| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I declare an interest as vice president of Birdlife International and of the RSPB. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, on her passionate words against the wild bird trade and I share many of her views on the conservation arguments. The trade threatens many species, while welfare standards for the birds concerned are appalling. Indeed, it has been assessed that something in excess of 60 per cent die somewhere along the very long chain from being captured in the forests where they should be flying and being transported across the land and sea and through the air before they even reach our shores and are quarantined. A large number then die in quarantine itself. It is a wasteful trade.
For many years in my previous work with the RSPB and Birdlife International I tried hard to find a way to make this trade sustainable. I worked closely with many of the countries whose birds are taken for the European and global trade to find a means by which it could be made into a business that was both humane and could provide a living for the often poor populations living in the forests of the world. However, I have to say that we pretty much failed to find any way of establishing a sustainable trade. Many of the birds covered by the CITES regulation and about which information is available demonstrate that
27 Feb 2006 : Column 34
the taking of such birds is far from sustainable. The situation for those species not covered by the CITES regulation is completely unknown. We simply do not know what the taking of large numbers of such birds is doing to the populations within their own countries. Little evidence can be provided to support the notion that local populations should be able to make a living out of the taking of birds. Often the local trapper gets only a pittance. The money goes to the middle man and to those outside the country of origin of the bird.
This is a wasteful and inhumane trade. While for 15 years we have tried hard to make it sustainable, we have been unable to do so. The opportunity now provided by the temporary ban imposed in Europe is one that I urge the Government to grasp with both hands. They should look in the face of the wild bird traders and see the practice as unnecessary. It is true that the European market drives the trade and that if there were no market for these birds, they would not be traded. Although there would be some illegal importation, it is far easier to catch illegal imports if no cover is provided by the legal trade.
Evidence from elsewhere in the world makes this clear. In an uncharacteristically brave move, in 1992 the United States Government virtually banned the trade in wild birds by placing strong sustainability criteria on any imports. The belief at the time was that that would simply drive the trade underground and there would be much more illegal importation, particularly across the Mexican and other borders with South America. However, that simply has not been the case. The market has dried up, and while there is a limited amount of illegal trading, it is very small by comparison with what there was previously. So for once we have a model from across the pond that we would do well to consider. I hope that we can persuade the Minister, if not with this amendment but certainly with the argument, to use this opportunity to ensure that both here and in Europe the need simply to bring a halt to this trade is accepted. It feels a little like the slave trade in the past. It is inhumane, wasteful and demeaning in the modern world.
The Duke of Montrose: We on these Benches have great sympathy with the amendment. We shall return to it in a similar vein when we come to my noble friend's Amendment No. 293A. We also received the very good briefing from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and we thank it for that. While outlining the great damage that is done to wild birds by the import trade, the society said how it did not oppose the keeping of birds in captivity or limited imports for conservation and research purposes. In the course of today's discussion, my noble friend Lady Byford has mentioned the visit of Peter Ainsworth to Monks Wood research centre. I draw to the Government's attention the comments he made that the failure to act would pose the question of whether wildlife is safe in Labour's hands. We are very grateful that the Minister proposes to return to some of these issues.
Lord Bach: No one can fail to be impressed by the passion with which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller,
27 Feb 2006 : Column 35
moved her amendment or the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke in support of it. The strength of feeling on this issue was demonstrated also by the noble Duke in his few remarks. We understand the strength of feeling on this issue in Committee and beyond. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to my noble friend Lord Stratford, whom we all miss. I remember well the way in which he spoke on this issue some months ago in this House. The noble Baroness and I can both imagine how he would have put his case today—with great passion, strength and with much wit. I have no doubt on which side of the argument he would have stood if he had been here.
I should try to explain how we see Amendment No. 292. To some extent, it is linked to Amendment No. 293A which will be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in due course. The amendment increases protection for wild birds in trade and amends Section 1(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to ban the possession of live or dead wild birds from any country of the world. It has two parts: the first is to tighten up the circumstances under which it is permissible to possess wild birds and the second is to tighten up the circumstances under which wild birds may be killed, taken or possessed under the terms of a licence.
I shall take each part in turn. The current measure contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to possess any wild bird which has not been lawfully taken from the wild in Europe. The amendment attempts to extend that offence so that it applies to birds from any country in the world. The amendment is, however, a little confusing to us, as it depends on the word "lawfully" which is defined in the defence found in Section 1(3) and which relates to member state legislation implementing the Birds Directive. As it would not be an offence under this legislation to take a bird from the wild in, for example, Africa, the defence in Section 1(3) would apply and such a bird could be lawfully possessed in England and Wales. That is a detail. It is quite clear what the noble Baroness is arguing. Indeed, she said so clearly and explicitly that the intention behind her amendment is the importation of wild birds.
I should remind the Committee that powers are already available under existing EU legislation to enable the Secretary of State to protect exotic species from the consequences of unsustainable trade. It is neither practicable nor desirable for the Government to attempt to regulate the capture and transportation of animals within territories that fall outside their jurisdiction. We believe that it is inappropriate to use domestic legislation, which is designed to protect European and native wildlife, to protect populations of wild birds in non-EU countries.
A general prohibition on trade would raise serious practical and legal difficulties for us given our obligations under the EU treaty and as members of the World Trade Organisation. And, of course, not all birds are threatened by trade. It could be argued that it is more appropriate to protect those species that are vulnerable than to introduce a measure that is
27 Feb 2006 : Column 36
applicable to all species. The international trade in some 1,700 bird species is already strictly regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, which has been referred to.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: May I press the Minister on that last statement? If I remember correctly, of the 1,700 species of birds in trade under the CITES regulations, only a very small number have had studies done of the impact of the trade on their populations in their own countries. I cannot remember the exact technical term for such a study. There is very little information about what the trade is doing for the viability of the populations of the remainder of those species.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. I will try to find the answer for her—if not today, then shortly. CITES is implemented within the EU and, we believe, provides a necessary mechanism for protecting species against over-exploitation through unsustainable trade. There is a general view that it is one of the most important and successful international instruments for protecting global biodiversity. We do not want to adopt measures that would seek to undermine its effectiveness. It provides the mechanism through the significant trade process for ensuring that the trade in wild-taken species is sustainable, and we heard what my noble friend Lady Young said about the sustainability or otherwise of this trade. Action has been taken in the past against those countries that fail to trade sustainably by imposing trade bans or quotas, and we will continue to support such action in the future. The European Commission also uses its powers to make regulations to prohibit the import of species for which trade is considered unsustainable, and those are updated on a regular basis.
Subsection (3) of the noble Baroness's new clause repeals four of the permitted purposes for which licences can be issued on a selective basis to control or possess wild birds, provided that there is no alternative solution and that the number of birds covered by the licence is small. Without such licences it would be impossible to control pest species such as Canada geese, which threaten collections of rare wild birds; falconers could no longer practise their ancient art; and public exhibitions or competitions involving avicultural birds would no longer be held. All those activities are allowed by the EU legislation, the EC Wild Birds Directive, implemented by the 1981 Act. The annual reporting process, required under Article 9 of the directive, allows the Commission to keep a close eye on the scale of permitted activities.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |