ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) (Hansard, 21 March 1978)

§ Mr. Robin Hodgson (Walsall, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 to improve the protection given to endangered species; and for connected purposes. The purpose of my proposed Bill is very simple; it is to block a loophole in the 1976 Endangered Species Act—a loophole which, a good deal of evidence suggests, is being increasingly widely used as a means of flouting the purpose and intention of the original legislation which was designed to restrict the trade in those animals whose very existence was threatened by their continued trapping and killing.

The loophole in the 1976 Act to which I refer arises from the lack of explicit prohibition on the "transhipment" of those animals which are on the list of endangered species at United Kingdom sea and more particularly air ports. That is to say, there is no prohibition on the use of the United Kingdom as a staging post in the trade in endangered species.

While it might seem to hon. Members at first sight that this is a small loophole, in fact closer examination indicates that there are wider consequences to this defect. The United Kingdom legislation is based on a United Nations convention of 1973 entitled International Trade in endangered species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Article VII(1) of the convention states that its provisions shall not apply to the transit or transhipment of specimens through or in the territory of a Party while the specimens remain in Customs control". Why, one might well ask, was this exclusion made? I am informed that the pressure for this exclusion was led by the British delegation. The British delegation was in turn led by the Department of Customs and Excise, which no doubt feared that prohibition of transhipment would lead to an increase in its administrative workload.

However, this opposition by Customs and Excise has had serious consequences. For though the United Kingdom legislation does not repeat the clause in the 1342 United Nations convention, and indeed though some parliamentary lawyers argue that the wording of the Act is sufficiently wide to include a prohibition on transhipment, Customs and Excise have persistently refused to implement any prohibition on transhipment.

Let me now explain briefly to the House how this loophole is being widened. Let us take the position of a dealer in wild animals. Let us suppose that he buys two chimpanzees from another dealer in, say, Sierra Leone. When the chimpanzees arrive at Heathrow Airport he applies to Customs and Excise for a temporary import licence. Customs and Excise will undoubtedly give a 28-day licence provided only that, first, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspector certifies that the animals are healthy, and, secondly, that they are shown an air ticket consigning the chimpanzees eventually to a destination outside the United Kingdom. So the dealer buys an air freight tickets covering the shipment of two chimpanzees to, say, Paris, and armed with this he gets his import licence.

Now comes the trick. The dealer circulates other dealers in the trade with details of his two rare animals, inviting competitive bids. He has his 28-day period in which to do this, though if the time is insufficient he can probably get a further 28-day extension. Once all the bids are in he will accept the highest, probably making a substantial profit. Finally, say the highest bidder has come from a Moscow medical research centre, the dealer merely buys another air ticket, this time for a destination in Moscow, changes the destination on the consignment sheet, and claims a refund on the unused air freight ticket for Paris. The chimpanzees go to Moscow, the dealer makes his profit, Customs and Excise avoid any more work, and another rare species goes a step closer to extinction. It is practices of this nature and others like it that my Bill aims to prevent.

Britain has two additional responsibilities. First, Heathrow and British airports are heavily used in the international air freight trade. In particular, the national airlines of many Commonwealth countries fly into Heathrow. A ban on the transhipment of rare and endangered species within the United Kingdom would have an enormously 1343 restrictive effect on this unpleasant trade. I am not so innocent as to believe that all trade would cease. Some would still go through the United Kingdom, but at least it would be clearly illegal.

The second reason for the United Kingdom to become involved is that a ban on transhipment here would end the "cleansing" effect of passing rare animals through the United Kingdom. Because this country is a signatory to the United Nations convention, rare animals arriving elsewhere in the world from a United Kingdom point of departure are believed by the authorities in the recipient country to have been carefully processed. The United Kingdom therefore has a special responsibility in this regard.

If hon. Members consider that maybe only an insignificant number of these transhipment cases occur, they should consider the example of the United States. The United States Congress implemented similar legislation to our own in 1975, and since that date the following total seizures of all animals have taken place: in 1975 there were 1,900; in 1976 there were 7,600; and in 1977 there were 21,000.

By comparison, in reply to a parliamentary Question that I put down on 20th March the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that so far in the United Kingdom during the entire period that the Act has been in force there have been only 23 seizures and one prosecution. Even allowing for the great difference between the United States and the United Kingdom, 23 is hardly an encouraging total leading one to believe that Customs and Excise are being rigorous in the carrying out of their duties.

In conclusion, the trade in endangered species and plants is growing all the time. It is easy for us to shrug our shoulders and say that nothing can be done. I believe that this country has a clear duty to do what it can to restrict this trade, and I hope that the House will give leave for the introduction of this Bill this afternoon.