| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for having spelt out the inadequacies of the amendment. Clearly, as drafted, it would have a serious impact not just on game birds but also on coarse fishing. Like the noble Lord I made inquiries in connection with the amendment. One of its by-products would be that one might require a licence to release sheep on to a hill. That would cause considerable difficulties and would not be a particularly attractive proposal, but I like the idea of
27 Feb 2006 : Column 40
requiring a licence to let dogs off leads and to let cats out at night. That could be a positive by-product of the amendment. I have real sympathy with what the noble Lord proposes and the amendment could be the basis for something worthwhile. However, as he pointed out, as presently drafted it would be totally impractical.
Baroness Byford: I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing the amendment. I do not want to go over the ground that he covered but I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Will the lawful reintroduction of species into this country cover, for example, wild boars which have unfortunately been let loose and are likely to become a problem in the part of the country where they have been released? What about wild mink that were reintroduced? I believe that consideration is being given to reintroducing wolves into parts of Scotland. I do not know whether the noble Lord's amendment covers those species but we need to consider the effect of introduced species on native species and the problems that they might cause.
If I remember correctly, the noble Lord's amendment also covers plant and plantlife. I have perhaps moved to another amendment—if I have to I will wait. If it is to do with plants and reintroducing species, what will happen to the garden centres and the bulb growers who obviously trade internationally and use non-native species? At the moment, however, I should like to concentrate primarily on the animal side.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is nodding his head and I am sure that he did not mean plantlife to be involved in that way. Those of us who have come across the problems of Japanese knotweed and of the crabs crawling up the Thames Estuary just recently will know that there are indeed problems around that need to be addressed. But if the amendment is going to include plants then the noble Lord or the Government need to give consideration to what happens to the proper, lawful trade that goes on in the horticultural world because I am sure that he does not want in any way to make life more difficult for them, provided those plants are approved for entry into this country.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise briefly to speak to this amendment. In doing so I must declare that about 18 months ago my husband worked briefly for the organisation that was thinking of reintroducing wolves into Scotland. This amendment raises some interesting issues. I am particularly glad to see social and economic wellbeing included in the amendment. The reintroduction of the wolf—I believe that this amendment does cover Scotland—would have required fencing off quite vast tracts. The impact on the surrounding sheep farmers besides and on the biodiversity of the area should undoubtedly be considered, quite apart from the questions of access, which are quite rightly Scottish. If this amendment does cover Scotland, there is obviously the issue of
27 Feb 2006 : Column 41
devolved matters and so on. The amendment raises some interesting issues and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I have the strangest sensation. It is said that when one is drowning, past life emerges in front of one's eyes. My past life at the Dispatch Box has included European beaver, boar, Japanese knotweed, mink, and the problems of what to do in Scotland if things are introduced over the border. One of my senior right honourable friends got into great trouble on this question of likening a colleague to a mitten crab, so I am not going down that route.
What I can say—I hope it will come as good news to all noble Lords and to many Members of the other place—is that in response to the wide interest that has been shown as this Bill has gone through the other place and has been debated in your Lordships' House, we have decided to bring forward a consultation on detailed provisions on the control of non-native species. It is quite clearly an extremely important area and it is our intention to go out to wide consultation in the next 12 to 15 months.
In our view, a comprehensive package of legislation and policy is necessary. We have already committed ourselves to considering and developing the proposals contained within the consultation on Part 1 of the 1981 Act over the coming months. There have been a number of attempts—this is one of them and there are further amendments today—to introduce new clauses to deal with a variety of issues relating to the control of non-native species. We believe that the measures that have been proposed in amendments have raised a number of difficult issues, responsibility for which crosses between a number of government departments, and that these have to be resolved in a proportionate way.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made clear that it is possible inadvertently to interfere with one normal, natural part of country life in attempting to solve a different problem. I am confident that the noble Earl will be pleased to take part in a consultation on how to get that right. The development of effective policy depends on securing full stakeholder engagement and support, and it would be wrong to rush into legislation because this apparently convenient opportunity has arisen. We need to take all the implications and concerns into account.
We understand the concerns that Amendment No. 293 seeks to address, and we recognise the need for legislation. One of the issues discussed in the consultation paper that I referred to on Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was the definition of native and non-native. Although the amendment seems to provide an answer to that question, there is a difficulty. It proposes that the existing Section 14(1) of that Act is substituted with a new subsection that would make it an offence for anyone to release or allow to escape into the wild any animal that is native; non-native; included in Part 1 of Schedule 9; or is a hybrid
27 Feb 2006 : Column 42
of any animal included in that schedule. That list includes almost every species on the planet. We are into that sort of difficulty.
We are most sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised, and I am pleased to say that we will conduct the fullest possible proper consultation on this issue. We share the concerns that noble Lords have referred to, and I have no doubt that they will refer to them again in further amendments covering this area. I hope that noble Lords, on calm reflection, will consider that the approach that we have decided to take will be the most effective and is one that they can fully support.
