Ivory Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cormack]

17: Clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out “with a surface area of no more than 320cm²”
Member’s explanatory statement
Not all miniatures would be covered by this limit. This amendment would allow more flexibility in judging miniatures.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 18, which are grouped together with a number of other amendments, are succinctly explained thanks to the new custom in your Lordships’ House of being able to add a sentence of explanation. As the one for Amendment 17 says:

“Not all miniatures would be covered by this limit. This amendment would allow more flexibility in judging miniatures”.


There is clearly going to be a considerable amount of bureaucracy following the enactment of the Bill. Anything that can be done to reduce that must be good for everyone, and good for the public purse. If we are going to have experts—and it will only be experts—looking at miniatures, and they have to worry because a miniature is 325 square centimetres rather than 320, that really is preposterous. Therefore, I suggest that this is a constructive, simple and sensible amendment.

Similarly with Amendment 18, we have this arbitrary figure of 10% in the Bill. Brief reference has already been made in your Lordships’ House today to a recent case that came about as a result of a presidential edict in another country. I refer to a wonderful piece of 18th century Chippendale furniture from which, because it fell foul of the United States’ regulations, the owner felt obliged, in submitting it for auction to one of the major London auction houses—I think it was Christie’s—to remove the ivory escutcheons and substitute celluloid. It was the desecration of one of the finest pieces of English furniture of the 18th century. What an act of vandalism—an act committed because of the perception of regulations in another country. The consequence was that the piece failed to sell, although when it was sold some years before it was recorded as the most expensive piece of English 18th century furniture ever sold.

Reference has been made in our debates to some of the wonderful inlaid boxes from India. Many of them came from Goa, the Portuguese enclave. They are inlaid with ivory, and some are incredibly intricate and beautiful. But how do you really determine whether the volume of ivory is 10% or not? My noble friend Lord De Mauley has tabled a more sensible amendment than mine, given that he wants to make the figure 50%. I feel slightly ashamed of my own modesty in putting down only 20%, and applaud his adventurism in putting down 50%. However, we are dealing with a Government who seem hardly sympathetic to aesthetic considerations, who seem to be in the process of branding themselves as desecrators and champions of vandalism.

The figure of 20% is indeed very modest. Are we really going to endanger some fine artefacts from another age, albeit not necessarily of museum quality, because they have ivory from an elephant long, long dead? Here is a case, if ever there was one, of the best being the enemy of the good. Just imagine if we said that in our churches only monuments by Rysbrack and Nollekens would be allowed to remain from the 18th century and the others would have to go. That would be absurd. Why, therefore, do we have to say that something which may not be superlative but is still incredibly good, still part of our history, should be endangered by this arbitrary limit?

I hope that some sympathetic consideration will be given to these two points as well as to the others covered in the amendments which have been grouped with my two amendments. I like to think that we are a civilised country, and I feel that this is a civilised House. I do not want us to put on to the statute book something that, in fact, runs counter to civilisation. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23 in this group. I will not deal at length with Amendment 17 moved by my noble friend except to say that I have considerable sympathy with it.

Starting with Amendments 18 and 19, the 10% threshold chosen for the Clause 7 exemption is another major aspect of the Bill that has caused enormous concern among those who handle antiques. In Committee in the other place, the Minister, David Rutley, rightly explained that objects,

“such as inlaid furniture or a dish or a teapot with a small ivory handle are not valued on the basis of their ivory content. Further, in such pieces, the ivory is incidental and integral to the item. It cannot be easily removed, so it is not vulnerable to recarving”.—[Official Report, Commons, Ivory Bill Committee, 14/6/18; col. 92.]

The Minister also made it clear at column 98 that the Government have no intention of unduly affecting artistic and cultural heritage.

There are plenty of objects with, say, 20% or 30% ivory content, and thus where ivory is still not the predominant material, such as inlaid or veneered Indian boxes and antique silver coffee pots, to which precisely the same characteristics apply; they are not valued on the basis of their ivory content. The ivory is incidental and integral to the item and thus not vulnerable to recarving. The Minister in the other place also said:

“It was refreshing and encouraging to hear in evidence that the 20% threshold will work for the vast majority of musical instruments, and that the enforcement agencies feel comfortable that that is a way to take the process forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Ivory Bill Committee, 14/6/18; col. 109.]


It is therefore a mystery why the Government have opted for a 10% threshold for one group of items and 20% for another. It is inconsistent and it is illogical.

What are the particular features of an object such as an inlaid Georgian tea caddy with 12% ivory inlay that renders it any more likely to be reused or valued for its ivory content than a musical instrument such as a baroque lute containing the same proportion of decorative ivory inlay? In the Second Reading debate in the other place and in the Public Bill Committee sittings, no examples were given by the Minister there of known cases where antique objects inlaid with ivory had been valued based on their ivory content or had been bought for the purpose of having their ivory removed. Neither do I believe were Art Deco bronze and ivory sculptures cited, nor were antique silver tea and coffee services demonstrated to have been sold for these purposes. In fact no evidence has been brought forward by anyone in any of the debates to suggest that where ivory represents less than half of the volume of a historical object, it contributes to poaching.

To discover whether items made from a mixture of ivory and other materials are being bought by people from the Far East, it would be helpful to have some data. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, the readily accessible UK export data for ivory held by the CITES secretariat distinguishes only piano keys from other carved items, so we do not know how many inlaid wooden boxes or bronze and ivory sculptures are being exported to China, but I would hazard a guess that the number is very low. It would be surprising if the Animal and Plant Health Agency had evidence of antique items where ivory is not the principal material being purchased in vast numbers and at prices well above the value of their ivory content, with a view to removing the ivory in China and selling it at the low price commanded by second-hand ivory.

The witness from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to the Bill Committee in the other place spoke on 12 June 2018 at column 14 and quoted $450 per kg as the price of raw ivory. A Georgian sterling silver tea pot worth £2,000 might contain an ivory handle weighing 80 grams. Using the IFAW figure, that 80 grams would currently be worth £36. As an old and pre-shaped piece, it would be worth even less, perhaps only £10. Why would someone pay £2,000 for the purpose of acquiring ivory worth just £10? If they removed the ivory they would also damage the integrity, and thus reduce the value, of the item for which they had paid £2,000.

How should we respond to the grandmother who owns a genuine early Victorian silver coffee pot with an original ivory handle or insulator, who is prevented from selling it and using the £1,800 proceeds to contribute to her grandchild’s university education? No one has demonstrated how a genuine antique of this nature has any connection to the poaching of elephants, so why should its owner be penalised in this way? The Minister in the other place referred in Committee at column 92 to the federal system in the US having a 50% by volume limit combined with a 200 gram weight threshold. It is understood that this restriction applies only in respect of objects that are not antiques.

