Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024. Let me begin, Mrs Harris, by saying what a joy it is to serve under your chairwomanship and how great it is to see you. This statutory instrument amends the Ivory Act 2018 in order to extend the prohibition on dealing in ivory from an elephant to include ivory from the following four magnificent species: common hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal and sperm whale. The walrus was included in the original consultation, but was removed following further analysis of the Windsor framework implications. This SI does not include the walrus, as it will continue to be protected under existing regulations on trade in seal products. The UK is committed to protecting those species whose conservation status may be threatened by trade in their ivory. All four of these species are listed under the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—which regulates their trade internationally. The hippopotamus and sperm whale are listed as vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list. This instrument seeks to help conserve populations of the four additional species. The Act will prohibit commercial activities concerning trade in their ivories in the UK. That will prevent transactions involving items made of ivory from these species from contributing to markets that create a demand for ivory, driving poaching and the illegal trade in ivory. Extending the ban to these four species will also make compliance with and enforcement of the Act simpler and more effective, and reduce opportunities for laundering ivory. It sends a strong signal that ivory should not be seen as a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol. Supporting Government in this important work are nine prescribed institutions: the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology at Oxford; Glasgow Life Museums; the Horniman Museum and Gardens; Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester; the National Maritime Museum; National Museums Scotland; the Royal Armouries; the University of Cambridge Museums and Botanic Garden; and the Victoria and Albert Museum here in London. This instrument amends the schedule—“Prescribed Institutions”—to the Ivory Prohibitions (Exemptions) (Process and Procedure) Regulations 2022, to correct the names of some of the aforementioned institutions prescribed under the Act. Finally, this instrument amends the Ivory Prohibition (Civil Sanctions) Regulations 2022 to make consistent the references to the service of notices relating to civil sanctions. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee—as the Whip taps his pen.

Speaker

16:32:00

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. First, I thank the Minister for bringing these important regulations to the Committee. I am very happy to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are very supportive of this instrument. Animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity. We Conservatives are extremely proud of the Ivory Act 2018, which this SI builds on; we introduced it, and it received widespread support across both Houses. This measure builds on the strong Conservative record on animal welfare. In the last Parliament, we introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, creating the vital Animal Sentience Committee, which evaluates new legislation with due regard to animal welfare, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty. In addition, I was delighted to support the Bill dealing with puppy smuggling—the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill—two weeks ago. That Bill started under the Conservatives, and I am pleased to see it carried forward by the new Government. The SI before us was introduced by the Conservatives earlier this year, and I am pleased that the new Government have picked up the Conservative baton on this. Expanding the Ivory Act to four further species to try to stamp out the horrific trade in tusks and teeth is something that we need to unite behind. As a veterinary surgeon and scientist, I am in absolute awe of animals such as the elephant and the hippopotamus and marine mammals such as orcas, narwhals and sperm whales. They are incredibly intelligent and beautiful animals, with complex familial, behavioural and social interactions. They categorically must be protected; any hunting or killing of those animals is horrific and barbaric. It is therefore right that this SI expands the scope of ivory covered under the Ivory Act to encompass those other precious and majestic animals and to give them the same protections so that their ivory will not be traded. Extending the Ivory Act will ensure that we in the UK are world leaders in prohibiting this trade, and will encourage conservation of these animals. I am pleased that the UK can set a global example and that we will play no part in facilitating the modern ivory trade. Although we support the instrument, I have a couple of clarification questions for the Minister, which I hope she can help us with. The first is on the impact that the measure might have on museum collections, such as natural history collections. Can the Minister give assurances that collections will still be able to hold and, if need be, move pieces that are potentially hundreds of years old? What other countries have followed the same approach as us, and what has happened to their museum collections? What plans do the Labour Government have to use our global soft power to help countries combat poaching, the ivory trade and the trade in hunted animals? What steps will they take to support and collaborate with allies internationally to stop poaching? The Minister mentioned the walrus, which was included in the original consultation but taken out of the SI because it is covered in separate seal products legislation. However, will the Government keep a watching brief to make sure that the seal products legislation does cover the ivory from walruses as well, and come back and add them to this SI if that legislation is not working? We would hate to have a majestic creature like the walrus slip through a loophole, so I hope the Government will keep the issue under review. On an allied theme—I have pressed the Government on this before, not least in a major debate last week in Westminster Hall—I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will uphold the previous Conservative Government’s position and use every opportunity to be a global leader, putting put pressure on countries that hunt these precious animals and advocating for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands. Also, with whaling still tragically and horrifically practised in various countries, including Norway and Japan, will the Minister outline how the Government are approaching countries that still conduct whaling and what steps the UK is taking in international discussions and negotiations to help end this horrific practice? There is no humane way to kill a whale, and this horrific practice must stop. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the new Labour Government will continue to have the UK play its part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all? The Opposition are happy to support this statutory instrument to ensure that we can play our part in protecting these wonderful sentient creatures. By extending legislation to protect four further species, we send out a strong message from the United Kingdom that any trade in ivory is completely horrific and unacceptable.

Speaker

16:38:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I wonder if I might reiterate the request in respect of the walrus: I understand that it is protected by the Seal Products Regulations 2010, but I want to be clear about the loopholes in that legislation. Could the Government monitor the online and physical trade—for example, in auction houses—to make sure that there are equivalent protections for the walrus? The second species I want to mention is the warthog. It is not CITES-listed, but its teeth are traded and its numbers declining, so it needs to be carefully monitored. It is on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list. Although it is not at serious risk of extinction, I urge the Government to please look at protecting it, because its teeth are traded. However, we are happy to support the SI; it has been a very long time coming, and I am glad the Government are bringing it forward. Finally, I point out that the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, which tackles puppy smuggling, was introduced by my colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).

Speaker

16:39:00

Let me begin with the warthog—I did not think that I had anything to say on the warthog, but I do indeed, thanks to my excellent officials, who have travelled down from York today. The 2021 consultation set out options on extending the Act to species where threats to their conservation status could be exacerbated by trade in their ivory. Neither species of warthog is listed under the convention—they are not under CITES—and both are classified as “species of least concern” on the IUCN red list.

None the less, I ask the Minister to recognise that warthogs are declining in number and are on the red list. I am happy to discuss the issue with her later, but I want to ensure that we watch our warthogs.

I give the hon. Lady the undertaking that we will watch our warthogs. I am happy to continue the dialogue, and I thank her for making that point. As described earlier, extending the Act to the four species demonstrates UK leadership, makes the existing ban more effective and adds protections for those four species. The draft regulations are part of a comprehensive package of UK leadership to tackle the illegal wildlife trade and to reduce poverty, including—to the point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest—through our illegal wildlife trade challenge fund, which has allocated £57 million to 173 projects in 60 countries. Those projects are reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, strengthening law enforcement, establishing effective legal frameworks and promoting sustainable livelihoods. It is important to state that when there is trade in illegal wildlife products, there is often trade in other illegal goods—usually, such gangs do not content themselves with pillaging our abundant natural world. Let me turn to the walrus, and why it was not included. Under the Seal Products Regulations 2010, which were carried over from the European Union, seal products, including walrus ivory, can be imported and placed on the UK market for sale only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions. People may bring seal and walrus products into Great Britain only if they qualify under the Inuit and other indigenous communities exemption—obviously, in the Canadian Arctic, in particular, those are important sources of hard-cash income for communities—and if they have a seal catch certificate. The certificate is an attestation document proving that the item is exempt and that the seal products are certified as coming from a traditional hunt carried out by Inuit or other indigenous communities, and contribute to the subsistence of the community and consider the welfare of the animal.

Will the Minister undertake that the Government will keep a watching brief on walrus and, if need be, put them back into this statutory instrument if loopholes are created?

I undertake to keep that watching brief. On musical instruments, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, but this measure is about the trade in ivory and what is going on.

