Domestic Ivory Market

Debate between Danny Kinahan and Lord Benyon

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on introducing the debate today and all those who signed the petition, and on the passion behind it, particularly from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

I am here to speak because I want the ivory ban in place, but I want us to recognise the importance of the antiques trade in this country. In everything we do, we must always find the right balance. It is absolutely right that we ban ivory—I think the phrase used earlier was “a near-complete ban”—and do so as quickly as possible, but we must also recognise ivory’s place in our history and tourism.

I was in Kenya many years ago—it would be terrific to show everyone the wonders of the wildlife there. I remember watching a film of the farmers annihilating some 150 elephants because they kept breaking out of a game park and eating the maize crops. That is the main problem. We should aid those countries so that they can have proper game parks, secure rangers and economies that work. That is where we should concentrate a lot of our effort. The ban would do a little bit to help, but we must recognise that it is just a tiny bit, and that we must do much more work through our aid and world trade.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman concede that people are at the heart of saving the elephant? Work by organisations such as the Northern Rangelands Trust in Kenya has done an enormous amount to make local people understand the value of wildlife. Directing aid and support for communities through that prism is the best possible way to get people and wildlife to live together.

[Danny Kinahan]

I could not have made a better point. We have to educate everyone in the world, and particularly the Chinese, as many have said today. It is also about showing the Africans the benefit and hoping that tourism, wildlife and everything else helps their countries into the future.

The antiques trade here is worth some £13 billion. I do not want to counter the argument for an ivory ban, but I shall give some facts and figures to make us think more about what a total ban would do. One document I was reading said that up to 2025 tourism will be worth £257 billion to the UK—10% of our GDP—and will be responsible for 3.8 million jobs. Tourists visit some 5,000 to 6,000 venues in the UK that have small and sometimes large antique ivory pieces.

We have to be very careful how we tackle the antiques trade. One or two hon. Members have criticised the existing cut-off date of 1947. The convention on international trade in endangered species guidelines are accepted in the trade, including by the people who know best about dates and times. It is better to go down that route than to try and work on carbon dating. Changing the date to 1900 may seem logical, but that takes out the two of the greatest periods in art—art nouveau and art deco.

Iraq Historic Allegations Team

Debate between Danny Kinahan and Lord Benyon

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

I share my hon. Friend’s feelings. Rather than spend the time talking about our views of those lawyers, however, which would be self-indulgent, I want to get to the bottom of this concept of legal imperialism.

I am glad that since I requested the debate the Prime Minister has announced that he has asked the National Security Council to produce a comprehensive plan to stamp out the industry. He is looking at banning no win, no fee schemes; he is speeding up the planned legal aid residency test; and he is strengthening penalties against firms that abuse the system, possibly even including suing those who have been found deliberately to withhold facts that could prove the innocence of the servicemen or women concerned.

That is all good stuff, but I want to press the Minister for more information on the timescale for the reforms. I suggest that they can only be seen as work in progress. May I respectfully suggest that the Minister add to the Prime Minister’s wish list the suggestions made in the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling?

In order to draw a line under the situation, for recent and future conflicts the Prime Minister should consider these powerful recommendations. The Government should derogate from the European convention on human rights in respect of future overseas armed conflicts, using the mechanism of article 15 of the convention. The Government should revive the armed forces’ Crown immunity from actions in tort during all future “warlike operations” overseas by ministerial Order under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. The Government should take the lead—this is important—in supporting efforts by the International Committee of the Red Cross to strengthen the Geneva conventions on the conditions of modern warfare, which addresses the point made in an early intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). The Government should make an authoritative pronouncement of state policy, declaring the primacy of the Geneva conventions in governing the conduct of British forces on the battlefield.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I am grateful that we are having this debate. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that alongside the conflicts of the past we need to concentrate on the past in Northern Ireland as well? We should also look at a proactive media presence so that we are in front when defending our servicemen, rather than waiting for every case to get to the papers.

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that incidents such as that of the arrest of Lance Corporal J of the Paras under caution should cease. Society wants a line drawn under such things. We seem to have moved too far towards favouring the actions of our enemies and we do not seem mindful enough of those to whom we owe a great debt.

The recommendations I have just outlined are clearly set out in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling. It makes it clear that we are not only talking about alleged victims of war crimes, excessive violence in combat or the mistreatment of prisoners. The definition of “lawfare” extends to the ability of the courts to judge the actions of commanders—decisions often taken in the heat of battle and then judged years later by people for whom such circumstances are alien and with the mantle of hindsight.

I go back to my own experience. I got to know well a 19-year-old soldier who, in a tense situation, shot and killed someone contrary to the so-called “yellow card” rules for opening fire. He was convicted for murder. The case has haunted me for 34 years. My worry is that the legal imperialism we have seen in recent years and the existence of organisations such as IHAT will put a dangerous caution in the minds of the sniper of the future. Rather than taking a life to save many, caution prompted by a fear of legal implications might, to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex,

“put a splint around his trigger finger”.

The analogy extends into every area of war, involving everyone from the most junior soldier just out of training to the most gnarled veteran of a quarter century of expeditionary warfare. The Apache pilot, the mortar platoon commander and the frontline rifleman all need to be governed by the rule of law—but which law? That is the matter that the Minister and the Government must tackle with haste. However despicable we might think the actions of certain lawyers are, they are only responding to circumstances created by Governments past and present. My argument is that the rules we have created put our servicemen and women in greater danger in future. That cannot be right.