--- Later in debate ---

I think it is appropriate now that I ask my noble friend Lord Cormack to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I have sat in the other place and this House now for some 48 years. I do not think I have ever been more depressed by a Bill put forward by a Government to whom I give support. I do not think that I have ever heard a more obdurate reply from the Front Bench. I beg my noble friend—I have always regarded him as a friend in every sense—to have a little bit of the pragmatism and flexibility which have been defining characteristics of the Conservative Party and, I believe, of all good democrats through the ages.

I have to confine my remarks to Amendment 17—the one that deals with miniatures. My noble friend the Duke of Wellington indicated to me, so that I knew in time to wind up, that the miniature that he examined this morning, and which he has offered to show to my noble friend, is significantly larger than the limit prescribed. Frankly, it is no good to say that the exemption covers 90% of miniatures. When people buy a miniature, they are buying a work of art because they want to own that particular image because of the subject or the artist, and sometimes both. They are not buying it because it is painted on velum, ivory or anything else. They are buying it for the picture. It just so happens that for a couple of centuries many of the best miniaturists painted on ivory and some of the finest miniatures in our national and local collections and in private collections in houses open to the public are painted on ivory. Some of them—among them some of the very best—will be bigger than the limit prescribed in the Bill.

This way madness lies and I beg my noble friend—whose invitation to withdraw the amendment I shall have to accept—to talk to my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and others between now and Report and to see that the case we are advancing in your Lordships’ Chamber today is not nonsensical but has at its heart a love for our national heritage and for these objects and miniatures that form a very important part of it. This is not a question of doing damage to any elephant. All the elephants on whose ivory the miniatures are painted are long dead. With a heavy heart, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cormack]

24: Clause 8, page 5, line 21, leave out “20%” and insert “30%”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to simplify the bureaucratic arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill.

[Lord Cormack]

I am sorry it is me again but I feel strongly about these things. In my two amendments and the one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, we are looking at music and musical instruments. I was encouraged to take an interest in this because of the admirable, although brief, speech that my noble friend—that is what I am going to call him—Lord Berkeley made at Second Reading. He indicated that, here again, the ivory happens to be the material but it is incidental. People do not buy a particular violin, a particular piano or set of Northumbrian pipes—I shall give the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, a trail, because I do so agree with her—because of the ivory content. Nevertheless, the ivory content is integral and is important.

I had representations only last week about bows. I was told things that I did not necessarily know. The small piece of ivory in a bow for a stringed instrument—a violin, cello or whatever—can be less than 1% and is gradually being replaced, through wear, with plastic in the cheaper ones, or permafrost mammoth. There was a quite preposterous suggestion at Second Reading that we should outlaw the use of ivory from mammoth, which have been extinct for millennia—God help me. My correspondent goes on to say that requiring all extant bows to be registered with Defra, and a de minimis rule, will swamp both Defra and the other offices concerned. She points out that there are 30,000 members of the Musicians’ Union in this country, the vast majority of whom make their profession from the use of bows. New legislation would make it difficult for them to tour with their bows or to sell them.

If the 30,000 professional musicians are not a sufficient concern, consider the amateurs. Consider how often, in this House, Members in all parts get up and lament what is happening to music in schools. We are dealing here with something where the ivory content is not only incidental, it is insignificant. We cannot have a situation where not only the artistic heritage of our country is put at risk but the musical heritage as well. I have suggested in Amendment 24 that we should put the content up from 20% to 30% and I hope we will be able to debate that in greater detail on Report. I stress that Amendment 26A is the most modest proposal of all—and I do not mean that in the sense of Jonathan Swift. Again, I beg and urge my noble friend to show some sympathy, as a man who, I believe, loves music, and recognise that we are not doing anything here that could conceivably endanger any living elephant. I beg to move.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 26 is in my name and is part of this group. I had very much hoped not to speak in Committee, or bring forward an amendment, as I had hoped that the problems that the Bill poses for the sale of second-hand Northumbrian pipes bought entirely legally in the first place would have been addressed at earlier stages, even in the other place. However, I do wish to speak to my amendment today, and it may be helpful if I put on record once again the fact that I am president of the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society. This is a role that involves no financial payment whatever, and although I do own two sets of pipes, neither of the sets contains any ivory. At Second Reading I explained some of my concern about the Bill’s provisions while strongly giving the Bill my overall support. In fact, I have been in favour of an ivory ban for many years and it is somewhat upsetting to be suspected of not supporting a ban simply for raising a rather narrow issue and a valid concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

Of course, I shall withdraw my amendment in a moment. As I said before, I regard my noble friend as a friend in every sense but I think it is a pity when your Lordships’ House has a reputation for scrutiny that he has to get up at the Dispatch Box in Committee and virtually rule out any reflection on anything other than the Northumbrian pipes. I am very glad that he is going to reflect on the Northumbrian pipes and I hope he comes up with a good solution. However, the other points made in the debate—not just by myself but by many colleagues—merit more consideration than they appear likely to get. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Ivory Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cormack]

33: Clause 11, page 7, line 13, leave out from “section 10” to the end of line 15 and insert “remains valid if the ownership of the item passes by inheritance to a member of the family of the registered owner.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to simplify the bureaucratic arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord De Mauley has been made tolerably happy for the moment. I am delighted about that, even if it is in a very small matter. I hope that on an equally small matter, although one with real repercussions, I can be made happy, because, as I explain in the explanatory statement:

“This amendment is designed to simplify the bureaucratic arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill”.


This amendment does not really concern elephants at all, and I hope that my noble friend—whichever noble friend responds—will be able to accept it. It provides that the certificate,

“remains valid if the ownership of the item passes by inheritance to a member of the family of the registered owner”.

I am not even asking that it should remain valid if it is given to somebody outside the family or is left in a will to somebody without a family connection.

Many such objects will be on the premises. Although I hope it will be many years before our noble friend the Duke of Wellington goes to a higher place, if the things that remain his property in No. 1 London or at Stratfield Saye pass to his son or another member of the family by inheritance, it seems quite unnecessary to have to go through the bureaucratic rigmarole again. I really hope that I will get a sympathetic response to this extremely modest—but I believe entirely sensible—proposal. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is trying to achieve but, with the best will in the world, I am not sure that it is practical. If an item is important enough to be passed down through inheritance to another family member, it is also important that the new owner has an up-to-date registration certificate for it.

The Bill requires that if there is a change of owner a fresh application should be made to register the item. This is important because it will ensure that the registration system has an up-to-date record of the name of the owner and their contact details and so on. Without this change of ownership recorded on the register, we are concerned that confusion might arise as to who has the legal obligations of ownership spelled out elsewhere in the Bill. If an item appears on the market or if it is suspected of being a forgery, the enforcement officers will not know whom to contact to clarify the position.

I am trying to give the noble Lord something to be cheerful about but I do not think that this is the way to go about it. I do not think an automatic transfer of an item and the registration certificate would work without the associated paper trail to show the current ownership.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment is to provide that a person who inherits a registered ivory item from a family member would not need to reregister it under Clause 10, regardless of whether he or she intends to deal in the item themselves. Clause 11(2) places duties on a registered owner to notify the Secretary of State when he or she becomes aware of any relevant information relating to the registered item becoming invalid or incomplete. A person inheriting a registration in an ivory item would therefore be subject to this duty at the point he or she became responsible for the registration. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, outlined very compelling reasons. If a person inheriting or taking possession of an ivory item is unaware that the item is registered, the Government would expect that person to decide whether he or she wants to sell or hire the item and to register it accordingly.

