| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I will deal first with the last points of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I can work only on the basis of somebody who is not personally able to establish whether it is true that bracken causes cancer or has damaging properties in relation to people or animals. I would be grateful if any correspondence could be directed to me so that I can get the department to look at it; I wrote to those who took part in the debate at Starred Questions on that subject. I would very happily look at any further evidence.
These two amendments relate to Clause 46, which seeks to extend the protection afforded to nests of birds which reuse their nests. Amendment No. 291 seeks to add four species to the new Schedule ZA1, which lists those birds whose nests may not be taken, damaged or destroyed at any time during the year. Amendment No. 290 seeks to limit this protection to a maximum of five years.
If I can take the second amendment first, the additional species proposed for inclusion are the red-billed chough, peregrine falcon, barn owl, and swallow. All of these species are amber listed, according to the list of birds of conservation concern produced by statutory conservation agencies and the RSPB. I too would like to place on the record thanks for the information provided by the RSPB and others with a close interest. Amber listing means that the birds have unfavourable conservation status within Europe. However, there are signs that their populations within the UK are slowly increasing. Three of the species were proposed for addition to the schedule during Commons Committee and Report stages, with a further two that have now been dropped, I presume because they did not meet the basic criteria; that is, they do not reuse the same nest site each year.
4.15 pm
The new amendment proposes the addition of the swallow species, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, among others. While it is true that the chough, peregrine falcon and barn owl return to the same nest, and will use it if available, the fact of the matter is that if it has been damaged or destroyed, they will build a new nest nearby just as readily.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 29
As colleagues explained during the Commons stages, these are important species and deserve to be protected, which is why it is an offence to disturb them during the breeding season. However, we do not feel that it appropriate to protect their nests all year round. That would lead to thousands of sites needing to be monitored, which is unrealistic. The swallow, on the other hand—as the noble Baroness pointed out—is slightly different. It returns to the same site each year but these sites may become less suitable if the old nests are not cleared. Old nests may be reused, if they can be rebuilt and used again; however, most are built anew each year. If the old nests cannot be cleared to make room for the new, it will become increasingly difficult for the birds to construct new nests, particularly when faced with an adjoining property where the people living there are not so happy to have the swallows as external tenants.
Clause 46 seeks to protect those very rare species that reuse their nests, and whose populations would be severely threatened if even one of the nests were destroyed outside the breeding season. That is why their nests are being readily monitored by conservation organisations. The same cannot be said of the species proposed in this amendment for addition.
Amendment No. 290 is identical to an amendment tabled in the Commons, which was withdrawn. We have no new arguments against it. We still believe it is misguided and will serve no useful purpose. As the 1981 Act stands, nests are protected only while they are in use or are being built. That means that as soon as the young chicks fledge and fly off, anyone can destroy the nest, for any reason or purpose. When the birds return the following year, the nest has gone, and their breeding success may be put at risk. Amendment No. 290 seeks to limit the protection to a period of five years from when the nest was reconstructed or last used.
Some birds—for example, eagles—can use several nests and may return to a nest even though it looks as if it has been abandoned for some time.It is important to remember that it is possible to apply for a licence under Section 16 of the 1981 Act, if there are good reasons for removing a nest which appears to be abandoned. Each application can thus be considered on its merits, balancing the likelihood of the birds' return and the impact of removing the nest with the benefits of doing so. It may prove possible to obtain a licence even before five years have passed. I do not consider the necessity of applying for a licence in such cases overly bureaucratic, because the listed birds are rare within England and Wales. Their rarity, their ecological importance, and their habit of reusing nests, are precisely why they are listed on the schedule.
There is also a practical difficulty in accepting the amendment—or, indeed, any amendment that seeks to restrict the protection to a particular period. How is it possible for an enforcement authority to know for how long a nest has been abandoned? How do we know when to start counting—not all nests of birds listed by the new offence are observed all year round in order to obtain that information?
