Ivory Bill (Fifth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

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

[Sue Hayman]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 12, page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment would make the offences under section 12 strict liability offences. The defence of having taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence would remain, but the burden of proof would be shifted to the person on proving this, rather than on prosecutors proving the person knew the item was ivory.

I will spend a little longer on this amendment and go through the evidence from various witnesses. Chief Inspector Hubble raised serious concerns about her ability to prosecute if the Bill remains in its current form. She said:

“We also have some concerns that, as the Bill stands, we have to prove that it is ivory and that the person dealing in it knew, or ought to have known, that it was ivory. If you look on eBay at any given moment, you will find a number of items being offered for sale that are not labelled as ivory.”

The Minister might remember that in Committee we had a look at eBay, and it was extraordinary how many items were clearly being mis-sold. Chief Inspector Hubble continued:

“From an enforcement perspective, if someone is buying something that is not labelled as ivory, and they are selling it as something not labelled as ivory, how do I prove they knew it was ivory? With the Bill as it stands, that, for me, is a real concern from an enforcement perspective. The onus should be on them to prove that they did not know, not on me to prove that they did.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 35, Q59.]

I think that is very clear. There is no point in legislation if it cannot be enforced effectively.

Chief Inspector Hubble was then asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East whether adding a provision covering mis-labelling would help. Again, the chief inspector was clear that in order to prosecute under the terms of the Bill as drafted, enforcement officers would still have to prove that the seller

“knew it was ivory and that they had then mislabelled it, knowing that it was ivory.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 39, Q75.]

She then added:

“All the time that the burden of proof is on us to prove that they knew, that is difficult from an enforcement perspective. If the burden of proof was on them to prove that they did not know it was ivory, that would make enforcement much easier.”

Later she said:

“In general, we do not deal with the people who will apply for exemption certificates and who will register their items and apply for permits, because they are the responsible, law-abiding people. We deal with the ones who have a complete disregard for policy protocol legislation. We deal with the ones who are deceptive, who lie and who want to make money out of this. The burden of proof has to be manageable and has to be able to be enforced, otherwise it is not enforceable legislation.” ––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 39, Q76 and Q79.]

I am sure that none of us would want to pass legislation if the officers responsible for delivering it did not think that it was enforceable.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) raised concerns about the implications of the current burden of proof lying with the enforcement agencies. He said:

“The defence of ignorance in clause 12 is a real concern, particularly as it is well known that the illegal trade is fuelled by unscrupulous traders marketing ivory as a bone or as ivory sourced from other species, such as a mammoth.”

I know the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire is particularly concerned about that. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire continued:

“There should therefore be a basic sanction based on strict liability.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 104.]

When the ban on the sale of ivory is introduced, as I hope it will be shortly, if it is to have the outcomes that we all hope for, it will need to be vigorously enforced. As I said, it is no good introducing legislation unless we can enforce it vigorously. Deleting subsection (2) would shift the burden of proof and make enforcement more likely, and it would answer the request of enforcement officers.

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

I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. The evidence from the police was clear: the burden of proof is critical, particularly given how easily items are passed around on the internet. There is huge scope for people to plead ignorance.

We heard examples of ivory being called animal bone. I looked briefly at eBay during that evidence session and was shocked at the proliferation of objects listed as animal bone, when they are clearly ivory, even to my unknowing eye. It will be extremely difficult for the police to enforce this legislation. We also heard about their small teams and the cuts. The critical point is that we are making their lives more difficult. It is extremely serious when a chief inspector tells a Committee in evidence:

“The burden of proof has to be manageable and has to be able to be enforced, otherwise it is not enforceable legislation.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 39, Q79.]

We cannot in any circumstances pass legislation that is not enforceable. It is great to say that we will lead the world with our ban on ivory, forge our way ahead and set a great example. If it is not enforceable and the trade continues, we might as well pack up and go home. We know what we are here to do. If the evidence from the frontline is that the Bill is not enforceable, that is not acceptable. We have to push on that.

I would like clarification from the Minister on subsection (2), where it states

“if the person knows or suspects, or ought to know or suspect”.

Will he provide evidence of how someone “ought to know” and how that could be defined in legislation? It does not seem strong enough to me. Enforcement officers are clearly asking for a shifting of the burden of proof, and that is what is needed if we are to make the Bill remotely enforceable.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I hear what the hon. Member for Workington has to say and can understand entirely the motivation behind it. However, if she pushes her amendment to a Division, I will not vote for it. Let me explain why. I want the Committee to think about the little old lady or gentleman who works in a charity shop selling items on a daily basis. They might come into work to find boxes of stuff when someone has done a house clearance after an aunt or uncle has died. They might sell something to somebody and then it transpires that an offence has been committed because the item is made of ivory.

