HC Deb 28 June 1990 vol 175 cc293-4W
Mr. Tony Banks

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ask the Hong Kong authorities to destroy all current stocks of confiscated ivory; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave

[holding answer 14 June 1990]: No. This is a matter for the Hong Kong authorities. There is no obligation under CITES regulations to destroy stocks of confiscated ivory.

Mr. Tony Banks

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current total of confiscated ivory now held by the Hong Kong authorities.

Mr. Waldegrave

[holding answer 14 June 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 21 June in which I stated that the current total of confiscated ivory held by the Hong Kong authorities was 2.4 tonnes. There has been no change since then.

Mr. Tony Banks

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why India and Canada are included as countries of export of seized ivory in his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 472, but are not listed in his reply of 8 May, Official Report, column 25, as being countries of export of ivory seized by the Hong Kong authorities.

Mr. Waldegrave

[holding answer 14 June 1990]: We are making further inquiries with the Hong Kong authorities. I shall give the hon. Member a substantive answer as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Banks

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 472, what are the countries of destination for the 702.5 kg of ivory seized in transit by the Hong Kong authorities.

Mr. Waldegrave

[holding answer 14 June 1990]: According to the accompanying shipping documents, the intended destination was Macau.

Mr. Tony Banks

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds the Hong Kong authorities seized 15.5 kg of mammoth ivory imported by Lee Chor Mui from Japan, as detailed in his reply of 8 May,Official Report, column 25.

Mr. Waldegrave

[holding answer 14 June 1990]: The mammoth ivory imported by Lee Chor Mui was seized for further investigation because customs officers initially suspected that it might be elephant ivory. Once the ivory had been examined and confirmed to be mammoth ivory, which is not controlled under CITES, it was returned to Lee Chor Mui.

Mr. Tony Banks

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why no reference was made in his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 472, to the 15.5 kg of mammoth ivory seized from Lee Chor Mui.

Mr. Waldegrave

[holding answer 14 June 1990]: No reference was made in my reply of 5 June to the mammoth ivory seized from Lee Chor Mui because imports of mammoth ivory cannot be identified from Hong Kong Government's trade statistics.

Moreover, as the ivory in question was not elephant ivory, it did not appear in the import statistics compiled by the CITES management authority.

Back to