Ivory Bill

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[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.

Lake District National Park Authority

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

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.

United States: Haggis Ban

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I was going to say that it is a question of priorities, but that is an eminently sensible suggestion.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, what is served at the British embassy on Burns Night?

[Lord De Mauley]

What else, my Lords? Haggis.

Peatlands

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords—and I should take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for the work he does with the Adaptation Sub-Committee; it is extremely important to us. The peatland code, which was launched in September, provides a basis for business sponsorship of peatland restoration; that is a key plank in what we are doing. We are also undertaking a considerable amount of important and relevant research. Environmental stewardship, which I referred to in my initial Answer, has for many years benefited peatlands, but the new ELMS will be more focused on environmental outcomes and therefore will be more directly beneficial to peatland restoration. The three nature improvement areas that have peatlands are working hard on improving their habitats.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is not the best way in which to answer the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to ensure that these unreliable, uneconomic and unsightly wind farms are not built on land anywhere?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, of course, we have to take all factors into account in these decisions, but I shall pass on my noble friend’s comments to my colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

EU: Regulation on Chemicals

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

As my noble friend asks about gold- plating, perhaps I may say that REACH is a directly acting regulation so there is little scope for gold-plating. However, the UK approach is in fact the opposite of that; for example, our approach to enforcement is to help companies get back into compliance. My noble friend might like to know that the Environment Agency has developed helpful tools for that process. It uses its expertise to look for illegal use of restricted chemicals, and it can then focus on suspected wrongdoing with little or no burden on compliant companies.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, there are significant consequences for small and medium-sized enterprises of incomplete registration. Can the Minister please tell us how many businesses have already been informed by the European Chemicals Agency that their registration is incomplete, and what action has he taken to ensure that businesses complete all of the agency’s registration requirements in time to avoid those significant consequences?

[Lord De Mauley]

In terms of specific numbers, no, I cannot. However, I will write to the noble Lord on his question.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I will ask the question that I tried to ask. Would not the best tool be the use of plain English which everyone can understand, whether they are in small business, medium business or any other sort of business?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend, as always, speaks so much sense. I am discovering, as Defra’s science Minister, that the world of chemicals does not easily lend itself to simple language. However, I will do my best for my noble friend.

Agriculture: Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We have fought hard to achieve an element of flexibility in the greening requirements. Perhaps we have not got as far as we would have liked but we are negotiating with nearly 30 other states and, of course, the Parliament.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, can we inject some intelligibility into the language with which these things are described? It really is the most awful gobbledegook. How can people outside be expected to understand about caps, pillars, greening and all this nonsense?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, that is music to my ears.

Flooding: Defence Programme

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is constant negotiation between the meteorological forecasting organisation and the Environment Agency. My noble friend is right that we need to keep our eyes on that and we are certainly doing so.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, could we take this opportunity to extend our sympathy to those who have suffered this week in the United States from the devastating floods and storms?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. I entirely agree with my noble friend. I think it is worth taking stock and making the point that we are seeking to learn lessons from what is going on in New York. The Environment Agency has contacted the US authorities already with a view to drawing on lessons learnt.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Codes of Practice for the Exercise of Stop and Search Powers) Order 2012

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, we have no points of order in this House, but I have received advice from the Clerks that this is perhaps the right moment to raise an issue and ask if Ministers and the Procedure Committee will look at our Business, particularly on days when we are about to rise for a recess. We have four short debates today. I make no complaint about the time allocated to mine or to two of the others, but it is really a bit strange that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury should be reduced to a contribution of one minute in a debate when there are 24 speakers and when there really are no constraints upon us. We could surely sit until 4.30 pm, 5.30 pm or 6.30 pm. We could surely have a better distribution of time between debates. I ask that my noble friends and the usual channels look at this in consultation with the Procedure Committee. It does not reflect well on this House when people with the knowledge to make the contributions which we know that they will make to this debate are reduced to one minute each.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, perhaps I can help. I understand your Lordships’ frustration with the time limit, particularly today. I would say two things. First, a fortnight ago on 16 May, your Lordships’ House itself agreed to the one-hour time limit for each of today’s Questions for Short Debate. That limit has since been advertised on the Forthcoming Business. Secondly, the Companion makes it clear that Questions for Short Debate last for a maximum of one hour and should therefore be limited in scope.