27 Feb 2006 : Column 30
The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 has avoided that problem by using the term, "habitually used", but what may be habit for one species may be different for another. As I said, eagles may appear to have abandoned a nest for several years. The decision must rest on the balance between the purpose—for example, public health—and the likely impact on the breeding success of the protected species. The abandonment or otherwise of the nest is an important but not the only factor.
The noble Earl asked whether only birds listed in Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 can be listed in Schedule ZA1. Any species of bird that reuses its nest year after year can be so listed. The provision has been worded to apply to specific species that use their nests year after year and it is not envisaged that it would apply to species that return to a specific area but build new nests each year. I hope that the noble Earl is satisfied by that distinction. There are licensing grounds for public health and safety to remove a nest. The licensing provisions in Section 16 will apply to that new offence, as they apply to other offences in Section 1. Nests protected under those provisions will be protected in perpetuity. However, the licensing provisions of Section 16 will apply, so that licences can be sought for listed purposes for nests, once abandoned. Where Natural England or the Countryside Council for Wales is of the opinion that an area that is important for rare birds is of special interest, it will notify the area as a SSSI, bringing with it all the protection that follows.
As long as normal operation on the land surrounding a nest does not cause damage or destruction to a nest, it will not constitute an offence. However, an offence could arise from the disturbance of birds. If it can be proved that bracken is killing cattle and sheep, the owners of the animals can seek a licence to remove it.
I have given a long, detailed answer because I know that many Members of the Committee have a detailed interest in the matter. I hope that my range of reassurances will satisfy them and that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for giving such a comprehensive reply. I am bound to say that I still think that there is a degree of muddled thinking in all this, but I take some heart from the fact that she said that the restrictions would not apply to birds that returned to the same area if they do not occupy precisely the same nest sites. However, possible difficulties may arise on those lines in future, depending on whether the Government are of a mind to extend the restrictions. I realise that, at the moment, we are talking about only three specific species of birds but, as I said in moving the amendment, the list may be extended to include ground-nesting birds, where there really could be difficulties.
However, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said and, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 31
[Amendment No. 291 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 292:
"PROHIBITION OF IMPORT OF WILD BIRDS
(1) Amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) as follows.
(2) In section 1 (protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs), in subsection (2)(a), after "any live or dead wild bird" insert "from any country of the world".
(3) In section 16 (power to grant licences), in subsection (1), paragraphs (d) to (g) are repealed."
The noble Baroness said: I hope that our debate on this amendment will give us the opportunity to consider a much wider biodiversity than that of our own country. The intention behind my amendment is primarily to address the appalling situation faced by many countries that are the natural homes of such species as macaws and parrots. My amendment would ban the import of wild birds, by which I mean birds that are caught in the wild. It does not address the issue of birds that are bred in captivity and then imported, as that is a completely separate question. Perhaps I feel more strongly about this amendment than I do about any other amendment to the entire Bill. Throughout our debates on the Bill, we have talked about the importance of biodiversity and the Government creating Natural England to strengthen biodiversity in this country. Yet we continue to allow the import of wild birds, thereby devastating the biodiversity of other countries.
On the scale of devastation, about 1 million birds are legally imported into the EU every six months. Of that million, 28,500 exotic birds were imported into the UK in 2001—a year for which I have figures. By 2003, that number had grown to 83,000. These are really big figures. The temporary ban on the import of exotic birds since October 2005—a ban that was imposed because of avian flu and that is intended at the moment to last until this May on an EU-wide basis—has saved a vast number of birds from being imported. Not only are those birds caught in the wild in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Costa Rica, but they are imported here and die in vast numbers on the way.
I am sure that the Minister will remember saying in our discussions on the Statements on avian flu and the investigation of the Pegasus Birds quarantine centre that the mortality rate in the black-headed caique population was notably high. In fact, it is 100 per cent, so it is not rare for birds caught in the wild to die. One in 10 might arrive alive, so not only are the jungles being devastated for the sake of this import trade, but most of the birds are dead when they arrive.
