of what the Bill addresses, I think provision should be made for those experts to give expert advice. There is an investment of time and expertise that should be covered, because it is during working hours.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q There are specific exemptions in clause 9 about acquisitions by qualifying museums, which you obviously are, which mean that you would be exempt from the prohibition. Could you give an example of where you might need to rely on that exemption for products that are not already covered by the exemption certificate? Am I right in my understanding that the normal prohibition is that it has got to be pre-1918, and has to have a certificate that it is of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical significance, but there are some exemptions if a museum is involved? What sort of product would be likely not to qualify for the exemption certificate, but be something that you would want to buy or sell?

Anthony Misquitta: As museums, we are not in the business of selling. We are not really entitled to sell. Once an item enters the collection of a museum, that is normally it. The term we use is de-accession and we have very narrow powers to de-accede. Certainly, once it is in the collection, we are not in the market to then sell it back into private ownership. Normally—99.9% of the time, and probably more than that—when it enters a museum’s collection, that is it forever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Latham]

Q Can you tell me what you feel the situation would be for sales to overseas museums in the future if the measure goes through? The International Council of Museums is not an accreditation body in the same way as the Arts Council scheme in the UK, so how do feel that that could be relied on to give the right information?

Anthony Misquitta: No museum will be selling to anyone, least of all an overseas institution. Speaking for the V&A, and I have seen the British Museum’s governing statute, I do not think we have the power—I know we do not, and I do not think that the British Museum does—to sell an item to an overseas institution, so I do not think that that would ever happen.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Does it not happen currently, or are they more loans that you give, rather than sales?

Anthony Misquitta: They are loans. I have concerns about loans, which I would like to raise at some point, but no, once an item is in a museum, that is it.

[Mrs Latham]

Q You would never sell anything to another museum.

Dr Boström: In the rare cases that an object is de-accessioned, which is very rare and has so many strictures around it, it would always be through a third party. It would never be a direct sale to another museum; it would always go through an auction house or a dealer; it could never be directly to another institution.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Why is that?

Dr Boström: To protect against inappropriate de-accession and sale. It is checks and balances.

[Mrs Latham]

Q So that the public can see that you are doing it, rather than it being a private sale.

Dr Boström: Yes.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Right, I can understand that. Mr Misquitta, you wanted the opportunity to say something about loans.

Anthony Misquitta: Yes. The V&A, like the British Museum, has thousands of items on loan throughout the world at any given time. We also loan in items as long and short-term loans. As the Bill is drafted, on my reading a loan is “dealing”. That means is that we can loan a work—in the United Kingdom, for example, I do not think it will be a problem because we would loan a work only to another accredited museum; we would never loan it to a private individual.

On the international stage, we often loan our works overseas. ICOM is a dominant force in the international museum world, but it is not everywhere. For example, we have a very close relationship with an institution called the Design Society in Shekou, Shenzhen, in China. We have a long-term relationship and have loaned a number of items to that institution, but it is not ICOM-registered, so we have to worry about our commitment—these items are out on a medium-term loan of a couple of years. I have an anxiety that when the Bill is enacted, suddenly we will be acting unlawfully, because overnight such loans will become unlawful. It is fixable with some transitional provisions, but that is one of the anxieties that I have.

The other anxiety concerns loans from private individuals. At any given time, we have a number of very valuable loans from individuals—amazing works, amazing individuals who lend us their works, often for decades at a time—but those are loans in from individuals who are not accredited museums. So we have a large job on our hands, which is to identify all those works, to attempt to get certificates for them and to deal with a great deal of logistics in relation to such activity—that is achievable but will involve quite a lot of work on the museums’ part. Again, some generous transitional provisions may help ease that pain.

[Mrs Latham]

Q Surely, if you are not selling it—if you are only loaning it to someone—there should not be a problem. It is the sale of things containing or wholly made of ivory that is the problem.

Anthony Misquitta: The terminology used in the Bill is “dealing”, and the definition of dealing includes the word “hiring”. I am sure the intention is not to capture these loans, but as it is currently drafted the Bill does capture them.

[Mrs Latham]

Q I am sure that is something the Minister will look at.

Hartwig Fischer: I would like to corroborate that. Lending is part of our key mission. We hold these collections for the public and share them as widely as possible. It is also part of our mission as national museums to project British values across the globe by engaging with other institutions by sharing knowledge and heritage. All our museums—ICOM museums included—are bound by an extremely strict code of ethics. Any museum dealing with another institution is bound to check the ethical validity of the other institution. To the best of my knowledge, all museums do that. Again, you have a number of codes and procedures in place to make sure that there is no breach. The fact that museums rank among those public institutions that enjoy the highest trust is evidence that this has worked and is reliable.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Subsection (5) of clause 9, which deals with acquisitions by qualifying museums, provides that

“‘ivory item’ means—

(a) an item made of ivory, or

(b) an item that has ivory in it,

but does not include an item consisting only of unworked ivory”.