The main point I want to reference is that we are working extremely hard with all concerned to ensure that the self-registration of ivory items will be straight-forward and as simple as possible for those expected to use the registration system. For the security of the next generation in ensuring the item is as it should be and is properly registered, I am very sorry to have to disappoint my noble friend. It is in the interest of the next generation that we have the provisions for the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, outlined rather better than I have. On that basis, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

I am sorely tempted to divide the House. I say to my noble friend that all you need is a simple form that informs that the new owner is by inheritance the Marquess of This or Mr That. That is all that has to be done. You do not have to go through a whole paraphernalia of reregistering. That is what I am against. I hope we can come up with a formula, my noble friend and I, which will be acceptable on Report. With that hope, which is almost certainly a vain one, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Ivory Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cormack]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert “unless it has been certified that the object containing the ivory was created before 1918”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to ensure that steps taken to enforce the Bill are directed primarily at those who poach, use and trade in poached ivory.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill, which received its second reading in July, is far-reaching and has real implications for many people whom this House does not always consider. Before I move the amendment and explain why I think it is important, perhaps I might strike a note that I am sure will receive the approbation of everyone in the House and also those who have now quitted it—namely, that we wish to send our warmest good wishes to my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham, who is in hospital at the moment. We hope to see him back in full fighting form by the time that this Bill reaches Report.

I thought it would be sensible to table, at the very beginning of this Bill, an amendment that enables us to discuss the fundamental, controversial point. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships’ House, present or absent, does not wholly subscribe to the aims of the Bill as they have been enunciated over the past year or more. We all deplore the poaching of elephants and we all wish to see those noble creatures, both in Africa and in Asia, preserved. We wish to see them multiply and we should have absolutely no compunction about treating those who poach these animals with the utmost severity. Equally, we should treat with the utmost severity those who work the tusks of the animals and those who profit from what has been worked. That, I think, is common ground across the House.

But one does not save an elephant from being poached by effectively forbidding people to own and treat as proper property ivory items that are one, two, three, four or five centuries old. It is true that the Bill has certain limited exemptions: items of supreme museum quality and those which contain, in the case of furniture and so on, less than 10% ivory, while in the case of musical instruments, less than 20% ivory, as well as miniatures, as long as they are less, I believe, than 320 centimetres in size. The very recognition that there should be exemptions creates a situation which is arbitrary in the extreme. The Government accept these exemptions and they therefore acknowledge that it is entirely proper for antique objects of either great importance or which have a small percentage of ivory to be saved. But where does the ivory come from? It is ivory that has come from elephants in the past and the recognition of this makes a nonsense of the proposition that all other antique ivory should, in effect, not be allowed to be kept or traded or sold. What I am saying in the amendment is that we should look at this carefully before proceeding.

I shall give your Lordships one or two examples. Only the other day, when I tabled my amendment, I had a letter from a body of which I had not previously heard: Chess Collectors International. Many people in our country enjoy playing chess, and until the beginning of the 20th century a very large number of chess pieces were made of ivory. Perhaps the most famous of all in this country are those made of walrus ivory, the Lewis chessmen in the British Museum. But there are many others, many of them made from elephant ivory. Often these chess collectors have purchased these sets not only because they wish to play chess with them but because they regard them as some of the finest small sculptures in existence and objects of beauty and importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, expressed, and of course we wish him a speedy recovery.

I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I have listened very carefully to his arguments, but he will not be surprised to hear that, on this amendment, we really cannot support the position that he has put forward. I think that, on this issue, he has his priorities wrong because this is a debate about where our energies and our loyalties should lie. I think that the whole emphasis, the reason that we had the consultation and have this Bill before us today, is that it was felt that the previous legislation was not working and therefore more stringent steps needed to be taken to stop the trade as concerns elephants.

I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord is saying, but I do not see that he is doing anything to help stop that trade. If anything, he is making the situation worse.

[Lord Cormack]

Can the noble Baroness give one single piece of evidence where the sale of a genuine piece of antique ivory has created the problems to which she alludes?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

The noble Lord will know that that is not the issue. The issue has always been that the market is flooded with some legitimate pieces and some illegitimate pieces, and the market has not been able to distinguish between the two. This is why we have to restrict the sale of goods more stringently than we have done. That is the issue. If we introduced his date of 1918 rather than 1947, we would be back to square 1 because everyone would suddenly reclassify their ivory as being pre-1918. We would be in the same ball game of trying to distinguish between what was legitimate and what was illegitimate. The problem is of being able to date what comes on to the market effectively. The legislation as it stands has had a problem with that, which is why we are taking these further steps, so we are having a debate at cross purposes. I am trying to do something that protects elephants. The noble Lord is trying to protect inanimate objects. I think that, at the end of the day, the elephants win that argument. They are a higher priority. That was the view of the vast majority of people who responded to the consultation. I will not rehearse all those arguments; we argued them through in the Second Reading. He will know that there was a huge response to the Government’s consultation, and the vast majority of people supported tighter restrictions because they could see that, without those, elephants are being hunted down and massacred to extinction. Nothing that he is saying today is going to stop that.

[Lord Cormack]

I have the figures here. Of the people who responded to the consultation exercise—and incidentally, 35,000 were identical emails—99% were from three organisations dedicated to the preserving of elephants. We all agree with the elephants’ being preserved, but you do not need to ban the sale of genuine antique items to preserve genuine living elephants.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Can the noble Lord explain how to tell pre-1918 ivory from more modern ivory? Is there a kind of test that experts can do? Is it reasonably sound, or is it a matter of opinion?

[Lord Cormack]

I hesitate to respond when the noble Baroness has the floor, but, as the question was directed at me, yes, there are people who are expert in this and who are able to assess ivory very carefully. I am not saying that the test is infallible, because nothing is infallible. I referred to faked pictures when I was moving this amendment. It is, however, a very good test. It would pass “Fake or Fortune?” pretty comprehensively every Sunday evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in saying that I very much look forward to the early return of my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for later stages.

My noble friend’s amendments intend to allow pre-1918 ivory objects to be bought, sold and hired within the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions. Indeed, my noble friend—and this has been raised already—used words such as “confiscation” and “loss of ownership”. These measures precisely do not affect the right to own, gift, inherit or bequeath ivory. They are precisely not for that purpose.

As this is the beginning of Committee stage, I reiterate the overriding purpose of this Bill. Its intention—and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also made this clear—is to introduce one of the strongest ivory bans in the world, with narrow and limited exemptions, to curtail the demand for ivory that currently threatens the elephant with extinction. As your Lordships know—a number of noble Lords have referred in different ways to the public consultation—there is overwhelming public support for this ban. I say to my noble friend in particular that we have worked extensively with conservation NGOs, the arts and antiques sector, and musician and museum sectors to help shape this Bill, and we believe it is a proportionate response.