Lord Carter: I would not have thought that a simple probing amendment would introduce wolves and Japanese knotweed to the debate. I am extremely grateful to the Minister. She said that there would be a consultation that would take between 12 and 15 months and then the Government would decide on an approach. I am sure that noble Lords have seen the correspondence in the press about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is in the other place at the moment. This is an example of where that Bill could be used, as it would be non-contentious, it is amending an existing Bill, and it has general agreement. Perhaps if that Bill becomes law it would be the best way to proceed, rather than seeking a new Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 293A:
"IMPORT OF EXOTIC BIRDS
(1) The importation of any exotic bird of a species listed in Annex A and Annex B of EU Regulation 338/97 shall be prohibited unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) the trade in that species does not constitute a threat to the conservation of that species or of any other listed species,
(b) that the method of capture used for obtaining specimens from the wild did not involve undue suffering, and
(c) that the means of transport from the place of capture into the United Kingdom shall meet criteria for welfare as may be specified by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure extend the provisions of subsection (1) to species listed in Annex C of the Regulations.
(3) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure extend the provisions of subsection (1) to any other species of bird not indigenous to the United Kingdom.
(4) In this section "exotic bird" includes any live or dead bird that is not indigenous to the United Kingdom including any egg or offspring thereof but does not include—
(a) domestic poultry, dead sport-hunted birds, dead museum specimens, dead scientific specimens, or products manufactured from such birds; or
(b) birds in the following families: Phasianidae, Numididae, Cracidae, Meleagrididae, Megapodiidae, Anatidae, Struthionidae, Rheidae, Dromaiinae, and Gruidae.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 43
(5) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any bird where the Secretary of State is satisfied that its importation is for the purpose of—
(a) scientific research,
(b) approved breeding programmes, or
(c) zoological display.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as may be necesary for the implementation of this section."
The noble Baroness said: I apologise that the groupings on the next couple of amendments were not quite correct. I am grateful to the Minister, because we have notified him of the changes. On this occasion, I am dealing specifically with Amendment No. 293A, on the import of exotic birds. We have a series of six or seven amendments on this very important topic. I am encouraged by the Government's response to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, could we not have the consultation a bit quicker rather than have to wait 15 months for it? If it were possible to have it sooner, that would be better.
The aim of the amendment is threefold. First, that,
"the trade in that species does not constitute a threat to the conservation of that species or of any other listed species",
"that the method of capture used for obtaining specimens from the wild did not involve undue suffering",
"that the means of transport from the place of capture into the United Kingdom shall meet criteria for welfare as may be specified by the Secretary of State".
I suspect that we shall cover quite a lot of the ground from the previous amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. So I shall slightly précis my comments.
Amendment No.293A looks in particular at the question of the import of exotic birds. It is tabled to address two major problems: the control of the wild bird trade and the consequential treatment of traded birds. The trade in wild exotic bird species is beset by problems. The wild bird trade is huge and CITES is unable to monitor effectively the numbers of birds taken for trade from the wild. We need only to look at the present figures. The mortality rate of caught birds is estimated to be as high as 60 per cent. Far from contributing to conservation, we believe that the trade is detrimental to it. The trade is a major conservation threat to globally threatened species—a subject on which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, spoke earlier.
As UK practice stands, the CITES lists of protected birds are appendices to the EC regulations. Those appendices then become annexes to UK regulations. Annexe A is a list of the species most threatened by the world bird trade, and Annexe D is a list of the least threatened. In order to trade within the UK, traders need only to apply for a permit—an Article 10 certificate—to trade in birds listed under Annexe A. Birds listed in Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are also protected. Traders in those birds have a burden of proof to show documentary evidence that they are legally acquired.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 44
Yet birds not covered under Annexe A or Schedule 4 can be traded without restriction. The World Parrot Society states:
"Existing regulations are only partially enforceable and consequently fail to protect the species they target. CITES' track record suggests that the regulations are not based on current scientific data, they are easily by-passed, they are only partially enforced, non-compliance is generally tolerated and sanctions are rarely implemented".
Our amendment addresses these problems of laxity in legislation. It is drafted along similar lines to the US Wild Bird Conservation Act 1992 and it would prohibit the importation of any bird under Annexe A. Subject to appropriate parliamentary procedure, it would also give the Secretary of State powers to add Annexe C, and any other species of birds not indigenous to the UK, to the list of birds prohibited to be imported. Since 1992, wild bird imports into the United States have dropped by 88 per cent. The US legislation, as we mentioned earlier, has been a real success. Far from driving that trade underground, as some might argue, both trade and the welfare of the birds have improved. The Act has been shown to benefit legitimate bird dealers by stemming the flood of wild caught birds into the American pet market. The importation of those wild birds dropped from 700,000 in the 1980s to a mere—though still far too many—80,000 in 1994.
I am grateful to three organisations: Birds First refers in its briefing to the level of mortality in the caught wild live bird trade; the RSPB also quotes 60 per cent; and figures up to 75 per cent are quoted by the Environmental Protection Agency. Parrot-like birds tend to progress from Annexe B to Annexe A-listing on CITES, since there are no effective controls on the trade in the countries in which they are trafficked. Similarly, various Amazon parrots and cockatoos have recently been transferred from B to A-listing, as they have become rarer. I would also like to thank the Bio Veterinary Group, whose members are professional investigators, biologists and consultants, for its full support of this amendment. It also highlights the drop of 88 per cent of wild birds imported into America and raises the continuing problems of the importation of wild birds.
The pet trade's creating opportunities for the release of non-native species into the environment poses a subsequent ongoing threat to indigenous wildlife, something that we did not talk about much earlier but know has been a problem. Wild bird trade carries an unnecessary animal and public health risk, something that we did touch on. Serious zoonotic infections such as avian flu should not be underestimated. Again, queries have been raised by the Animal Protection Agency; it has grave views on the Government's proposals for legalising pet markets, which will obviously contain many exotic animals. I beg to move.
5.15 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |