Ivory Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

104: Insert the following Preamble—
“Whereas in 1989 the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreed to ban the international trade in African elephant ivory; and the resolution adopted at the 2016 Conference of Parties to CITES agreed to phase out domestic ivory markets which contributed to poaching or illegal trade in ivory:
And whereas it is expedient to give effect in the United Kingdom to the restrictions on domestic trade:”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a Preamble linking the Bill to the resolution adopted unanimously by governments at the 2016 Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which called on all governments to close domestic ivory markets which contribute to poaching or illegal trade in ivory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am moving Amendment 104, which deals with the Government’s obligations in the international CITES resolution. We debated this issue in Committee and it remains a concern to a number of the wildlife and elephant charities. This amendment would insert a preamble linking the Bill to the resolution adopted unanimously by Governments at the 2016 conference of parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—CITES. This calls on all Governments to close domestic ivory markets, which contribute to the poaching of and illegal trade in ivory.

As we explained in Committee, the government amendments introduced on Report in another place, while welcome, had the accidental consequence of removing the explicit link between the Bill and CITES. There is now nothing in the Bill to make it clear that this legislation was drafted partly in response to the resolution adopted unanimously by Governments at the 2016 conference of parties to CITES.

We raised this concern in Committee, where the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, reaffirmed the importance and relevance of CITES. However, he argued that an explicit link in the preamble was unnecessary, given that the aforementioned government amendment made it possible to go further than CITES and broaden the scope of the Bill to all ivory species.

While we welcome this provision, we nevertheless believe that such a preamble would strengthen the Act against possible judicial and European Court of Human Rights challenges by confirming that the legislation enables the UK to comply with international obligations to control domestic ivory markets under a UN-backed treaty. Moreover, as the Minister himself noted:

“No other provision in the Bill could be limited by a reference to CITES”.—[Official Report, 12/9/18; col. 2353.]


We therefore do not accept that the reference to CITES is as limiting as the Minister would have us believe. Indeed, there are precedents for this, notably in the original legislation to implement CITES in the UK under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. This Act also covered thousands of non-CITES species.

We believe that this amendment, contrary to what the Minister has argued, would have the effect of strengthening rather than weakening the Bill. I beg to move this amendment and hope that noble Lords will support it.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s amendment would insert a preamble to the Bill to reference the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, and the important resolution agreed at the CITES COP 17 regarding closing elephant ivory markets.

In Committee, I assured the noble Baroness that the removal of a link to CITES in the Bill was not an unintended consequence. It was as a direct result of the amendment made in the other place to enable the Secretary of State to broaden the scope of the Bill in the future to all ivory-bearing species, rather than only those listed under CITES. We are confident that there is no need for a reference to CITES in the Bill, and we do not believe that it would provide additional protection to the Bill, for example against legal challenge.

In Committee, I reassured your Lordships that, as a very active party to CITES, the UK will continue to be bound by and committed to its obligations under this important convention. The UK ivory ban is consistent with our obligations under both CITES and the EU wildlife trade regulations, and therefore neither need to be cited in the Bill. It is also the case that the ban goes much further than both CITES and the EU wildlife trade regulations in restricting the commercial dealing in ivory.

For example, amending Clause 35 to remove reference to CITES species and include reference to all ivory-bearing species means that all ivory-bearing species—not only CITES species—can be added to the scope of the Bill in the future if the outcome of an information-gathering exercise, such as a consultation, supports this. Therefore, the UK has gone further than outlined in the CITES resolution on elephant ivory. While I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to provide protection to the Bill, again I must say that we do not believe the preamble is required.

I want to make one other practical point following advice I have received. The noble Baroness referred to a preamble from much earlier legislation. It is now the case that primary legislation uses the long title to specify a Bill’s objectives, instead of a preamble.

I well understand all the connections with CITES and the EU trade regulations, but this Bill goes further. Therefore, we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, for the reasons I have outlined, and I ask her to withdraw it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We accept that the Bill has gone further than the original CITES treaty. Our objective in putting the CITES reference in the preamble was to firm up the Government’s justification, if you like, for having the Bill in the first place. We have been debating this for several days now and we are still trying to justify why we have to do it, and this is part of the continuing justification.

Given that there is still some unhappiness out there—if not indeed in your Lordships’ Chamber—our intention with what has been proposed in the Ivory Bill was to give it some legal extra bottom, if you like, in terms of why we are doing it by referring to a UN-backed treaty. Nevertheless, I accept that the Minister is saying that this was not an unintended consequence but was in fact deliberate. Time will tell whether it would have helped to have our reference in the preamble, because only in time will we know whether there are legal challenges to this.

However, given the lateness of the hour, we do not intend to move to a vote. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 104 withdrawn.