The exemptions outlined in the Bill have been included to allow limited dealings in ivory to continue where they are unlikely to contribute to the poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be bought, sold and hired, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions, would significantly undermine the aim of the Bill and the carefully balanced package of exemptions. My noble friend is, of course, conversant with Clause 2, which we will address in more detail later. We have specifically created an exemption so that pre-1918 ivory items that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value, and which are the rarest and most important examples of their type, can continue to be traded.

I suggest to my noble friend that his other amendment concerns the offences of buying or hiring ivory as the owner within the UK only. Subsection (4)(b) concerns selling and hiring ivory as the lender both in and outside of the United Kingdom. My noble friend and my noble friend Lord De Mauley have raised a number of issues about the antiques sector. A 2016 report by TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring network, on the UK’s domestic ivory trade, showed that consumers of UK antique ivory are increasingly from Asia, particularly China, Japan and Hong Kong. This constitutes a change since the last UK ivory market report in 2004, which found that most buyers were from Europe and the United States. This worrying shift demonstrates that the UK antique ivory market is increasingly connected to the Far East, where the demand for ivory is highest, further fuelling the demand for ivory, and its social acceptability.

I also want to refer to a point in the discussion between the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the 2010 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime concluded:

“The trade in illicit ivory is only lucrative because there is a parallel licit supply”.


This is precisely why we are having to introduce a ban, with only tightly drawn exemptions that are unlikely to continue to fuel the illegal trade and poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be traded would further perpetuate the demand for ivory and undermine the effectiveness of the ban. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said: we have got to bear down on the situation in which 20,000 elephants a year are being slaughtered. We saw only last week reports from Botswana of this slaughter continuing, and the status quo at the moment is simply not acceptable. This country has to lead. We have a responsibility to lead. We are one of the world’s largest exporters of ivory and we must act. So, for the reasons I have given, I am not able to support my noble friend’s amendment and I respectfully ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord Cormack]

I had hoped we might have a rather longer debate on this, but of course I listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said and I obviously have no intention of dividing the House today. I believe very much in the unwritten convention in your Lordships’ House that it is better to have divisions on Report than in Committee. However, I shall certainly be framing amendments for Report because I have not been convinced by anything that my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have said that we are assisting the elephants by forbidding the sale of genuinely antique ivory items. I just do not accept that, and although I accept that there have been consultations with the antique trade, with which I have no pecuniary connection and no interest to declare—I have bought the odd thing in an antique shop, although not ivory—I know that those who have been part of these negotiations have not been entirely convinced that their point of view has been really seriously taken on board.

I think that my noble friend must also realise that we are one country. Quite shortly, much to my regret, we will not be part of a European group of countries, and what will happen, as I have already quoted from the note from the chess collecting chairman, is that things will be sent abroad: they are going abroad quite quickly now. I think it is a pity that we are taking this real sledgehammer to this; nevertheless, there is no point in prolonging discussion now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 7 and 11. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord De Mauley has said and I will not speak at length because I made many similar points when I introduced my earlier amendment. However, it is terribly important that we do not unwittingly pass into law an Act of Parliament that would, as its inevitable consequence, lead to the destruction of part of the fabric of our rich artistic heritage and civilisation. That is something which we should all take very seriously.

We should also take seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord De Mauley about religious significance, not just in the Christian context but in that of many religions. Of course, in the European and Christian context we should remember the school of ivory carvers that existed in Dieppe for centuries and produced, among other things, some wonderful devotional objects. They are part of the warp and weft of domestic civilisation in Europe. Just as in our churches we would throw up our hands in horror at the thought of the despoiling of monuments and other wonderful objects which happened in the 16th and 17th centuries at the time of the Reformation and the English Civil War, surely we in the 21st century do not want to connive in the despoiling of domestic objects of devotion such as those made in Dieppe.

My two amendments have a similar aim to that of my noble friend Lord De Mauley in that I would delete the words “outstandingly high” so that that paragraph in Clause 2(2) would refer to the item being of,

“artistic, cultural or historical value”.

I would of course accept “religious value” as well. That is much more objective, much less subjective, and easier to determine. In Amendment 11 I would take out the word “important” and replace it with “significant” because again that is a little less subjective and thus easier to determine.

When I spoke earlier in moving Amendment 1, I referred to the fact that there is a different application for what is an item of museum quality in my native city of Lincoln than there would be in London. There is nothing right or wrong about that, it is just a fact, and we do not wish this Bill to penalise smaller museums in places like Lincoln at the expense of London. Of course I want wonderfully important objects that naturally would go to the London museums to continue to do so—they house our great national collections. Equally, however, items from historic families in Lincolnshire, although they might be less important, nevertheless in the context of Lincolnshire history are of incalculable wealth. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will recognise the force of the many points made by my noble friend Lord De Mauley and that within this group of amendments there are things that could improve the Bill without in any way diluting its central purpose.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 9 and I declare my interest as a former president of the British Antique Dealers’ Association, which is still superbly run by the secretary-general, Mr Mark Dodgson.

We are all, and when I say “all” I mean in this Chamber and outside, appalled by the disgraceful poaching of elephants in Africa and elsewhere. The reports last week of the slaughter of so many elephants in Botswana are beyond belief. Although the Government announced extra funding last July, in the joint statement from the Foreign Office, Defra and DfID, I wonder whether even more direct help can be provided to range states in Africa. I hope all your Lordships agree that we want Britain to play its part in protecting elephants.

When I spoke during the Second Reading, I expressed the view that the Bill provides a framework for preventing the sale of modern ivory trinkets in this country, which is desirable, but we surely must bring a sense of proportion to how we protect elephants. As Clause 2 is presently worded, the requirement that cultural property may be sold only if it is of “outstandingly high” cultural value is so restrictive that it will have a damaging effect on the cultural life of this country and will prevent the sale of many items of historical significance.

The allegation that the UK is supporting a large commercial ivory trade conjures images in the public’s mind of a trade in ivory as a modern commodity, which is how it is thought of in Africa and Asia. I am not aware, however, of any evidence to suggest to any significant extent that modern poached ivory is imported into this country, offered for sale here or exported. I will explain this further since this is important to grasp in the context of this clause.

We have already heard from my noble friend Lord De Mauley that the number of worked ivory antiques exported from the UK is not as large as some of us imagine. Additionally, the TRAFFIC report made clear that large-scale seizures of African ivory tusks and bangles at UK airports are relatively rare. Furthermore, when they occurred, they represented items in transit to other countries, not destined for buyers or workshops here. Of course, some modern ivory carvings may have made their way to the United Kingdom, which TRAFFIC says are brought here by private individuals from trips abroad, not as part of smuggling rings. In the context of the hundreds of thousands of antique items incorporating ivory owned by people in Britain, there is no evidence that modern poached ivory is prevalent. Furthermore, as the antiques trade is aware, any seizures of exported ivory objects that occur do so because someone is attempting to export them without the required CITES permits, not because they represent examples of poached ivory.