The QSD is not the only route, of course, to the Order Paper. Balloted debates like last Thursday’s last two and a half hours, and party debates are flexible. Today is also not unprecedented: as recently as February this year, we had a QSD limited to one minute per speaker. However, I will of course take my noble friend’s point back to the usual channels.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Let me turn directly to the issues raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked, under the amendment, exactly what will happen during the gateway conversation. This also addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We want parents to pause for thought when contacting us, before deciding whether to proceed with making an application to the statutory service.

We believe that the best way to achieve this is for parents to undertake a telephone call with a specially trained adviser. The only requirement on the parents contacting us before entering the statutory scheme will be to engage in this conversation and to discuss whether they have considered their alternatives. The adviser will be able to provide advice and signpost the parent to other support available, if required. Parents can then, if they wish, take time to consider the alternatives and discuss collaboration with the other parent. However, I stress that engaging in the conversation when first contacting us is the only requirement to enter the scheme. Everything else is voluntary. There is no question of us seeking to direct parents to take any specific steps. Where a parent identifies during the conversation that they need to make an application to the statutory service, the adviser will help them to do so. I hope that that addresses the point of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

[Lord Cormack]

Can my noble friend assure the House that the telephone will be answered by a human being and that there will be a direct line to an individual, not to an automated “press this, press that” system?

[Lord De Mauley]

I share my noble friend’s horror at being asked to “press 1” and so on for different things. I cannot absolutely guarantee that the very first answering of the call will not be that, but the key point is that it will be possible to have a conversation with a human being. That is the gateway.

My noble friend Lady Tyler has much experience in this area and I am extremely grateful for her supportive comments, particular about the additional resources.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, also has a lot of experience in this area. I hope that my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has addressed the nub of what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was asking. Our reforms will mean that maintenance flows more certainly and more quickly. If someone presented and told us that they had an aggressive partner, we would immediately help them to make a maintenance application.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Cormack

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I add my support. Like my noble friend Lord Newton, I had many such clubs in my former constituency. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, moved the amendment very moderately and sensibly and made a completely unanswerable case. I hope that we have a very sympathetic response from my noble friend who will be replying to this brief debate and that, at the very least, he will be able to follow the injunction of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and give us some encouragement, because it really is a truly worthy cause.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, Amendment 35A would increase the number of temporary event notices that may be given in relation to single premises in any one calendar year from 12 to 15. I am well aware of the noble Lord’s tireless work for these centres of our communities and thank him for that. This proposal is very much in line with the direction in which we are travelling. We are legislating to allow for greater flexibility and a more relaxed and liberal system, particularly for small, voluntary and community groups that make use of the temporary events notices to carry out licensable activities. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for not only agreeing with us in this general direction of travel but also taking the time to discuss this with me.

Through the Bill, we are already taking substantial steps to relax some of the requirements of TENs. For example, we propose to increase the total number of days in any calendar year on which a single premises can be used to carry on licensable activities under a temporary event notice from 15 to 21 days. We are also relaxing the provisions to allow licensing authorities to accept late temporary event notices. Furthermore, we are also using the Bill to increase the maximum period for a single event that may be authorised by one temporary event notice from 96 hours or four days to 168 hours, or seven days, to help festivals and other forms of entertainment that run over several days. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these are positive moves in the same direction as their amendment.

TENs are supposed to be a light-touch measure, outside the norm of the licensing regime for one-off, exceptional or occasional events. Just to give some balance, we have also considered carefully the views of many residents who responded to our consultation and who complained about noise nuisance from temporary events. We ask noble Lords to agree with us that allowing for an average of one such event a month, or 12 a year, achieves the right balance. However, the Government are committed to reducing the overall burden of regulation across the piece and have been consulting the public on this wider work, including alcohol licensing via its red tape challenge. So for example the Government have announced that they will shortly be carrying out a public consultation, led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the reform of regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to accept that our direction of travel is very much in line with his own and to consider withdrawing his amendment.