Ivory Bill

Debate between Graham P Jones and Kwasi Kwarteng

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Graham P. Jones]

I want to speak to new clause 2, although on new clause 1, and given the speech we just heard from the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), I must say that I entirely agree that we should broaden the species to which the Bill applies, because it is about saving our wildlife, planet and ecosystem. None of those things operates in isolation. Our ecosystem is holistic and we must protect it as one. I would therefore hope that any changes made by new clause 1 would make the provisions as broad as possible.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow Front-Bench spokesperson have tabled new clause 2. I know that it has been brought forward with the notion of trying to gain cross-party support, however, because I do not think it goes far enough at all.

A year ago, when I had the fortune to meet Angolan MPs, I raised this issue with them. It is a case in point that while legislation to ban ivory was passed in 2016, those MPs had no idea that they had passed the legislation. When legislators do not know that they have passed legislation, we know we are starting off with a bit of a problem.

In 2018, poaching in Angola is as virulent as it was prior to the legislation. The rate of poaching has simply continued. Action has been taken and poachers have been prosecuted in cases involving considerable amounts of ivory, but by the time they are caught, the elephant is unfortunately dead. The elephant population is, of course, declining. Figures from National Geographic suggest that before the civil war, in around 1975, there were 200,000 elephants in Angola, but there may be just 2,000 left. According to more accurate figures from the general elephant census, which was conducted in partnership with Elephants Without Borders, there were some 70,000 elephants in southern Angola before the war but there are now around 3,400. That is a colossal cull of this wonderful animal over 40 years. I stress that the issue affects many animals, but in the short time I have, I wish to concentrate on elephants.

According to Elephants Without Borders, in 2015, for every 10 live elephants that the census recorded, it found four carcases. That is incredible. Fifty-five elephants are being killed every day and the population is down by 111,000 in the past decade. The way in which they are killed paints a picture of what this cruel industry is about, how it operates and how poachers act with impunity. They use AK47s, and it requires many AK47 rounds to bring an animal down. We have all seen the horrific pictures of elephants that have not been killed, but are alive and suffering while their horns are hacked off. It is truly appalling.

The great elephant census did not just cover Angola. Between 2009 and 2016—just seven years—Tanzania has seen an elephant population decline of 60%, almost all of which is due to poaching. In the same seven-year period, Mozambique has seen a 48% fall in its elephant population. The National Academy of Sciences has said that 100,000 elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012. These statistics paint a picture of incredible carnage and an incredible reduction in elephant numbers. I, for one, am sad. We must take firmer action.

Elephants Without Borders has suggested that not only legislation is required. We must take protective action. The two must go hand in hand, but the legislation must be tough, and new clause 2 does not go far enough. We must do more. I welcome the fact that DFID staff are out in Kenya, providing some support for the protection of elephants. Perhaps that is the beginning of a future in which we protect the animals on this planet, along with the biology of the environment that we need to sustain the planet from which we draw life.

We need legislation, but we also need active protection. Legislating in this place simply does not go far enough; it is time for international laws and international action. It is time for the United Nations to step up and begin to put in place a framework that protects our planet and these animals. It is time that we not only pass legislation, but take direct action on protected areas. Instead of just providing armed forces for humanitarian purposes, it is about time that we and the United Nations provided forces for environmental purposes. The time has come for us, both as legislators and those active in the field, to take this issue seriously.

I finish by congratulating the British Army on what it is doing out in Kenya, but we need more of it. I support new clause 2 as a beginning, but it is the beginning of a long road, because a lot more needs to be done.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

This is a very important debate. In listening to speeches from across the House, I was struck by the fact that I had never seen the House so united in terms of the purpose and seriousness of this legislation. The real differences—if there are differences—are about the manner of dealing with this and how we get the best results. That is very encouraging.

If one were to look at the number of elephants, one would be truly horrified. There were something like 1.2 million in 1980. Today, from the figures that I saw, there are a little over 400,000. Over 38 years, we have seen a two-thirds reduction in the number of wild elephants, so the species is undoubtedly in danger.

As a consequence, one can see why the Government have come up with this legislation. Initially, it was a very narrowly focused Bill, essentially designed to stop the trade in ivory with respect to elephants and the killing of elephants by poachers. One can understand exactly what the narrow scope of this legislation was. It was right for the people who have been campaigning on this issue to suggest that the narrow focus on elephants should be widened. Obviously, ivory comes from a range of sources. People have talked about mammoths and the teeth of hippopotamuses. It was inevitable that the legislation as drafted would be perhaps attacked or scrutinised on the basis that the focus was too narrow. I fully understand that.

What has happened in the past couple of days is that the Front-Bench team has listened to the debates and to the various representations. I saw on Twitter—I do not use Twitter very much, by the way—that the Environment Secretary has suggested that the next phase should be a much wider consultation than that proposed in new clause 1 by Opposition Front Benchers. That must be the right approach because, under the new clause, as Members have mentioned, mammoths are not included. We know that the way people claim that bits of ivory come from mammoths hides a multitude of sins and a great deal of criminality. That is another issue that is often overlooked in this debate—it has been mentioned once or twice.

The communities in which elephant poaching takes place, and the people who are driving this trade, are often linked with organised crime and with other very unsavoury elements in the countries of Africa in which the elephant and ivory are found. This has been going on for decades. One need only read accounts from Stanley in the 19th century to see how poachers—mass murderers, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) suggested—have been perpetrating these crimes for decades. It has to stop. The reason that this is an interesting and important piece of legislation is that it marks, I think, the first time, or one of the first times, that a western country—or certainly an advanced economic country—has taken this issue very seriously.

As we go forward, after the international conference at the beginning of October, we will have to be even more focused and even more rigorous in our approach to the ivory trade. As people have observed, just banning the ivory trade with respect to the elephant will not be good enough. We have to take a holistic approach. We cannot simply say that ivory from the elephant should be banned and not legislate for other animals and other sources of ivory. The broader approach is obviously the best one, but legislation is difficult in any broad approach. We have to get the right terms and the right drafting. I am not sure that new clause 1 is necessarily the best way of trying to address this problem, which is why I will vote against it if it is pressed to a Division. I think that Government amendments 3 and 4 are a bit broader and more flexible. As we have discovered today, there have been later announcements suggesting that a broader approach—even broader than that proposed in new clause 1—is for the best.

It is a real credit to this House that something as sensitive as this Bill has brought forward a wide, courteous and informed debate. It is a real honour to be able to participate in the passage of this legislation.