Lucy Vigne, a conservationist and ivory trade researcher working in east Africa, is the author of a number of respected reports, including one recently for Save the Elephants looking at China and the trade in ivory there. She is on record in the press as saying that:

“This recent issue in the West has been taking away valuable time and resources from dealing with the big issues we are facing urgently”,


by which she meant,

“the trade in new ivory in Asia and poaching in Africa”.

In case the Committee feels that I have diverted from the points in hand, I say that I am not aware of anyone having demonstrated that the UK is awash with poached ivory. Precisely the same result would be achieved without sacrificing so many cultural items. For this reason, I support this amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Carrington of Fulham and Lord De Mauley. I add that the debate is not “elephants or history”; both need preserving and should be dealt with together to be successful.

I was recently written to by Mary Kitson, who is honorary secretary of the Fan Circle International, an antique fan study group whose membership includes collectors, dealers, museum curators, conservators and art historians. She is extremely concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on this delightful part of our social history, and indeed the history of fashion. She explained that a collector of antique fans is likely to include in their collection fans whose sticks are made from a variety of materials such as mother of pearl, ivory, wood or metal. A fan’s sticks give strength to what is termed the leaf—the part of the fan that is exposed when the fan is fully opened. Fans with ivory sticks certainly comprise more than 10% ivory.

Other items of our social history include games that incorporate ivory components. The immediately obvious example is Victorian chess pieces, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Cormack. Then there are children’s games such as bagatelle, where the small balls can be fashioned from ivory, or the cup-and-ball game bilboquet, where the cup can likewise be made of ivory. Some of your Lordships may argue that these items could be given to museums, but they would not welcome thousands of duplicates. What is more, observing objects located behind a rope cordon or in a glass cabinet is not always the best way to appreciate them properly. There is no substitute for owning and handling antique objects in one’s own home, which is one of the best ways to interact with and appreciate our history. If we cannot recognise properly the way in which different materials were used historically, we can lose touch with our past.

It is very sad that people should even contemplate exchanging original materials in genuine antique objects with modern substitutes. The recent replacement of ivory with ivorine, a form of celluloid, in a Chippendale cabinet is a case in point. I worry about where all this is heading. Next, someone will suggest that bone or leather should be outlawed. Therefore, I support the proposal that exemption certificates should be issued for not only objects of outstandingly high historical value but also for those that are of the same calibre as objects found in our officially recognised museums. This would include not just the British Museum or the National Museum of Scotland but other wonderful collections, such as those of the Fan Museum in Greenwich or the Museum of Childhood in Bethnal Green.

Ivory Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, ended on a moving note but it was a remarkably non-pacifist speech before then and I shall think of him in future as “Bazooka Jones”. I was getting rather depressed with this debate during the first six speeches. It did not really turn into a debate until my noble friend Lord Lingfield inserted Disraeli’s paper knife. From then on there has been a degree of balance and real interest in the debate.

There is unanimity in your Lordships’ House about the nobility of the elephant, the necessity to preserve the elephant, and the evil of those who indulge in poaching and make nefarious gains as a result of illicit trade. On all this there is unanimity, and I subscribe to it utterly and totally. There was not a word of the speech of my noble friend Lord Selkirk on elephants with which I did not agree wholeheartedly. However, it is not as simple as that.

I am reminded of the famous instance when, shortly after he became king, Edward VIII said when visiting the Welsh valleys, “Something must be done”. The “something must be done” syndrome is not necessarily the begetter of good legislation. The legislation before your Lordships’ House is well intentioned but flawed. It is not just the road to hell that is paved with good intentions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—I think that I have the territorial designation right—spoke very passionately about species threatened by the demolition of rainforests. I was very moved by the recent programme in which Her Majesty and David Attenborough walked through the gardens of Buckingham Palace talking about the Queen’s great Commonwealth forest programme, and I agreed with all of that. I remember when the future of the rainforests was debated here, in another place and elsewhere, and I also remember the late Tam Dalyell tackling the King of Spain on a visit to Madrid in 1989, which I had the privilege of leading, but at no stage in that debate did people suggest that in order to preserve the rainforests we should ban the sale of mahogany furniture made in the 18th century. There is an analogy here.

Of course I want to see online sales totally banned and of course I want to see the illicit trade in ivory come to an end, but I also have an interest to declare not just in the heritage of Africa but in the heritage of our country and of Europe. I want to draw attention to the extraordinary importance of many of the finest works of art which were crafted in Europe from the Middle Ages onwards. I think of crucifixes in cathedrals around this continent; I think of small, hand-held devotional figures of the Virgin Mary made in their thousands in Dieppe in the 17th and 18th centuries; and I think too of all the furniture adorned, although not in an extravagant way, with ivory from the 16th and 17th centuries onwards. This is part of the warp and weft of our civilisation and our history, and, although it is not the Minister’s intention, in this Bill we are in danger of trashing much of our history.

My noble friends Lord de Mauley and Lord Carrington of Fulham both gave examples and instances of how difficult it will be to measure the 10% or, in the case of musical instruments, the 20%. This will lead to a bureaucratic minefield if we are not careful. How many elephants will be saved by the rigorous application of these rules and regulations, and how many extinct mammoths—extinct for millennia—will be brought back by musicians having mammoth ivory in their instruments? We have to get this in perspective but I fear that the Bill does not do that.

I am delighted that there is an exemption for miniatures. Much of the provincial as well as the national history of our country is told in miniature paintings. You can go to country house after country house, many of them in the possession of the National Trust, and see miniatures of family members who played an enormous part in that particular locality two or three centuries ago.

I wonder how many noble Lords have read Edmund de Waal’s fascinating book, published about four years ago, The Hare with Amber Eyes. It was a moving account of a collection of Japanese netsuke—those little toggles that the Japanese were so wonderfully accomplished in making. How much ivory is involved? A tiny bit, and yet they are not encompassed by this. How many would qualify as objects of great artistic and cultural importance? Some, undoubtedly, but the majority not. Yet some people have made it their life’s work to collect them, entirely legitimately and properly, and even a modest collection can be worth tens of thousands of pounds. Do we really want to support a Bill that sequesters private property in that way and destroys the nest egg of the teacher or the doctor who has collected over the years? That applies particularly to the more domestic things. One of my noble friends mentioned theatre tickets, and there were ivory race tickets too. They are objects of no great beauty and intrinsically of no great value, and yet they help to tell the story of the social history of our country in the 18th century. Are we really saying that the teacher I once met, on a very modest income, who had amassed a significant collection of these things, can keep them as their property or can give them away, but cannot sell them to realise on them to augment their pension?