I shall not talk at all today about the illegal trade, as that is a different subject, except to say that continuing to allow the legal trade is providing a cover for the illegal trade. I remind the Minister that in the countries that have had a long-term ban on the import of caught wild birds—the United States has banned it
27 Feb 2006 : Column 32
for 14 years and Australia has banned it for 40 years—the illegal trade in wild birds has also dropped dramatically. I am sure that if the Minister took evidence from organisations in these countries such as BirdLife, which have experience of the effect of a total import ban, he would agree with me.
I felt strongly about the amendment when I tabled it, but feel even more strongly about it since last week, which I spent in Costa Rica talking to the people who are trying to protect these species. Less than 36 hours ago, I was watching the scarlet macaws flying back from their forest reserve into the mangrove swamps in the evening and saw the benefits that eco-tourism can bring to a country such as Costa Rica, which appreciates that benefit immensely. It is illegal there, as it is here, to catch any wild species at all. They appreciate that eco-tourism can bring vast benefits. Yet, everywhere, they still have posters and inspectors addressing the poaching of eggs and chicks from their nests and adult birds being caught. Why is that? It is because the EU still provides a ready market for these birds.
4.30 pm
The Minister may say that the CITES convention addresses that issue. But an analysis, for example, of trade in grey parrots in Guinea conducted for CITES and IUCN found the species to be highly threatened by trade. The report recommended the suspension of all exports from Guinea, but the export quota remained unchanged. In many countries where CITES species are implicated, research has not been done into what is happening. We may comfort ourselves that CITES is providing control, but it is not.
The RSPB briefing, which I am sure that other noble Lords have received, says that,
"the UK imports . . . 90% of the world trade in Senegal parrots ( . . . 44,000 birds a year), but no scientific field surveys have ever been undertaken on this species. And CITES 'regulation' has done little to protect the African grey parrot, where over-exploitation . . . has led a population crash across the species range".
The situation is severe for the most exotic birds, but it is also severe for less exotic birds—small, green parakeets and so on—in the way that we discussed during the debate on the first amendment. In the countries from which these birds come, the whole chain of biodiversity is important.
It is of enormous regret to me that Lord Stratford is not here to take part in this debate. That is not only because I never had the opportunity to get to know him well, but also because he would have put the case far more eloquently than I am able to do. In November, he said:
"I believe that the current temporary ban on the import of wild birds should be made permanent. I do not see any reason why we should allow this trade to go on. It is unnecessary, abhorrent and entirely destructive. When you look at the statistics you realise how appalling they are. The European Union is the largest importer of wild caught birds in the world, responsible for 93 per cent of imports of threatened and endangered species".—[Official Report, 17/11/05; col. 1284.]
Lord Stratford put that strongly and eloquently.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 33
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity that avian flu has given us to stop this abhorrent trade. I have not talked about the threat of importing wild birds in introducing disease, but I am of course very concerned about it. It is a primary threat to us, which is completely unnecessary when we can simply stop importing such birds. When we have debated the avian flu Statements, the Minister has said that migratory birds pose a greater threat. As we see at the moment, migratory birds often die en route or are too sick to migrate. Continuing to import wild birds is inexcusable in exposing our domestic poultry flocks to a threat.
Finally, I remind the Government that in their publication, New Life for Animals, published under Labour Britain, there is an excellent piece entitled, "Trapping Exotic Birds". It states:
"Between eight and 20 million exotic birds are trapped in the wild each year. Up to four out of five die before they even reach the pet shop. Labour is against their import into Britain, and supports calls for a European-wide ban on the import of wild-caught birds".
I believe that there is a precedent in taking a lead on this, whether in veterinary terms or those of biosecurity. Whatever terms are used, the Government should seek a way of making the temporary ban permanent in Britain not only because we are concerned about the health of our own poultry flocks, but also because if we can use an entire Bill to consider and debate the importance of biodiversity for our country, we should recognise its importance for other countries—many of which are doing an enormous amount to try to protect their own wildlife, only to be undermined by the EU and countries such as ours as we effectively buy out their biodiversity and their children's inheritance. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |