| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I need not go on at length about the issue again, because I probably said almost everything that I need to say under my previous amendment. Clearly I support the sentiment
27 Feb 2006 : Column 45
of this amendment, but would like to add something on a subject on which the noble Baroness touched—the seemingly illogical position that the Government are taking by issuing a general licence for all bird markets. I think that that is their proposal under the Animal Welfare Bill, and it seems a backwards step. The Animal Protection Agency has briefed extensively on that.
The proposition seems to be for a far wider general licence to be issued. In the light of all that we have heard, in terms not only of welfare but of avian flu as well, that seems a particularly bizarre move at a time when the Government, through introducing such a Bill, are trying to improve the life of companion animals. Pet fairs and so on are one of the places where welfare becomes much more of an issue, and—as we learnt to our cost from foot and mouth—when animals are transported to and fro and kept in what are for them very stressful conditions, disease can be spread. I want to raise my concerns under the amendment about the licensing of pet fairs.
Lord Bach: I look forward to debating the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned with her when the Animal Welfare Bill is debated in this House, which—who knows?—may not be that far away. It is a joy that we look forward to with eager anticipation.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for moving the amendment in the way that she did. It seeks to introduce a new clause after Clause 48—that is, between the sections of the Bill relating to protection of birds and invasive non-native species. In response to Amendment No. 292, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I did my best to explain the existing controls on imports in the CITES regulations, and I shall not repeat them. In addition to seeking to ban trade in exotic birds, the amendment also contains welfare provisions relating to their capture and transportation. Everyone knows that the capture and transportation of live birds in some countries can and does lead to undue suffering, but it is not easy to regulate this by imposing conditions on importation. Ultimately, it is for the government of the exporting country to take the necessary corrective measures to regulate those activities, but I accept at once that there is a lot more that we can do to encourage such action. Her amendment would insert a series of additional measures that at best overlap, and sometimes contradict, existing measures to regulate the trade in exotic species. We believe that that would insert an additional level of complexity that would confuse both traders and administrators alike, thereby undermining the effectiveness of existing control on the trade in exotic birds.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I was mulling over the Minister's comment that it is for the exporting country to exert control, and I am trying to draw a parallel between the growing and export of, say, coca leaves and drugs and their import into this country. In
27 Feb 2006 : Column 46
drawing such a parallel, one might think it perfectly legitimate to make the import of such items entirely illegal.
Lord Bach: As I said, there was much more that we could do. It is only stating the reality that, while the trade is allowed to continue, it is ultimately for the exporting country to take the measures to regulate those activities. That is what I hope I said earlier. That does not, of course, take away from our obligations to make it easier for the exporting country to export humanely and sensibly. But in the end it is for the exporting country to regulate if the trade continues. I remind the noble Baroness what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in our earlier debate about the meeting that the UK is arranging with key stakeholders in Europe to try to gauge the likely impact of such a ban.
There are a number of detailed points on which we think the amendment, as drafted, is defective. I shall not go into them now as it would not be a valuable use of our precious time. I rely heavily on what I said on the earlier amendment.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response, and am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who shares our concerns about the legalisation of exotic birds and pet markets which the Government are considering. We shall look at that Bill with great interest when it finally comes to the House.
The Minister said that it was up to the exporting country to put its house in order.
Lord Bach: Ultimately—in the last analysis.
Baroness Byford: In the last analysis I accept, but I feel that it is also the responsibility of the country where the birds arrive. The answer can come in writing, but I want to know what sort of catches or precautions the Government have to stop people bringing in exotic birds that are not looked after in the accepted manner. We need some evidence on what is currently happening. That would help enormously before we returned to the Bill on Report, when we shall consider this section of amendments in greater detail. I understand that the exporting country has to get its own house in order first, but a country cannot export unless someone is receiving. We as a receiving country must have some clarification about what is happening now, and how to make better strides. I am grateful to others who spoke, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 293B:
"CONTROL OF HARMFUL NON-NATIVE SPECIES
(1) In section 22(5) of the 1981 Act (power to vary Schedules), at the end insert—
27 Feb 2006 : Column 47
"(c) add any animals or plants to, or remove any animals or plants from Part III of that Schedule."
(2) After section 14ZB insert—
"14ZC CONTROL OF HARMFUL NON-NATIVE SPECIES
(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that a species listed in Schedule 9—
(a) is present in the wild, and
(b) is an actual or potential threat to the conservation of flora or fauna, or
(c) is an actual or potential threat to social or economic well-being,
he must add it to Part III of Schedule 9.
(2) Within three months of a species being added to Part III of Schedule 9, the Secretary of State must nominate an appropriate body that within one year will produce an action plan that identifies how the species should be eradicated, controlled or contained in order to protect threatened flora, fauna, social or economic well-being.
(3) Within three months of the action plan being presented to the Secretary of State, he shall inform to Parliament of the provisions of the action plan.
(4) Pursuant to subsection (3) and in the circumstances set out in subsection (5), any person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may, at any reasonable time and (if required to do so) upon producing evidence that he is authorised, enter any land for the purpose of controlling, containing or eradicating a species listed in Part III of Schedule 9; but nothing in this subsection shall authorise any person to enter a dwelling.
(5) The circumstances are—
(a) that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the body nominated to implement an action plan to control or eradicate a species is unable to conclude, on reasonable terms, an agreement to access land in order for the control, containment or eradication to be effective,
(b) that the nominated body did enter into such an agreement as referred to in subsection (5)(a), but that the Secretary of State is satisfied that it has been breached in such a way that operations to control, contain or eradicate the invasive non-native species are rendered ineffective.
(6) A dispute about whether or not there has been a breach of the agreement for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(7) More than one person may be authorised for the time being under subsection (4) to enter any land.
(8) A person acting in the exercise of a power conferred by subsection (4) may—
(a) use a vehicle or a boat to enter the land;
(b) take a constable with him if he reasonably believes he is likely to be obstructed;
(c) take with him equipment or materials needed for the purpose for which he is exercising the power of entry.
(9) If in the exercise of a power conferred by subsection (4) a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which the occupier is temporarily absent, he must on his departure leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 48
(10) It is the duty of a relevant authority to compensate any person who has sustained damage as a result of—
(a) the exercise of a power conferred by subsection (4) by a person authorised to do so by that relevant authority, or
(b) the failure of a person so authorised to perform the duty imposed on him by subsection (9).
(11) For the purposes of compensation assessment, an independent arbitrator shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(12) Except where the damage is attributable to the fault of the person who sustained it, any dispute regarding entitlement to, or the amount of, compensation under subsection shall be referred to the arbitrator mentioned in subsection (11).""
The noble Baroness said: With the leave—and for the ease—of the House, in moving Amendment No. 293B I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 293E and 293F at the same time because they all deal with the same topic. I apologise for the error; they should have been in the same group. I am particularly grateful for the support, help and briefing that I have received from many organisations. These amendments do one and the same thing—they are two possible solutions to the same problem. The fact that we have two is an indication of how important we think the problem of harmful, invasive non-native species is.
In the first instance, I will refer mainly to the grey squirrel. The American grey squirrel was introduced to the British Isles at the end of the 19th century. It has no natural predators or diseases in Europe, and has now spread throughout Europe—across Italy and towards Switzerland and the French borders. The grey squirrel is a significant environmental pest. It attacks forests, orchard trees, shrubs and woodland birds' eggs and young. We are all aware of the drastic effect it has had on our beloved red squirrel. The red squirrel has been driven out of much of the British Isles by the competition for food and habitat and the spread of the grey squirrel-carried squirrel pox virus.
There is a complex cluster of international law and conventions that goes some way to addressing the problems of the grey squirrel, but on closer inspection there are huge gaps between the rulings, conventions and directives. The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES—established in 1963 to protect endangered species through the control of trade, does not offer the red squirrel protection against international trade. But the UK could apply for the red squirrel to be listed under the CITES rules, giving it greater status. Why has this not been done as a matter of course? The demise of the red squirrel has been with us for some time.
The red squirrel is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but that only offers protection to listed species from direct harm by man. The animal's habitat is not protected in UK law. Yet, from the consultation with the European squirrel initiative—I thank Mr Roger Cook for his great help on this matter—I have learned that, in the past, EU and UK officials have frequently said that it is not possible to add the red squirrel to the necessary annexe in EU law.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 49
In 2003, however, the Berne convention committed to improving the control of non-native species, and lists red squirrels as a protected species.
However, there is another dead-end in the protection of red squirrels. The habitat directive, which purports to turn the Berne convention into law, does not list the red squirrel as a protected species. Therefore, an EU-protected species would take precedence over a species protected only by the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I am sure that that is not what is intended. The refusal to add the red squirrel to the annexe seems extraordinary given that the preamble to the EU Berne convention habitats directive states that,
"technical and scientific progress mean that it must be possible to adapt the Annexes; whereas a procedure should be established whereby the Council can amend the Annexes".
The lack of consistency in the protection of the red squirrel is a serious problem.
An even greater problem is the Government's failure to take the opportunity in this Bill to address not only this issue but other issues and the failure to listen to some of the recent international consultations. Following a meeting of the Berne group of experts on alien invasive species in Majorca in December 2005, the standing committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats recommended that the contracting parties,
"encourage European and national institutions to support and further fund studies into the impacts on forests, Red squirrels and other biological diversity caused by the Grey squirrel and into efficient control measures".
5.30 pm
Amendment No. 293B is a more exhaustive amendment that makes practical suggestions on the control of the harmful non-native species. It would insert an extra part into Schedule 9, which would specifically raise the issue of harmful non-native species.
Our Amendment No. 293E would afford greater protection for the red squirrel by making provision for the control of the grey squirrel. It would add a schedule to the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, which would impose a duty to control harmful non-native species. It is an alternative way of achieving the same ends as Amendment No. 293B.
Recently the Government made an announcement about their desire to control grey squirrels. I understand that they are considering some action. A pre-announcement—and I hope that they will be able to confirm that it will happen—in the Daily Mail on 21 January 2006 indicated that they will call for humane culling of grey squirrels in areas where red squirrels are threatened. Grey squirrels not only threaten red squirrels, which are estimated to be down by some 140,000 compared with 6 million grey squirrels; they also carry the squirrel-pox virus, are a threat to songbirds, dormice and woodland birds—their eggs and young—and I gather they take the cobs
27 Feb 2006 : Column 50
from the Kent producers. I hope that the Minister, when she winds up, will bring us up to date with government thinking.
I referred earlier to the exotic Chinese mitten crab, which the Minister also referred to. A study by researchers at Newcastle University compared their invasion to that of grey squirrels. The crabs prey on native species, such as the white-clawed crayfish and salmon eggs, and can destabilise river banks by burrowing into them with their own 50 centimetre-long boreholes. It is not just me who is concerned about that. Researchers in Newcastle University has done some important work highlighting the difficulty that grey squirrels cause to the conservation of red squirrels.
I realise that red squirrels are very rare and sadly only exist in certain parts of England. I believe that that makes it all the more important that we address the issue. These amendments give me an opportunity to raise it. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |