Debates between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Mon 10th Sep 2018
Ivory Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Ivory Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley
Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018

(6 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (10 Sep 2018)
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, due to illness in the family, my noble friend Lady Bakewell is not present for this part of Committee, although I believe that she will be along later. In her absence, I want to intervene briefly in support of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has started off Committee in fine, eloquent style, but the phrase “coach and horses” springs to mind as a result of what he had to say. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the kind of amendment that the noble Lord is putting forward would serve only to introduce further ambiguity and uncertainty into a Bill which has been designed to make sure that we do not have the ambiguities and uncertainties of the current legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had it absolutely right: the difficulties in identifying the difference between pre-1947 and pre-1918 ivory are rife. John Betjeman disapproved strongly of fish knives—

Lord De Mauley Portrait Lord De Mauley (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to Clause 7, for example, which already contemplates differentiating by date. The Government are obviously aware of a way in which this can be done.

Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will deal with that issue as far as this amendment is concerned, but to introduce further differentiation into the Bill is extremely unhelpful, particularly in the light of its intentions and the fact that the CITES convention will take place later next month. I do not think that that would be a particularly good symbol.

I am the proud owner of a set of fish knives—I do not believe that John Betjeman would have approved of them. I am firmly in the category that the noble Lord, Lord, Cormack, has identified as being caught by this provision. I am very relaxed about it. I do not believe one should be able to trade, deal or sell that kind of commodity. It is the sort of thing you pass on to your descendants. I very much hope this provision will remain part of the Bill.