I do not think that in those circumstances they should be found guilty of something because they knew or suspected, or should have known. Antiques dealers with an online presence, buying and selling all sorts of products, are precisely the sort of people who ought to know or suspect. I do not think the intention of the Bill is to have lots of officials running around trying to trace every single person who is doing something without prior knowledge, and certainly not maliciously or trying to get around the law. There has to be an element of common sense and balance.

I entirely appreciate that, in some instances, that evidence gathering can present a challenge to the enforcement authorities, but it is always a challenge for enforcement authorities to gather compelling evidence to bring a prosecution or levy a fine that is beyond challenge. I understand entirely why the Government have drafted clause 12(2) in this way, because they have to strike a balance and have a bit of common sense. It is right that there is that common-sense caveat in the enforcement clauses, and I urge the hon. Member for Workington to withdraw her amendment.

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for Workington for her amendment, the effect of which would be to make the commercial dealing of prohibited ivory items a strict liability offence. The hon. Member for Redcar and other hon. Members also made comments along those lines, and I will answer some of their questions in due course.

We all agree that the enforcement of the Bill should be rigorous, but I assure the Committee that the amendment is not required. Clause 12(2) makes provision for a person found to have breached the prohibition to demonstrate that they genuinely and reasonably did not know that the item was ivory. That could be, for instance, because they were unaware of ivory as a substance, or because the ivory in question could reasonably have been assumed to be something else.

If clause 12 offences were to become strict liability offences because of the amendment, the person accused of the offence would not be able to rely on the defence that they had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence. The strict liability offences that would be created as a result of the amendment mean that, for the offence to have been committed, there is the need only for the actus reus—the act itself—to have been committed. There is no need for the mens rea—the intention. That would mean that subsections (2) and (3) would effectively be deleted.

It is good that clause 12(2) is in the Bill, because it allows for instances of genuine mistakes, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said, where there is unlikely to be a malicious intent to breach the Bill. For instance, a member of the public might sell in a car boot sale an item they found in their grandmother’s attic without realising that the material in question was elephant ivory.

[Anna Turley]

I would like a bit more clarification on the point I raised about the phrase

“ought to know or suspect”.

When we pass the Bill, I hope the Government will share the news far and wide, because it will be a fantastic achievement. Surely everybody will think, even if they see something in their attic, “That could potentially be ivory.” Ivory is pretty distinct, and I would have thought that everybody—even a little old lady at a car boot sale or in a charity shop—would look at it, wonder what it is made of and think, “That could be ivory.” They will know, because hopefully the Bill will be widely heralded, that they ought at least to double check and find out whether it is something they should know about. I do not think the emphasis on

“ought to know or suspect”

goes far enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Whatever people’s views are, nobody in Committee is seeking loopholes. We are trying to close them down. Her point would be covered by facilitation, which we have talked about previously.

It is very important in criminal law that we establish both the intent and the act itself, which need to be present for the offence to be committed. Strict liability is the exception as only the act itself needs to be present for the offence to be committed, for example, the sale of alcohol to minors and health and safety matters. With that explanation, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way. I want to push him on what the words “ought to know” or “suspect” mean in this context. In the case of a police officer trying to convict someone, how can they prove that someone ought to know? He gave the example of someone being an antiques dealer or in the sector, in which case we can say that they ought to know, but how otherwise can a police or enforcement officer prove that someone ought to know? Public awareness ought to be sufficient, but how will a police officer be able to prove that someone ought to know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I rise to support new clause 3. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on that powerful and thorough speech. There is not much I can add; she made every point inimitably. We all heard the evidence in Committee about how overstretched the Border Force at Heathrow and the National Wildlife Crime Unit are. I come back to the point I made in the previous debate: if this Bill is to be groundbreaking and held up internationally as an example of how seriously we take this awful issue and how determined we are to stamp out the sale of ivory in this country, we have to put our money where our mouth is. That means we have to give the teams that do the enforcement the resources they need to undertake and enforce this Bill.

We heard that the CITES Border Force team has just 10 members. They carry out over 1,000 seizures a year and as my hon. Friend so clearly demonstrated, the months of work each seizure takes is hugely resource-intensive. We have also heard about how the National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 people across the whole country to undertake all the activities my hon. Friend so articulately set out. That is a very small unit.

At a time when, nationally, we have lost 20,592 police officers in just seven years and we have seen a 20% rise in violent crime, how on earth is the NWCU supposed to fight and press for its resources, when there are so many competing priorities within the police budget? We really have to take this issue extremely seriously. I wholeheartedly support the new clause because we simply cannot have this Bill, laud it and celebrate its passage unless we are going to put the money behind the teams that will make it a reality.

[Dr Cameron]

It is imperative that the new clause is accepted. We heard from the NWCU experts that the unit is a small team with limited resources for current demand, and it is unable to plan over the long term. This issue must be dealt with promptly, lest staff are lost because the unit cannot motivate them to stay. Staff in any job who know there may not be long-term funding have families and their own lives to think about, so they will move on to other roles. The expertise at the NWCU cannot be lost, particularly in making sure this Bill is enforceable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

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

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

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the helpful explanation of the consultation process, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am quite confused about the point that has been pressed a number of times, that widening the scope slightly to include other animals would delay the Bill’s progress. The Opposition have tabled an amendment, which is being discussed. If we were in a world where we did not amend Bills during a parliamentary process because we had not consulted on the relevant issue from the exact outset, goodness me, hardly any legislation would be amended in this place and we would deal only with what was presented to us at the beginning of the process.

[Sue Hayman]

Clearly, we need to be able to crack on and we must not get too bogged down in consultation. However, we do not want at any stage for this Bill to be able to be challenged. That is very important. There are certain sections of the art market that wish to challenge the Bill. That is why I took that professional advice from the Consultation Institute, so that it would be happy to work with the Department to ensure that there is no opportunity for a legal challenge if another short consultation was held to allow the scope to be extended.

To return to the suggestions of other hon. Members in debates and evidence sessions, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke very strongly about the need to extend the scope. She said that this is a “one-off opportunity” to highlight the other mammals that would be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said:

“We know that this will be the only time we have an Ivory Bill before this House for many years to come, so if we are going to try to protect those species, it makes sense for us to do it now, in this Bill.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 105.]

The right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who is a former Environment Secretary, raised an important point on Second Reading. He said:

“The Secretary of State should also be able to include other ivory-bearing species not listed in the CITES appendices”,

an important point made previously by the hon. Member for North Dorset. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire went on:

“As the Born Free Foundation has indicated, there has been an increase in the purchasing of hippo and other non-elephant ivory in the UK to replace elephant ivory in the internal trade. The BFF infers that the legal and illegal trades are targeting these other species, as the Government’s focus is on elephant ivory.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 104.]

It is important to keep the focus on elephant ivory, but we must not lose sight of what else is happening.

--- Later in debate ---

It is useful to know that a joint US-Canada anti-smuggling investigation—Operation Longtooth—uncovered a significant and profitable illegal trade in narwhal tusks to the United States. In 2013, Gregory Logan was arrested in the US for offences relating to a staggering 250 Narwhal tusks, resulting in a fine of $385,000 and an eight-month sentence. The US has already tightened up on the trade, so if we do not, it might move to the UK and Europe. We need to include the narwhal in the Bill because of the existing hunting, trade and threats. I understand the concerns about having to consider the views of non-governmental organisations, but they have, across the piece, put forward evidence on the matter, and I think we can do this in short order. I am sure that we can get advice about how to move forward swiftly with a quick and short consultation on the matter.

[Anna Turley]

I, too, rise to support the very important amendment 11. A phrase that is used with medical students is “first, do no harm”, and we ought to think about that all the time when passing legislation. I have a real concern, which is backed up by evidence, that when passing legislation such as this we can have a disproportionate impact on another species. We all support the Bill wholeheartedly; it is long overdue in protecting elephants, but we should be absolutely mindful of its potentially damaging knock-on effect on other species.

I rise to speak about the noble hippopotamus in particular. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] I think everyone agrees what a beautiful and wonderful animal it is. The number of hippos in the world has crashed by 95% in 30 years, and that is widely acknowledged to be a knock-on effect of the increasing restrictions on the trade in elephant ivory. For example, in the Virunga national park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo there were 29,000 hippos and there are now just 1,300. The hippo is vulnerable and is on the red list of threatened species, and there is deep concern that it is being poached and hunted for its teeth, particularly as the loopholes close around elephant ivory. In 2014, 60 tonnes of hippo teeth were exported to Hong Kong from Africa, and from there they were sent to European countries. If the purpose of the Bill is to close markets that are driving that trade, there is clearly a strong integrated global trade in hippo teeth that has a huge effect on the species.

Different countries are taking different steps. Uganda has banned the trade in hippo teeth, and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo the hippo is a protected species. It is vital that we take this opportunity to send out the message that we in this country do not believe that hippos should be killed or poached for their teeth, and that our view is that our legislation on protecting elephant ivory will not have a damaging impact on the hippopotamus.

I close with a quote in the National Geographic by Pieter Kat, who is a conservation biologist in east Africa:

“What we need to realise is African wildlife conservation should not be guided entirely by a focus on elephants and rhinos. Many other species are being traded to extinction in Africa, and I would to have say hippos are probably one of the most obvious examples of this.”

We need to tread very carefully, so that in doing something fantastic to protect the beautiful species of the elephant we do not have a knock-on effect on that of the hippo.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the amendment, and to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset about the risk of parliamentary sovereignty being judicially reviewed. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the Clerk can intervene in Committee to clarify the legal position, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the courts are there to reinforce the will of Parliament rather than to police it.

Primary legislation cannot be judicially reviewed. That picks up on the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar that no amendment can be made to any Bill, subject to consultation, if we have strict enforcement. However, given the fact that there is no risk of judicial review of primary legislation, and that the shadow Minister has provided a handy, quick, short consultation route, I do not see much problem with accepting the amendment.