| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, to which I shall certainly give thought, because it was a positive response. I shall withdraw Amendment No. 123.
Amendment No. 123, as an amendment to Amendment No. 122, by leave withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 pm
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 124:
"PROHIBITION OF IMPORT OF EXOTIC WILD BIRDS
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person imports an exotic wild bird, he shall be guilty of an offence, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the trade in that species—
(a) does not constitute a threat to the conservation status of that species in its country of origin;
(b) does not constitute a threat to native biodiversity in the United Kingdom; or
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1333
(c) does not constitute a risk to animal or public health in the United Kingdom.
(2) In this section, "exotic wild bird" means a bird of a species which is not ordinarily resident in, and is not a regular visitor to, the European territory of any member state of the European Union in a wild state."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I proposed a blanket ban on the import of wild birds, which the Minister explained was not possible to implement for a number of reasons. So I have change my proposal from a blanket ban to a ban that sets out a number of criteria. An effective ban still remains my ultimate aim. In looking at the practicalities of achieving an effective ban I should mention a couple of points.
Trade rules allow measures of protection that are proportionate to the problem that they are trying to solve. In this case, the problems caused by the trade are threefold—the risk to the sustainability of bird populations in the countries from which they come, the risks to human health posed by avian flu, and the risks to animal health and biodiversity.
Regarding the information on whether the trade could be sustainable, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has been involved in bird life for many years through the RSPB, stated in Committee, at col. 34 on 27 February, that over 15 years we pretty much failed to find any way of establishing a sustainable trade.
At this time of night, I shall not rehearse all the health risks in relation to avian flu, but that still poses a threat. In Committee, the Minister told us that the European Commission was meeting this month to discuss the extension of the ban. He also said that the Commission was arranging a meeting with stakeholders to discuss the possibility of either extending or making permanent that temporary ban. Can the Minister update me on any developments on those fronts and what the timescale is for the consultations, if they have not taken place?
Finally, I return to the issue of trade law and whether a ban can be supported, because Article 30 of the European treaty allows national governments to adopt proportionate measures to protect animal health—so there could be a permanent ban on that basis. There have been a couple of cases in the European Court of Justice, where such disputes end up—one of which, no doubt, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will be interested in, because it concerned grouse. The second case concerned Danish bees, when it was held that the protection of domestic bees was a valid reason for an import ban, due to the threat from an invasive species. That threat might be in health terms or due to escapees, such as the well publicised case of the parakeet in the Richmond area, because such birds occupy an ecological niche that might otherwise be taken by other birds.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1334
So there are many reasons that the Government could choose to support a permanent ban. That is not impractical and I hope that the Minister will have a reply that will enable me not to press the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, wish to speak on this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has explained her amendment clearly. Linked to that are my Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, which stand in both our names, to which I shall speak.
This Bill will, I hope, be an important part of countryside legislation for a number of years. I am sure we all share that view. It is quite possible that some time in the future someone may find a non-native species well established in some remote, undisturbed place. Judging by the comments being made now about American crayfish and mitten crabs, to which the noble Baroness referred earlier, it is conceivable that this new find could well be considered acclimatised and, in effect, to have gone native. The effects of climate change may well accelerate colonisation by invasive species, and it is conceivable that in coming decades, many flora and fauna will move house to the United Kingdom. Anchoring this clause to a specific date will strengthen it and make it relevant for many years to come.
Turning to Amendment No. 126, this amendment has changed subtly since Committee. I would like to focus the amendment on the seed trade, something which was nearly not considered; I think everybody thought of animal trade or insect trade. It no longer reads
I address the current problems of hybrids and cultivars, which are being traded in the seed trade without adequate description. A central problem is that the introduction of hybrids, cultivars and their derivatives poses a serious threat to biodiversity by eroding genetic diversity. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, explained that there are provisions in law to add hybrids to Schedule 9, as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the clause this amendment applies to. Yet I was disappointed by part of that response, in which the noble Baroness seemed to sideline a real issue. The noble Baroness said that any species could be added to Schedule 9, but added later:
"There is currently no prohibition under Section 14 of the 1981 Act from planting hybrids in the wild or from causing them to be grown there".—[Official Report, 27/2/06; col. 60.]
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked a series of questions about how EU and UK regulations coincide. The noble Baroness asked if the same rules applied across the whole of Europe, or simply to the UK. Having checked the Defra website on plant breeders' rights, under its "Plant varieties and seeds" section I found the following, rather confusing information:
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1335
"The UK, however, allows UK Plant Breeders' Rights to be suspended whilst Community Plant Variety rights are exercised, which allows UK rights to be re-invoked if Community Plant Variety rights are terminated".
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that she would write to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on that question, but unfortunately I was not quite sure of the outcome of that. I ask the Minister if she is able to give any firm indication as to when provisions will be made to tackle invasive plant species. The amendment would not—as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, stated in Committee—restrict the code of practice; rather it would widen the criteria. The clause presently states that the Secretary of State,
the following criteria. The list of those criteria, therefore, is not exclusive, but suggestive. This amendment would be an effective way to start tackling the problem of invasive plant species.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I will begin by speaking to Amendment No. 124. We accept that the sustainability of the current trade in wild birds is a matter of considerable public concern. It is very difficult for the UK to take action addressing these issues in isolation from the rest of the EU. There are provisions that enable the UK to introduce stricter domestic measures on wildlife trade, but they raise complex legal issues that require careful consideration.
At best, this measure would be difficult to enforce, given the free circulation of goods within the EU. At worst, the measure could result in infraction proceedings by the European Commission on the grounds that it is contrary to the provisions of the treaty or that it contravenes WTO rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the European Commission is already looking at these issues in the light of the threat from avian influenza, and the import of all wild birds into the EU has been suspended until 31 May as a precaution.
The Commission has also been asked to consider whether there are grounds for extending the ban on a more permanent basis. For that reason, we feel that it would be premature for the UK to introduce any stricter measures with respect to the importation of wild birds, pending the development of a wider EU position on this matter.
The UK is of course very concerned about the levels of mortality among some imported wild birds and we have already asked the Commission to look into this. Officials have already met the three relevant directorates general to discuss these issues and have hosted a round-table discussion with key stakeholders to examine the impact of trade bans on illegal trade and livelihoods.
In the mean time, I should point out that CITES, which is implemented within the EU by means of European Council Regulation 338/97, already provides a robust mechanism for protecting some 1,700 bird species considered to be at risk from unsustainable trade. Action has been taken in the past to suspend trade or impose quotas with countries that fail to implement CITES properly, and we will continue to support such action in the future.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1336
The European Commission also has powers under Article 4.6 of Council Regulation 338/97 to make regulations to prohibit the import of other species for which trade is considered unsustainable or where there is a threat to native biodiversity. These powers have already been used to prohibit the import of the ruddy duck and the American bullfrog into the EU, and we are currently considering using existing powers in the regulation further to prohibit the keeping of these animals within the UK.
We also have domestic legislation in place to deal with threats to native biodiversity. Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild any animal, including birds, that is not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Britain. Supplementary to these existing provisions, Clause 49 of this Bill also includes provisions to regulate the sale of non-native invasive species.
The timetable for consultation on the bird ban in the EU is in the hands of the Commission. It is awaiting an opinion from the European Food Standards Agency on the impact of bird trade on animal health and welfare and it is expecting a report in October.
We believe that it would be premature to adopt an additional tier of regulation on top of the existing controls on the trade in exotic birds. Such overlapping legislation is likely to be confusing to traders and enforcers alike. We believe that we should have consultation before such a measure is taken and we want to await the outcome of the current deliberations within the EU.
Nothing that I have said on Amendment No. 124 should be taken as minimising the strength of feeling of which we are aware not only in the House but among the British public.
I shall seek to respond to the amendments spoken to in this group by the noble Baroness.
10.45 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |