TNAG-1953-FCO40-2782-Trade-of-rare-and-endangered-species-in-Hong-Kong-1989 — Page 115

}

TONY BANKS

LABOUR MP

NEWHAM NORTH WEST

27

FED

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SWIA OAA

HKCISI

21FEE 1989

RECEDES

Please Reply to:

306 HIGH ST., STRATFORD

LONDON, E15 1AJ

PHONE 01-555 0036

FAX 01-534 6921

Tim Eggar MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Foreign & Commonwealth office

:

Taken

2/2/89

Dear Mr Eggar

RE: HONG KONG AND RHINO HORN

I was disappointed by your Written Answer of 10 January in which you stated that legislation in Hong Kong to ban the internal sale of medicinal products containing thino horn "is being drafted for introduction into the Hong Kong Legislative Council during its present session". In a Written Answer dated 13 June 1988, you told me that such a ban "will require new legislation, which they plan to introduce later this year". Even that statement was not wholly satisfactory because, in response to a question from me, the Prime Minister had told Parliament on 26 January 1988 that "a total ban on sale of rhino products within Hong Knong will take effect from July this year", and on 25 February she said "The Hong Kong Governemnt intends that the ban should include all medical substances with an ingredient from any rhinoceros product".

Why has there been a delay? It is essential that a ban on medicines containing, or claiming to contain, rhino horn be imposed in Hong Kong as soon as possible. Most rhino horn is ground into powder and sold in the form of medicine pills, and for as long as internal sale is permitted, the ban on import is virtually meaningless because the horn can be smuggled in and then sold legally.

In addition, international conservation organisations are anxious to use the promised Hong Kong law as a precedent to encourage Macao, Taiwan and other problem areas for rhino horn to take similar measures. The delay in Hong Kong is therefore delaying progress elsewhere.

Rec. and Ack

AK... Department

Akad...

for draft reply from

Lond Glen a ther by 2

continued...