THE decision to ban the buying and selling of antique ivory must be one of the most misguided decisions this government has made so far.

I always thought the Conservative party tried to avoid ideological zeal but in doing this it has embraced it wholeheartedly.

Why is it a bad idea? Consider this scenario: somebody dies and along the mantelpiece of his or her sitting room are six beautifully carved late 19th century Japanese ivory figures. They are not important enough to warrant a rare or national interest label – if they were of that quality, a puffed-up and no doubt well-paid committee of so-called experts would decide on their commercial legitimacy.

Nevertheless, our six antique figures are superb examples of the carver’s art, executed at a time when labour was cheap and the number of hours expended not important. What happens to such figures? They cannot be bought and sold and therefore ownership cannot pass from one person to another except through gift.

Are they really to be broken up or burnt in some mistaken belief that this would help elephants alive today?

Are we to have regional centres where one can take one’s ivory to be safely disposed of ? Maybe supermarkets will have ivory bins similar to those for old batteries and plastic bags where it can be quietly destroyed – all environmentally friendly and such-like.

But no. We are not talking of old batteries or plastic carrier bags; this is destruction of highly skilled and aesthetically beautiful artworks – just on an ideological whim.

Far from being an admirable crusade and Britain taking a stand, as it is being trumpeted, it all sounds a bit like 1930s style book-burning to me.

Modern carved ivory is nothing like what was made 120 years ago. It is crudely carved and would not be desirable to antique dealers or true connoisseurs. In any case it is already against the law to trade in ivory taken from elephants killed since 1947 so parliament has already, so far as it can, moved to protect elephants alive today.

This is in common with other countries and perhaps international efforts should be made to enforce the law we already have before introducing a new one.

There is also the problem of distinguishing between elephant ivory and other ivories, such as mammoth and walrus tusks which have all been used in the past and are not covered by the proposed new ban. Then again, much supposed ivory is actually bone and perfectly legal. All in all, this sounds like a practical minefield.

As this letter is being sent to the Andover Advertiser, readers may by now be wondering whether there is any local angle. Well, perhaps, if one were needed, it might be salutary to consider that the government is acting in response to a national petition signed by 61,000 people which is barely 0.1 per cent of the population, whereas a petition signed by nearly 6,000 people, about 25 per cent of the local adult population, to save the conveniences in George Yard was totally ignored.

David Borrett, Lansdowne Avenue, Andover