Speaker

16:44:00

Speaker

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

Speaker

17:22:00

Speaker

On resuming—

Let me talk about global leadership. We are determined to protect these species, whose conservation status may be threatened by the trade in their ivory. That is why we are determined to move forward with this statutory instrument as soon as possible, recognising our long-standing support for strengthening the ban on ivory sales and ensuring that the UK is seen as a global leader in animal conservation. In future, these four species will be afforded the same protections that already exist for elephants, and my officials have already commenced work on the online ivory registration service to add to these species. I want to let the Committee know a bit about the species. At the moment, the UK is a net exporter of ivory from these four species, which fuels the global demand. We had 20 imports of the hippopotamus species into the UK between 2013 and 2022, and 29 exports from the UK. We had one export of killer whale, 20 exports of narwhal and 103 exports of sperm whale, so, even under the ban, we were still exporting these species. That fuels the trade, so this is an important loophole that we are trying to close today. A number of countries have introduced ivory bans and closed their domestic markets for ivory, including China and the USA, which has both federal and state level bans. The EU has introduced guidance to member states, and Singapore has also introduced a ban. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, the UK has led, and will continue to lead the way, on conservation of these magnificent animals. As with warthog, I undertake to keep walrus under constant review. On the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made about whaling, we strongly oppose the hunting of all cetaceans, other than limited activities by indigenous people for clearly defined subsistence needs. The UK reaffirmed its strong support for the global moratorium on commercial whaling at the September International Whaling Commission meeting, with the Danish Government in attendance, where we co-sponsored a resolution on international legal obligations in commercial whaling. We also raised the UK’s opposition to cetacean hunting at official level in September as part of the UK-Faroe Islands fisheries inter-sessional meeting. Ministers and senior officials will continue to raise the issue with the Faroese at every appropriate opportunity.

I am reassured in part, but I would be delighted if we can look further at walrus. I do not understand why we would not protect the walrus and the warthog. Closing off the trade in the four species that the Minister mentioned might enhance people’s desire to hunt the walrus and the warthog, so I do not understand the logic of not protecting them. Nothing would be lost by protecting those species.

Walrus was included in the original consultation but was later removed following further analysis of the Windsor framework implications, so it is to do with the application of EU policy in Northern Ireland. We are committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith and to protecting the UK internal market. Walrus is protected under the seal products regulations. Seal products, including walrus ivory, can be imported and placed on the UK market for sale only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions. I am sure that if we go back to the consultation response, we will be able to get the figures. If not, I undertake to write to the hon. Lady with the actual numbers for the import and export of such products. Seal products can be brought into Great Britain to be sold only if they qualify under the Inuit and other indigenous communities exemption and have a seal catch certificate. That is an attestation document that provides that the item is exempt, and that the seal products are certified as coming from a traditional hunt, carried out for the subsistence of the community, and which considers the welfare of the animal.

And the warthogs?

I said all I have to say on the warthogs earlier.

I thank the Minister for giving way again and for her clarifications about walrus. Will she undertake to write to me? The Government must keep a watching brief if there is a loophole that could be exploited in the seal products legislation and, if need be, come back to the House and amend this statutory instrument so that it includes the ivory from those animals. They must keep a watching brief on what comes in and out of the country, because I worry that some unscrupulous people may try to exploit the unintended consequences of this instrument. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that Ministers, in dialogue with the Faroe Islands, raised whaling at a high level. I did ask a larger question: in wider discussions, including fisheries negotiations with the Faroe Islands or Norway, and trade negotiations with countries such as Japan, will the UK play a world leadership role by putting pressure on those countries to stop the horrific practice of whaling? Will the Minister give an undertaking that her Department, and other Departments such as the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will do that?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We have committed to ensuring that future trade agreements promote the highest animal welfare standards. That was not always the case under previous trade agreements. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question about museums. I mentioned in my opening speech the prescribed institutions that provide advice to the Secretary of State via the Animal and Plant Health Agency on whether an exemption certification should be granted for items that are pre-1918 and of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value. There are five exemptions to the ban that apply to all species, which is why I started talking about musical instruments. The exemptions are: musical instruments made before 1975 with less than 20% ivory by volume; items made before 3 March 1947 with less than 10% ivory by volume; portrait miniatures made before 1918 with a total surface area of no more than 320 sq cm; items that a qualifying museum intends to buy or hire; and items made before 1918 that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value. We must remember that there was a time when ivory was, for example, regularly laid on piano keyboards, used for the inlay on violins and used in gaming dice and things like that. The historical things, such as the famous walrus chess people in the British Museum, are treasures. If we are doing exchanges with other cultural institutions, we must allow those pieces to travel, but under very strict, permitted and certified exemptions. The items can be bought, sold or hired out only if they meet one of the five exemptions to the ivory ban and must be registered or certified under the relevant exemption using the digital ivory service.

My question was not focused on the pathway that the Minister is talking about in terms of musical instruments: I was actually referring to natural history collections. I assume her answer is relevant to those as well, but she has answered about musical instruments when I was focusing on natural history collections.