Ivory Bill

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to widen the scope of the Clause 2 exemptions, which provide for:

“Pre-1918 items of outstanding artistic … cultural or historical value”,


and which are rare and important examples of their type. Their effect would be to increase—in some cases quite significantly, as noted by my noble friend Lord Hague—the number of items that would meet the criteria to be exempted under this category. This exemption is just one of a package of five carefully balanced and deliberately limited exemptions. This package was developed following extensive consultation with stakeholders and represents what we believe is a proportionate and reasonable approach, while retaining the integrity of the Bill’s critical purpose. The exemption in Clause 2 recognises that there is a strata of items, made of or containing ivory, which are traded for their artistic, cultural or historical value rather than their ivory content. This exemption is specifically intended to be narrow and applicable only to rare and important items of their type.

Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, would change the backstop date of this exemption from 1918 to 1947. That would significantly increase the number of items which fell under the exemption. I recognise my noble friend’s concerns that ivory items from the Art Deco period would not be included in the exemption. However, I emphasise that the intention of the Bill is to ban dealing in ivory with narrow exemptions. In the case of any ban, there will always be items that fall outside any exemptions. We believe, as I am sure many other noble Lords do, that the 1918 backstop date is reasonable and proportionate.

However, as per the exemption set out in Clause 9, acquisitions by qualifying museums will not be affected by the ban—this was noted by my noble friend Lord Carrington and mentioned in her speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Significant items from the Art Deco and Art Nouveau periods may be sold to accredited museums, where they may be enjoyed by the public and preserved for the nation. I reiterate: the Bill has no impact on any individual’s right to personally own, bequeath, gift or inherit these items.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 would alter the definition of items in this exemption by removing “outstanding” or “outstandingly high”, and replacing “important” with “significant”. The effect of these amendments would be similar to others, by significantly increasing the number of items which fall into this category. In setting the criteria for this exemption—my noble friend Lord Carrington raised this—we will draw on existing criteria used to assess pre-eminence and national importance, such as the Waverley criteria and the export licensing regime for cultural objects. We will of course consult and work alongside expert institutions, museums and other key stakeholders to establish regulations setting out the detailed criteria for this exemption.

We are clear that items must be valued for their artistry, historical or cultural value, not their ivory content. As my noble friend Lord Gardiner and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have said on a number of occasions, the Government intend to reduce the desirability of ivory items domestically and internationally. But nothing in the Bill will prevent anyone continuing to appreciate, enjoy or admire the artistry or craftsmanship of any ivory item that they own, have collected, have been given or have inherited.

My noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lady Neville-Rolfe talked about the inevitable loss of items. Why will these items be lost? The items might be artistic— perhaps an Art Deco sculpture. Why would they be destroyed? They might be theatre tokens, as in the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack. These items are interesting and elements of our social history; you would not destroy them.

[Lord Cormack]

They are also personal property, legally and properly acquired by people who felt that they would at some stage be able to sell them if they needed to. This is an invasion of private ownership and the principle of being able to dispose of what you legitimately acquired and own.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think that we have been through that particular hoop a number of times. Indeed, this Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a proportionate response to an issue of global concern.

These objects will not be destroyed. Perhaps even if individuals no longer want them, they could do what I do and give them away or use Freecycle for items with little sale value. I find items on Freecycle last for about a day. There are many options available to individuals who want to pass on their items containing ivory.

With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have seen the result of the whipping by the three main parties in your Lordships’ House this afternoon, despite none of them addressing, or apparently even understanding—as was amply demonstrated a moment ago by my noble friend the Minister—the critical points some of us have raised. To divide the House on Amendment 3 would be futile and I am not in the business of wasting the House’s time. Let me therefore withdraw the amendment by quoting our Lord from Luke, chapter 23, verse 34:

“Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

8: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the UK Government have acted in accordance with the devolution settlements and engaged throughout the process with each of the devolved Administrations on the territorial extent and implementation of the Ivory Bill across the UK. I am pleased to say that the Governments of Scotland and Wales have both clearly expressed their support for the Ivory Bill. We have also worked closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

The UK Government’s engagement with the devolved Administrations concluded that dealing in ivory items either within a devolved country or between a devolved country and another part of the UK is a devolved matter. For instance, a dealing conducted wholly within Scotland or between Scotland and Wales will be devolved. Dealings between any part of the UK and a third country remains a reserved matter. The UK Government have therefore come to an agreement with the devolved Administrations to ensure that these devolved interests are protected through a number of amendments tabled in the name of the Minister.

The government amendments ensure that most regulations under the Bill that apply in relation to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland may be made only by, or with the consent of, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. If a devolved Administration does not provide consent, it can make its own regulations. The only exceptions are the powers to set fees by regulations and the publication and consultation of enforcement guidance, which remain exercisable by the Secretary of State but will require consultation with Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. These exceptions are made simply because the power to prescribe fees and the publication of enforcement guidance are technical matters.

We have also agreed to a minor amendment to specify Scottish Ministers as the appropriate body to publish a list of accredited museums. This change was requested by the Scottish Government as a reflection of the different status of Museums Galleries Scotland and Arts Council England and does not alter in any way the effect of this provision.

I assure noble Lords that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have confirmed that they are content that these amendments accurately reflect their devolution settlements and their rights under those settlements. These two devolved Administrations will issue legislative consent Motions ahead of Third Reading and the appropriate official procedure will be followed with respect to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her introduction and explanation of these amendments concerning the devolved Administrations. I listened carefully and I have one or two queries. It would be helpful if she could clarify the source and inspiration behind the amendments, bearing in mind that they were not tabled for Committee and so their impact was not debated. Will she outline the problem that her department seems to have stumbled across and to which these amendments are the solution? They seem to point to inconsistencies in the Bill between devolved competences and Clause 37(1)(b), on regulatory provision, that I need to grasp. Has the Minister’s department run into problems during dialogue on the Bill with one or other of the devolved Administrations? She did not seem to suggest that.

The Minister’s letter dated 19 October concerning the government amendments stated that the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations with the consent of the relevant Administrations, leaving aside for this purpose the requirement merely to consult on the fees or guidance. I remain unconvinced about how the involvement implied under consent will lead to more effective implementation of the Bill. On the contrary, there is concern that these amendments could result in unwarranted duplication of legislation and bureaucracy, at best, and regulatory divergence and differences at worst. It is regrettable that this group of amendments has been tabled so late in the process and that the House has not had more time to consider the matter. Will the Minister explain why she concluded that these provisions are necessary, bearing in mind that this is a reserved matter, as she said, and that there does not seem to be any policy differences between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations? Does she share the concern that the authorities will have to duplicate the canopy of administration when they may not have the required expertise in dealing with ivory or the trade in endangered species? Can she assure the House that these amendments will not lead to a delay in implementing the Bill or in commencing regulations or to it being implemented on different dates in different parts of the UK?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his comments. I reassure him that these amendments came out of lengthy discussions over time. They were laid when they were laid—in good time for consideration by your Lordships on Report, I think—as a result of a timeline issue. It was necessary to establish whether certain issues were devolved or reserved matters. In my opening remarks I made it very clear that we have listened carefully to the devolved Administrations and that we now fully understand how we can practically make sure that the Bill works in every country of the United Kingdom. I agree with the noble Lord that there could be concerns about bureaucracy and duplication but I think that because of the conversations we have had with the devolved Administrations, that will not be the case. Many of the systems will be used by every country. The enforcement regime will be the same, although it will be conducted by different people north of the border. OPSS, the enforcer in the first instance, operates nationally. When we look at these amendments, it is important that we respect the devolution settlement that we have reached with these nations. We thank the other Governments for their support in pushing this forward. Although the noble Lord has concerns, I reassure him that I believe they will not come to pass.

Amendment 8 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I support Amendments 41 and 78, which were debated in Committee and the Labour Front Bench said they would be bringing them back. While I support them, I am interested in what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the Government fully appreciate the sentiment behind the amendments in this group. Monitoring the implementation and impacts of the ban on the ivory market and other affected sectors is very important.

I turn first to Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the publication of a report on matters relating to the exemptions to the ban. In Committee, there was widespread agreement in your Lordships’ House about the importance of transparency and providing information to the public. I believe that the Government’s commitment to share publicly information on exemptions, in line with the Data Protection Act, was welcomed. We are committed to publish data on appeals, the number of items registered and the number of exemption certificates issued and revoked each year and to include a breakdown of these numbers into categories such as statues, reliefs, furniture and musical instruments. The noble Baroness’s amendment reflects these commitments, for which I am grateful, and I am happy to repeat them today. I cannot, however, agree that an amendment is needed and hope that the commitments that the Government have made will suffice.

I turn to Amendment 78, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, regarding a report on the impact and implementation of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has reflected points raised in Committee in this amendment. I reassure your Lordships’ House that, as a matter of course, the Government will assess the impact and implementation of the ban over time, in particular its enforcement. Much of this information will be available in the public domain and subject to public scrutiny.

It might assist noble Lords if I give a number of related examples of where this kind of information is already provided publicly. Perhaps this will assist the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in understanding the types of information that we will be publishing. The regulatory body that we have chosen to help enforce the ivory ban, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, already publishes an annual report which includes its activity over the year for each of the different regulatory areas the body covers. The Animal and Plant Health Authority, which will administer the registration system among other things, submits annual trade data on used permits to the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES. This data is available publicly on the CITES database. The National Wildlife Crime Unit, where appropriate, issues press releases on closed cases it has been involved in, often including the penalties issued. These publications will continue, and we will consider how we can provide further information that will complement but not duplicate them. An obligation in the Bill to produce reports would risk duplication and be a considerable and unnecessarily expensive undertaking.

With regard to the Department for International Development, a number of announcements were made at the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference earlier this month about additional funds being made available from DfID and Defra, including £46.6 million to protect endangered species and a £20 million round of UK Aid Match for wildlife and conservation issues. Any programme that is run by DfID must publish an annual review online demonstrating its results.

With regard to nations generating income from ivory, as referred to in Amendment 78, we believe that the decline in elephant populations deprives some of the poorest countries in the world of their natural resources, which impacts economic growth and sustainable development. The illegal ivory trade is conducted almost uniquely by organised criminal groups and the money from this despicable trade rarely reaches local communities and the people who need it.

At the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, I will not respond directly to her amendment, but I hope that she takes comfort from my words about the types of data that we will be drawing out and the categories of items that we will be able to summarise.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendment 42, which deals with the defence of ignorance in Clause 12, would remove the provision in the Bill stipulating that an offence has been committed only if the person knew or ought to have known or suspected that an item contained ivory. Under our amendment, it would be a defence if a person proved that they did not know or suspect, or could not have known or suspected, that an item contained ivory. That might sound as though there is not much difference, but there is an important difference in the burden of proof, and that is something that we seek to strengthen.

We considered this issue in Committee but failed to have a meeting of minds on the wording of this clause. At the time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, advised that the provision had been included to help tackle the issue of illegal ivory in items being deliberately mislabelled as another substance, and to protect those who fall victim to such ploys who genuinely did not know that an item they were dealing with contained ivory. Of course, we know that mislabelling is common. Numerous studies have found that new elephant ivory offered for sale is often mislabelled as ivory from other species or another material altogether, such as bovine bone. In some instances, this may well have been due to genuine unawareness, although deliberate mislabelling is a well-known tactic used in the illegal ivory trade to evade detection and facilitate illegal sales. In those circumstances, a seller might provide other information to indicate more discreetly to buyers that the item is indeed ivory, such as close-up photographs that depict cross-hatching, a tell-tale sign of ivory, or code words used in the trade to surreptitiously indicate that an item is made of or contains ivory.

We must have a form of wording that differentiates between those who are playing the system and know perfectly well what they are trading and others who have been genuinely duped. If we stick with the original wording, it would too easy to claim that you were unaware of what you were buying and would make enforcement a real challenge for the agencies, which would have to prove that you knew it was ivory.

Our amendment allows for a defence of ignorance but introduces a higher evidential threshold than in the clause as currently drafted. It also brings it in line with the provision in Clause 12(3), which allows for a defence if an individual can demonstrate that they took all reasonable precautions to comply with the law. I am therefore moving this amendment and I hope noble Lords will see the sense of our arguments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendment to Clause 12(2). The purpose of the current subsection (2) is to outline the criteria required to demonstrate that an offence has been committed. Subsection (3) provides a person accused of an offence with the defence that they took reasonable steps to avoid the commission of that offence. The purpose of subsections (2) and (3) together is to provide a balanced and proportionate framework with regard to prosecutions under the Bill, and to tackle the problem of illegal ivory items being deliberately mislabelled, while also providing a defence that allows a person to prove that they took the reasonable steps needed to ensure that the item was not elephant ivory.

Amendment 42 is explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in the Member’s explanatory statement published alongside the amendment as permitting the “defence of ignorance”. As noble Lords will know, there is no defence of ignorance in UK law. It is not permissible for someone accused of a crime, be it large or small, simply to claim that they did not know that it was illegal to do something. If we were to accept the amendment, we would also be suggesting that an individual would be able to prove a negative—to prove that they did not know something. That would be extremely problematic.

Furthermore, the amendment as drafted does not in fact reflect a “defence of ignorance” as referred to in the Member’s explanatory statement to the amendment. To explain a little, the amendment would remove the criteria in Clause 12(2), which outlines the requirements that must be satisfied for an offence to occur. Subsection (2) provides legal certainty on what constitutes an offence. It states that an offence is committed in relation to an item only, first, if a person knows or suspects or, secondly, if the person should have known or suspected that the item involved in the commission of an offence is elephant ivory or has elephant ivory in it. Subsection (3) essentially achieves the desired effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment. It states:

“It is a defence for a person … to prove that the person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence”.


In fact, subsection (3) goes further than the amendment, as it explicitly states what a person must prove to rely on that defence. Furthermore, in this case the individual will be seeking to prove a positive action. It is a far easier prospect to prove that due diligence has been undertaken than to prove a negative—that they simply did not know.

Let us have a quick look at how the Bill would operate if the noble Baroness’s amendment were accepted. Mrs Smith goes to a car-boot sale and sees a lovely box, which is very similar to her grandmother’s. She is not a very well-off lady, she owns absolutely no antiques and she pushes the boat out on that day and pays a tenner for this box as a treat. The box has a tiny, almost imperceptible, amount of ivory in it. Is Mrs Smith a criminal? It is not our intention that she should be. Removing subsection (2) makes the law far less clear because in that subsection is the outline of the requirements that must be met for an offence to occur. In the current draft of subsection (2), the elements of an offence are clear. To remove the subsection, as suggested in the amendment, would upset the firm legal foundation of the Bill. Removing the criteria for the offence in subsection (2) would cause significant uncertainty and risks overwhelming the enforcement system with Mrs Smiths, while the real criminals are left free to continue to break the law by dealing in ivory on much larger scale.

The Bill seeks to be balanced and proportionate. Removing subsection (2) would achieve neither aim. The police, enforcement bodies and the courts can use their professional discretion when considering the approach to use, based on a number of factors—for example, whether that person knew about ivory trading, whether it is a repeat offence or whether there is any evidence of deliberate mislabelling. Discretion is very welcome, but it must be based on a firm foundation of effective law. The amendment of the noble Baroness runs the risk of criminalising those who are not criminals at all.

Clause 12(2) and (3) are very carefully phrased. They protect individuals where there is absolutely no intent to breach the ban, and where the person could not be reasonably expected to know that the item was ivory or even contained ivory. It is not our intention to criminalise these people; that would be disproportionate and counterproductive. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is the Government’s intention in subsections (2) and (3) to be clear and proportionate, and I believe that is the case. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.