We are entering deep waters here and it is not helpful for this House to approve legislation, the consequences of which have not been fully thought through. Of course we must do everything we can do deal with poaching; of course we must help those countries in Africa that need help; of course we must follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and my noble friend Lady Chalker and others. But do we really need a Bill this long in this detail, with all its powers for the invasion of privacy, searching out people who have acquired things entirely legitimately and treating them as if they are criminals? That is wrong and it is not in the spirit of our country.

Somebody talked about museum quality. But what is museum quality for the Victoria and Albert Museum here in London is not necessarily the same as museum quality in the city in which I am privileged to live, Lincoln, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, came about 18 months ago and delivered a splendid talk. There are things that we would wish to have in our museum, relating to Lincolnshire families and to Lincolnshire people, that would not be of the remotest interest to the V&A. It is subjective. I believe that, when this Bill goes to Committee, we will have to look at these points very carefully.

Do we really have to boast that our regime is stricter than almost any other regime in the world? In France—where they actually did win the World Cup—they do it with a little more finesse. Of course, online sales are banned completely, dealers have to be registered and certain things have to have certificates, but it could be done in a gentler way. We do not need this complex, draconian legislation. We need to put all our emphasis on the preservation of the living elephants and those that will live in the future—and other species too. But that does not mean that we have to cast doubts on those wonderful walrus ivory chess men from the Isle of Lewis, which are one of the great treasures of the British Museum. Let us get this in perspective and try to improve this Bill, which has an admirable aim but which is sadly deficient in many particulars.

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill [HL]

Lord Cormack Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 27th April 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cormack]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose I should begin with a brief word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Soley. I congratulate him on getting his Bill to Committee stage rather earlier than I had feared and I wish him well.

It is some 46 years since I introduced my first Private Member’s Bill, the Historic Churches Preservation Bill, in another place. It led to state aid—later, through English Heritage—being made available for historic churches in use. I introduced that Bill and wrote my book, Heritage in Danger, a couple of years later because I was deeply concerned about the state of our parish churches and the dangers that face them. I will not say that we have come full circle, but the Bill I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to today was introduced because of dangers that were not very real then but now face 6,000 of the 12,000 listed parish churches in the care of the Church of England.

I begin by making it abundantly plain to your Lordships that this is not an anti-bat Bill. I have often taken delight in them, particularly when my wife and I used to sit in the garden of our house in my constituency and delight in watching the bats. They are amazing creatures and I am glad that there are 18 species of them in this country. It is right that they should be adequately protected. However, it is right too that churches should be protected from incursions that threaten their condition and purpose. As I said, we have some 12,000 listed churches—the Church of England is responsible for 16,000 plus in all—over 50% of which have a bat problem.

I hope that I do not have to convince any of your Lordships of the importance of the parish church—indeed, most of our churches—to the history of this land. It is through our great churches and even greater cathedrals that we come closest to the soul of the nation and understanding its history. They are buildings of enormous importance and consequence. Earlier this week, I talked to someone who made the point that when their church was threatened with closure, the whole village was up in arms. Even those who rarely, if ever, darkened its doors did not want to see it closed or be declared “redundant”—a rather horrible term in this context. In all our most solemn and joyful moments, both national and personal, we tend to gather in our churches. Week by week, day by day, they perform a very special purpose. They are not only havens of peace, but centres of the communities in which they are situated. Moreover, many of them are great treasure houses of the most important art in our country. Almost all medieval sculpture is in our churches. One goes beyond that: brasses recording the illustrious, and sometimes not so illustrious, citizens of the locality; alabaster monuments; painted screens; murals; amazing wall-paintings, sometimes dating from the 12th century; textiles; floors, and furnishings. All of this and the cycle of worship is at risk. It has been at risk since I first introduced the Bill to which I referred some 46 years ago. I want to give your Lordships some examples.

I first became acutely aware of this problem shortly after we moved back to my native county of Lincolnshire some seven years ago. I went to a church that I knew well as a boy and a young man, the great collegiate church of Tattershall, which some of your Lordships may know and which stands hard by Tattershall Castle, one of the finest brick-built medieval buildings in the country. The church itself is a wonderful example of perpendicular architecture: soaring columns, full of light and full of some of the most extraordinary brasses and monuments, and with a fine, original 500 year-old door which the church authorities are not allowed to repair, much as it needs it, because, in repairing it, they may block one of the access routes for the 900 or so bats of several species which have colonised the church.

It was very sad indeed to see those brasses, which I remembered well from earlier years, covered over, but when one removed the covers, one saw them pitted: the urine and the droppings of the bats were corroding them in a way that they could not be repaired. There are many other examples, of which I shall give just a few. Stanford-on-Avon in Northamptonshire has some of the most wonderful alabaster and marble monuments. Deene in the same county has brasses and monuments. All Saints, Braunston-in-Rutland, has a colony of 500 bats; again, there are some marvellous monuments. The same goes for St Andrews, Holme Hale, in the diocese of Norwich—I am glad and grateful that the right reverend Prelate has put down his name to speak in this debate; we much look forward to hearing what he has to say. I would go on and on, but I do not want to weary your Lordships; I merely want to underline that this is not a local problem but a national problem, a problem that is particularly acute in those dioceses such as Norwich and Lincoln which have an abundance of wonderful places of worship.

We should take this carefully on board. I want to pay tribute to one individual, Dr Jean Wilson—she is just about to give up after completing her term as president of the Church Monuments Society—because she more than any other individual has drawn attention to this problem and to the haemorrhaging of the cultural assets that our churches contain. Churches make an enormous contribution to our tourism revenue. The people who flock to Beverley in Hull go to see the Minster and St Mary’s. Were they not there, would they go? The same can be said of course of many other places. They are, as I said earlier, community centres of great importance, but first and foremost they are places of worship.

I shall quote from one or two letters that I have received. This comes from Norfolk:

“The warden spends an hour almost every day of the week sweeping up droppings. Because of the droppings it is difficult to raise money from exhibitions and choral entertainment, so the community of the church is interfered with”.


This comes from Sleaford in Lincolnshire:

“Those who clean the church have a constant battle trying to remove bat droppings and urine from every surface. Even if the church is cleaned on Saturday it still needs attention before a Sunday service. Prayer books and hymn books cannot be left out as they would be ruined by bat urine and there is also a danger to health. It is very unpleasant. The church has part of a medieval wall painting and a 13th century effigy which have been affected by the bats. An active craft group in the village has produced kneelers, involving many hours of work; they are also affected by the bats. Last year at the end of a service a bat fell onto the head of an eight year-old girl, causing much distress. Not surprisingly, she was reluctant to return to church”.


I have an even more graphic example from a wonderful church in the Golden Valley of Hereford where a parishioner and his wife were kneeling to receive holy communion from their woman vicar. Bat droppings descended during the most sombre part of that ceremony, the administration of the host, which went into the vicar’s hair and the hands of those who were about to receive. I am sorry to dwell on those examples, but it helps:

“To point a moral, or adorn a tale”,

as someone would have said.

