§ 3.13 p.m.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in continuation of the figures relating to the numbers of birds of prey licensed to be taken from the wild in Great Britain or imported under the Wild Birds (Importation) Order 1970, which they furnished to the House on April 17 last, they will now furnish similar figures for the year 1972; whether a similar return will be published each year; and whether it is still the practice to issue licences with retrospective effect to cover birds which have been taken or imported without authority.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS)My Lords, in 1972, 169 licences, authorising a total of 173 birds of prey to be taken from the wild in Great Britain, were issued; reports received from the licensees indicated that 111 birds were actually taken. In the same year a total of 506 licences were granted to import birds of prey and owls. Of the 755 birds covered by these licences, 437 were imported. With permission, I shall arrange for the analysis by species to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is not considered necessary to publish these figures annually, but Her Majesty's Government are ready to supply available information for any year, if requested. Retrospective licences are not issued for birds taken from the wild in this country, but applications for retrospective licences to cover birds already imported are considered on their merits.
§ Following is the Analysis referred to:
| LICENCES TO TAKE BIRDS OF PREY AND OWLS FROM THE WILD IN GREAT BRITAIN IN 1972 | |
| Total number of licences issued | 169 |
| Total number of birds covered by the licences | 173 |
| Total number of birds reported taken | 111 |
§ 11 licensees have failed to report whether they took a bird under then licences.
224| Species | Number of birds licensed | Number of birds taken |
| Kestrel | 102 | 66 |
| Buzzard | 20 | 11 |
| Sparrowhawk | 44 | 30 |
| Merlin | 3 | 1 |
| Peregrine | 2 | 2 |
| Golden Eagle | 2 | 1 |
| Owls | Nil | Nil |
| Totals | 173 | 111 |
| LICENCES TO IMPORT BIRDS OF PREY AXD OWLS IN 1972 | |||
| Type of licence | Number of licenses | Number of birds licensed | Number of birds imported |
| (a) Permanent importation | 488 | 720 | 409 |
| (b) Temporary importation by visitors | 11 | 24 | 19 |
| (c) Re-importation of birds after visits abroad | 7 | 11 | 9 |
| Totals | 506 | 755 | 437 |
§ Details of the species covered by the licences at (a) are set out below:—
| Species | Number of birds licensed | Number of birds imported |
| Kestrel | 11 | 7 |
| Lugger or Lagger Falcon | 124 | 71 |
| Lanner Falcon | 64 | 51 |
| Saker Falcon | 48 | 25 |
| Red-headed Falcon | 2 | Nil |
| Red-footed Falcon | 1 | Nil |
| Red-headed Merlin | 18 | 3 |
| Peregrine Falcon | 16 | 8 |
| Black Shaheen | 4 | 3 |
| Goshawk | 229 | 142 |
| Sparrowhawk | 2 | 1 |
| ShikraHawk | 37 | 22 |
| Cooper's Hawk | 5 | Nil |
| Red-tailed Hawk | 7 | 3 |
| Roadside Hawk | 1 | 1 |
| Harris's Hawk | 1 | Nil |
| Tengmalm's Owl | 2 | Nil |
| Short-eared Owl | 2 | Nil |
| Boobook Owl | 2 | Nil |
| Tawny Owl | 4 | 2 |
| Brown Fish Owl | 1 | 1 |
| Wood Owl | 5 | 5 |
| Eagle Owl | 11 | 7 |
| Scops Owl | 6 | Nil |
| Hawk Owl | 2 | Nil |
| Little Owl | 1 | Nil |
| Snowy Owl | 2 | 2 |
| Horned Screech Owl | 3 | 3 |
| Hobby | 1 | 1 |
| Caracara | 1 | 1 |
| Red-tailed Buzzard | 2 | 1 |
| Fishing Buzzard | 1 | 1 |
| Crested Goshawk | 8 | 1 |
| Mountain Hawk-eagle | 10 | 7 |
| Changeable or Crested Hawk-eagle | 42 | 20 |
| Blyth's Hawk-eagle | 2 | Nil |
| Crested Serpent Eagle | 5 | 3 |
| Species | Number of birds licensed | Number of birds imported |
| Bonelli's Eagle | 9 | 2 |
| Tawny Eagle | 8 | 5 |
| Bateleur Eagle | 2 | Nil |
| African Fish Eagle | 4 | Nil |
| Lesser Spotted Eagle | 3 | 3 |
| Imperial Eagle | 4 | 4 |
| King Vulture | 4 | 2 |
| Hooded Vulture | 2 | 1 |
| White-backed Vulture | 1 | Nil |
| Totals | 720 | 409 |
§ Details of species covered by licences at (b) and (c) are not readily available.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for the information, which I should like to examine. On the last point, does the noble Viscount not think that it is a bad procedure to allow people to act unlawfully and then to cover what they have done by giving them a restrospective licence? Does he not agree that that is an absolute invitation to people who ought not to import a bird to do so and then present the Customs with the problem of either giving them cover or dealing with the bird? Is the Department taking this kind of action under pressure?—because I am informed that all the reputable falconers dislike it and think it a thoroughly bad and weak way of trying to protect the diminishing population of the world's falcons. One other point I should like to raise is this: is the Minister satisfied that it is necessary to license the importation of a great many birds which in fact are not brought into the country? Does he not think that again it is an invitation to dealers to try to get birds abroad which they are unable to obtain, and thus are unable to satisfy their customers? And, finally, will he not agree that the policy of the Department ought to be to protect this very much endangered group of birds rather than to make it easy for a trade to be conducted?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I do not think the Home Office makes it easy to conduct an unauthorised or deleterious trade. I will try to remember the noble Lord's questions; he will forgive me if I miss some of them because there were several. I do not think he can possibly say, on the facts, that retrospective licensing is an invitation to loose practice. It is by no means 226 automatic. Last year, for instance, there were ten people who applied for retrospective licences and did not get them. This related to 19 birds. The noble Lord asked whether it is desirable to issue licences which are not taken up. This is a matter of balance. It is a complicated subject. If we issue a licence for a bird of a specific species and the importer cannot get it and therefore it does not come in, we think that is better than requiring the importer actually to get the bird from somewhere overseas and then to import it, possibly without a licence, or to leave it sitting overseas. We think the latter method is likely to result in more unlicensed imports than the system under which we are working at the moment. It is a complicated one, but my scrutiny of it indicates that it is not the subject of widespread abuse. Where there is abuse we are extremely adept at handling it.