Can you help me understand how many of your collections include unworked ivory in this respect? Do you think that exemption is appropriate, or does it actually cover a much larger section of items in museum collections?

Anthony Misquitta: I do not think we are concerned by that. As a museum of art and design, we are not interested in unworked ivory; we are interested in worked ivory.

Dr Boström: That does not really pertain to us, no.

Anthony Misquitta: We are not worried by that distinction, because we work only in highly crafted art and design.

Hartwig Fischer: However, among the national museums is the Natural History Museum, which is one of the grandest and most important of its kind in the world, and it might have—it probably does—unworked ivory as part of its documentation of natural history. So yes, it is likely that our museums have only ivory that has been worked—carved, incised or what have you—but it might very well be that the Natural History Museum, in living up to its purpose and mission, has unworked ivory in its collections.

Ivory Bill (Third sitting)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

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

[Sue Hayman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right: the expert said that this would be a “very sensible” thing to do. I hope that the Minister recognises that the amendment is designed to support the Bill by making it generally more effective and giving owners of items a better understanding of exactly what kind of exemption certificate they should apply for, so that the process can move forward much more smoothly.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I endorse what the hon. Lady has said. It was clear in the evidence that a measurement was wanted. The whole point about the Bill is that we need clarity and absolute certainty so that everyone knows exactly where they stand. If an item were bigger than is suggested, it would not be considered a miniature, because a miniature is something small. Whether the measurements are in inches or millimetres, I do not mind, although like the hon. Lady, I do not really understand millimetres; I only understand inches. I am interested in what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say, but whether it is stated in the Bill or set out elsewhere as guidance, I would like the size to be specified if possible.

Ivory Bill (Fourth sitting)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

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

The hon. Member for Leeds North West made a point about plectrums and other accessories. They will need to be less than 20% ivory to qualify for the exemption. However, mammoth ivory does not fall within the scope of the Bill—I am sure that we will have a long debate about that when we debate clause 35—so a mammoth ivory plectrum would be unaffected.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Plectrums are surely independent from the musical instrument; they are something that somebody chooses to use. If they are 100% either mammoth or elephant ivory, they will not be able to be sold. It is highly unlikely that any musician will rely on selling those in order to fund his or her retirement, because they are such small parts. I would have thought that that is a bit of an irrelevance. I do not know if the Minister agrees.

[David Rutley]

In the scheme of what we are debating, it certainly is a small item. However, for those involved, it may be significant. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if it is made of elephant ivory, it does not comply. However—we will debate mammoths at length when we debate clause 35, I am sure—mammoth ivory is not in the scope of the Bill as it stands, and therefore a plectrum will not be affected if it is made of mammoth ivory.

Ivory Bill (Fifth sitting)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

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

[Sue Hayman]

I know how the Minister appreciates it.

Several hon. Members, some of whom are members of the Committee and others who are not but took part in the Second Reading debate, have spoken about why they feel it is really important that we look at extending the Bill’s scope. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who I believe is paired today, the hon. Members for Mid Derbyshire and for North Dorset, who are both here today, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Witney, and for Southend West (Sir David Amess). They all raised the specific issue of extending the scope on Second Reading.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Although I agree that we need to look at going beyond elephant ivory at some point, we need to get this Bill through quickly, even though it is narrow. I would have preferred it to be wider, but it cannot be because we have not consulted on that. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be better to get the Bill through and to widen the scope at a later stage, as soon as we possibly can, rather than delay its implementation as it stands?

[Sue Hayman]

I agree that we need to get the Bill through very quickly, because of its important purpose. However, on consultation, I have taken professional advice from the Consultation Institute, and I declare an interest because I am an associate. Its advice to me, as a professional organisation that works with different Departments, is that consultation will not necessarily delay the Bill and prevent it from being ready before the conference that we are all looking forward to in October.

The Consultation Institute does not believe that it is illegal to move forward without further consultation, but if consultation was necessary, the Government could easily devise a quick consultation of no more than 14 days, by going back to the organisations that have already shown an interest in this matter through responding to the initial consultation. That could be done very quickly; there is no reason to delay the Bill by extending that consultation. The institute would be happy to work with the Department and endorse that consultation formally at the end, so that there would be no challenge. The Government have apparently done short consultations in the past as top-up consultations to something that has already taken place, as a piece of legislation goes through.