Of course, churches are used at the most solemn and joyful moments of individual lives. Some now find it difficult to conduct weddings, or even to persuade people to have their weddings in the church. Many a stalwart of the local community has had a funeral in a church where the stench is overcoming. And there is a hygiene risk. It is customary in the Church of England to serve refreshments after the main Sunday service and particularly after special festivals and the like. Very few people are tempted to eat if they can smell and see evidence of bats. Professor Wilson sent me a paper from the American journal Microbe, written by several eminent scientists and entitled Bats Prove to be Rich Reservoirs for Emerging Viruses. These are things we cannot just disregard.

I want briefly to go through the Bill and what it seeks to do: I think it gives a balanced approach. I draw from the admirable briefing that the House of Lords Library has produced for us all—how grateful we are on so many occasions for what it produces. The Bill has four clauses. Clause 1(1) provides:

“No new building shall be constructed on a previously undeveloped site unless prior to its construction a local bat survey has been conducted and it has been established whether or not a bat habitat is located in the vicinity”.


Clause 1(2) states that if a survey,

“concludes that a bat habitat is located in the vicinity of the site of a proposed building, the building shall not be occupied unless or until the developer of that building has provided a bat box or artificial roost for each species of bat”.

Clause 1(3) states that the term “building” would also include wind turbines, therefore no wind turbines requiring planning permission could be constructed unless there was compliance with the provisions of this clause.

Clause 2 would set out that,

“the European Communities Act 1972, the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 shall not apply to bats or bat roosts located inside a building used for public worship unless it has been established that the presence of such bats or bat roosts has no significant adverse impact”—

and sometimes it does not. Clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to specify by statutory instrument,

“the criteria to be used in a local bat survey”,

and,

“the meaning of … terms such as ‘in the vicinity of a building site’”.

It is a modest Bill and it is not, as I said at the beginning, anti-bat.

I have had a number of very useful and helpful conversations with Andrew Sells, the chairman of Natural England, and Sir Laurie Magnus, the chairman of Historic England. I welcome the initiative that they are taking, working together to see what can be done to tackle the problem in churches, which they both fully acknowledge, but there are one or two problems with their “Bats and churches” project. First, there is the speed with which it is being conducted. Sir Laurie has written to me to say that they have had some lottery funding to set up the pilot projects, but they really need more if they are to roll it out over the nation in a reasonable time. I hope that his plea will be heeded by the Heritage Lottery Fund but there are other worries. One is that Natural England subcontracts the enforcement of bat protection legislation to the Bat Conservation Trust. As someone remarked slightly mischievously in a letter to Professor Wilson, that is a bit like putting the National Rifle Association in charge of firearms legislation in the United States. We need to have balance and impartiality.

There really is a sense of urgency. Over this weekend, tens of thousands of bats will defecate and urinate in over 6,000 churches. We must achieve a balance between the way we protect bats and preserve churches. Nothing less than one of the most important parts of our heritage is at risk because once destroyed, great works of art created centuries ago cannot be replaced. A replica never suffices.

We all have cause to be thankful for the rich heritage that we enjoy. We all have a common duty to ensure that it is preserved, not only for the current generation but for those to come to enjoy. Whether they go to worship because they are believing Christians or, as so many do, just to look and admire—to be inspired by what they see and come away with a greater sense of local and national patriotism and a love of history—we want them to be able to continue to go, and enjoy what they see, without seeing it destroyed before their eyes or with a stench in their nostrils. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this interesting debate. My noble friend referred to the three Front Benches. Looking back on my 40 years’ membership of another place, whenever the three Front Benches were in accord, I always smelt a rat, if not a bat. Therefore I will persist in the campaign of which this Bill is a part because although I am very glad that there were some unifying themes in the debate, we are all keen on our obligations to the environment and to wildlife, we all recognise the fascination and the importance of bats and we all seem to recognise that the glorious—my noble friend used that adjective correctly—churches of this country not only belong to us all but are the responsibility of us all. It goes far beyond the Church of England. I was particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the experience he brought to the debate.

I am not persuaded that we have got the balance right between the protection of wildlife and the preservation of heritage. Although of course I welcome the various initiatives to which the Minister referred, he used the word “balance”, and I do not think we have the balance right. A number of points were made which illustrate that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was accurate in his figure of 30,000 churches, but the Bill is essentially about the priceless heritage of medieval architecture, which is a small proportion of that figure, so although he is in one sense right, I do not think that figure should sway the debate.

I enjoyed the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, but she said that churches are not just barns. I say to her very gently that they are not barns at all. One of the reasons why this was not a particular problem when I introduced my Bill in other place some 46 years ago is that since then we have had so many barn conversions, which have been referred to. Unlike in France, there are very few vernacular buildings in our countryside that have not been converted to commercial use, human habitation or whatever. That is something that we all have to take on board.

Churches are churches. They are places of worship. In many cases, the parish church is the focal point of the community and is used by the community. My noble friend Lady Hooper seemed to suggest that it was only those that were not used that often that had the problem but that is not necessarily the case; many of those that are used a great deal have a problem too. When we have a situation where the parish church’s use is endangered, we have a duty—and I accept that this is recognised—not only to act but to do so with a greater degree of expedition than present plans allow. We are dealing with relatively small overall sums. The £3.8 million that has been used for the pilot is of course welcome and is a tiny sum in the context of the national Budget. The churches that are concerning me are not only irreplaceable but priceless. It is important, as I said in my opening remarks, that they are there to be used, enjoyed and appreciated by future generations, and they must not be despoiled in the way that many of them are being.

I would be the last person ever to claim that a Private Member’s Bill was perfect. I have introduced many; I have been responsible for getting three or four on to the statue book over the last 48 years, and many I have not. I suspect this will be in the latter category, but I believe it is important that we continue to address the subject. When we come to Committee, if we do, I promise my noble friend Lady McIntosh—she seems to have disappeared, but she had warned me that she had to get back to Yorkshire so I completely understand —that if amendments are moved they will be very carefully considered.

We have had quite a long day. I am most grateful to all those who have taken part, and I hope we have advanced the cause a little way and can continue to do so.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Recycling: Chinese Import Ban

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we certainly need research and co-operation from all to increase recycling rates. Business is beginning to make some important strides. The Co-op, Iceland, Unilever and the packaging industry have committed to implementing solutions to enable the sustainable recycling of all black plastic packaging by the end of this year. We need to collaborate and work with business. We have strong targets and we all have to change many of our attitudes.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, what are we doing to increase and enforce penalties on those who dump household goods and other things in the countryside and, in the process, spoil some of the most beautiful parts of Britain?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that fly-tipping is a terrible blight, whether in towns or the countryside. That is why we have introduced stronger powers for local authorities and the Environment Agency—for example, to seize and search vehicles involved in suspected crime. We have also introduced the power for local authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices and we have just published the waste crime consultation, which proposes providing local authorities with the option of issuing fixed-penalty notices to those whose waste ends up being fly-tipped.

Ivory Trade

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, and I agree entirely with him and everybody else who has spoken about the importance of the African elephant, the Asian elephant and the despicable crimes committed by poachers. I saw an item on the “ITV News” earlier this week, and the most chilling aspect was the proof of collusion between the wardens and the poachers.

We have to put this debate in some sort of perspective. It is very easy to jump to the conclusion of banning everything. A friend of mine used to have a little notice on his desk: impossibilities I do at once, miracles take a little longer—doubtless the Bishops would agree with that. However, just because we have a difficult problem, we should not necessarily panic and rush to what seems the obvious conclusion: a total ban on everything. I am very glad that the Government have acknowledged that in their consultation. I took part in the consultation. I wrote to the Secretary of State and had a very courteous reply. It is very important that we look at the picture in the round.

Of course, it is right to exempt great works of art. Some of the greatest carvings of the Middle Ages are in ivory. Who would wish, should another set appear, to destroy the Lewis chessmen? It would be totally absurd and ridiculous. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, indicated when she spoke, destroying an antique item of enormous worth does not bring any elephant back to life. It is right for the Government to recognise that in items of high museum quality. But the history of this and every other nation—I am talking primarily in the context of European nations—is not merely encapsulated in what we can admire in museums any more than the great features of my wonderful Lincoln Cathedral, which I look at every day when I am at home, are typical of every parish church. There are literally tens of thousands of items carved in ivory or painted on ivory, which are part of the warp, weft and fabric of our civilisation.

Of course, I am delighted that the Government seemed to have indicated, and the WWF has done likewise, that miniatures should also be exempt, but I would take it a stage further. I was musing only the other day on a moment that I had in the city of Caen many years ago when I picked up in an antique shop an exquisite carving of the Virgin Mary. It was attributed to the Dieppe school. The largest museum of carved ivory in the world is in Dieppe. During the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries—indeed, going right back to the end of the Middle Ages—Dieppe was where some of the finest ivory carving was done in Europe. The other place was Paris. Many of those items were made for domestic adornment or as objects of devotion and veneration. They help to tell the story of our civilisation. To say that there should be no opportunity to acquire those things in the future would be a foolish response.

Another aspect of our civilisation is illustrated. There was a great carver of ivory called David le Marchand, born in Dieppe. He left Dieppe shortly after 1685 when Louis XIV revoked the edict of Nantes, which withdrew protection from, and toleration of, French Protestants. He came over here and many of his finest works were here. Many of his ivory portraits were of great Englishmen such as John Locke, Isaac Newton and many others. We would fail future generations if we connived at the simplistic, total ban that would prevent the sale of those things as well as their ownership. I am glad that no one at the moment is advocating a ban on ownership, but it is the next step on a slippery path if we are not careful. I urge noble Lords to take that most carefully into account.

No words can explain fully how much I deplore the destruction of these noble beasts and the pernicious activities of those who destroy them. But in the past there were those who did carve exquisite and wonderful things. We could move from high art to folk art and the scrimshaws carved by sailors who were often whalers. We do not approve of whalers now—I certainly do not—but this is part of our maritime history. Without knowledge of these things, our young people cannot fully understand our cultural history. It has been said that we should never trade. I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to the House. He cast doubt on gifts. He knows better than anyone that a crook can get around anything. Many of these things have passed through families. They are part of the story of the family. What if the family comes to an end? I heard of a man who had a collection of miniatures, not one of which was probably worth more than a couple of thousand pounds, but they were his sole assets. Are we seriously saying in your Lordships’ House that he cannot do what he wishes with his own? That verges on intellectual tyranny.

I favour a licensing system. Any licensing system will be imperfect. A Leonardo was sold the other week for hundreds of millions of dollars, and there are many, and I am one of them, who doubt that it really is entirely the work of the master. But even though there may be certain problems with the licensing system it should not be beyond the wit of man to draw up a licensing system that calls on only the greatest experts, which certainly restricts the number of outlets through which ivory can be sold. But it does at least allow a legitimate traffic in that which was carved or from centuries ago. I hope that the Government will take time, when the consultation period is over to recognise that the immediate knee-jerk reaction, which may be a total ban, is not necessarily the right reaction. We have the duty not only to preserve the flora and fauna of the present, but to preserve the art of the past. I rest my case.

Agriculture: Foreign Workers

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, again I cannot promise, but I will certainly put that point to colleagues. The employment situation in this sector is seasonal. Part of the issue, and the point of this Question, is that we have seasonal demand for people to come and help us with our soft fruit and vegetables, and their processing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I do not think that I can comment any further.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that these people are not only seasonal but highly skilled? They are often written off as unskilled workers, but they contribute something essential to our agricultural and horticultural industry.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this produce is very vulnerable and the skills in picking fruit are therefore important—it is very perishable. There is, of course, skill in ensuring that we get our soft fruit in safely. We are now self-sufficient in strawberries for much of the year, which are a wonderful product, and there are many whom we rely on in the workforce from the European Union.

European Union: Environmental Policy

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

As the Government intend that we will leave the environment in a better condition, I very much hope that will not be the case, but the point is that the Government are accountable to the UK Parliament and the electorate, and there are the domestic courts as well.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if we are to leave our environment in a better condition, is it not essential that we maintain one of the things that the country can be most proud of: namely, our green belt policy?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, in my view, the green belt has been one of the great successes, ensuring that we do not get urban sprawl. It is very important that it remains. I think my notes will tell me, if I can find them, that a considerable proportion—it is 13%—of the land area in England is covered by green belt. It is very important to ensure that it remains.

Lake District National Park Authority

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

As the noble Earl knows, the Government have no powers to direct national park authorities to dispose or not to dispose of a particular piece of land. Furthermore, it would not be right to intervene, because they must be allowed—and, indeed, encouraged—to take responsibility for their own affairs. To put it in context, the eight sites offered for sale total 59 hectares, equivalent to 0.6% of the Lake District National Park Authority’s land holdings.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the turn of this side; I live there. Is it not shocking that parts of the national park—one of the most beautiful national parks—have to be sold off as a result of government cuts? Is there not a problem that, in a further sale of the land, the Lake District planning people might well give a more relaxed permission in order to get half the money? Is it not rather unhappy that we are doing this at all? Surely we should adamantly say that the Lake District is not for sale to the highest bidder.

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with much of the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s point, but the national park has assured me that this is not about cuts. It routinely reviews its assets and makes disposals where appropriate so that the proceeds can be reinvested into the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of other properties. It is worth saying that between 2007 and 2010—three years during which the noble Lord’s party was in government—it made sales totalling £1.9 million. In the five years from then, sales have totalled £1.8 million.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am sure that we all wish the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, many more happy years in one of the most glorious parts of England. However, is not what really matters here the integrity of the landscape and that there are no further incursions into its tranquillity? Can my noble friend assure us that whatever transactions take place, both the integrity of the landscape and its tranquillity will be preserved?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I can confirm that none of the protections afforded to the land by virtue of being in a national park is affected by a sale.