Wild Birds: Importation (Hansard, 8 July 2004)

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they are having with other European Union member states and with the European Commission on the future of imports of wild birds.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, there have been no specific discussions with EU member states or the Commission on the question of imports of wild birds, although we meet on a regular basis to discuss the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—or CITES—which protects about 1,700 species of bird.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am disappointed in the Minister's reply. I should have thought that this unnecessary and destructive trade was something that the EU would want to bring to an end. Does the Minister think that the current position amounts to a kind of bird racism? The EU has a strong policy in its birds and habitats directive, while this country has strict regulations on the licensing and capture of wild birds—and, indeed, the killing of them, as was shown by the incident of the three robins last month. However, a trade is allowed to continue that is literally raping the rain forest of its species.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, as regards the endangered species, there are of course very strict rules under CITES on the importation, transportation and the capture of and dealing in birds in the native country. There is no such provision in relation to non-CITES species; they are of course legally capturable in those countries and trade in them is legal. Subject to general animal welfare regulations, there is no reason why the trade should be stopped.

§ Baroness Byford
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the trade that is dealt with under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species is crucial? Of the 99 seizures of animals and birds that took place in 2003, how many were birds? 912 Does the Minister accept, too, that of the 411 seizures last year, with not one prosecution taking place, this Government are dragging their heels? That is an absolute disgrace.

§ Lord Whitty
No, my Lords, I do not accept that. The figures for seizures are not kept separately for animals and birds, so I cannot give the figures to which the noble Baroness refers. However, I would be reasonably confident that birds would be in a minority in those figures.
Clearly, Customs enforces a large number of seizures—2,000 animals and birds were seized last year. There is a very strong enforcement at the point of entry. The prosecution that has been successful in recent years has also ended with an exemplary sentence, with one person being sentenced to five and a half years' imprisonment. So it is not fair to say that the enforcement authorities are not doing their job.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, how do the two things fit together—the question of endangered species, such as the tortoise, and the right of people to bring in a pet, if they have lived abroad somewhere? It is possible that someone might even have had a wild bird in the country of origin for years and might want to come to this country and bring it. Are permits available, or is there an absolute ban in all such cases, even if they would comply with the Passports for Pets scheme?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, within Europe there would of course be free movement, subject to the border regulations on pets and the pets passport system. Beyond Europe, there is no entitlement to bring a bird into this country unless it is allowable in terms of trade and, if it is an endangered species, one is observing the regulations under CITES. There is no absolute ban, but pets do not qualify any differently from any other point of trade, in that respect.

§ Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, in relation to the number of seizures referred to by the Minister, could he hazard a guess as to what percentage of the total illegal trade that may represent? Is there any evidence that that is just the tip of the iceberg?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, by the nature of things, I cannot give figures on undetected illegal trade. The indications are that there is some illegal trade going on, but through the airports it is unlikely to be very substantial as there are tight Customs controls and birds and animals are reasonably detectable. I cannot really give any indication of total size, but there is some illegal trade, and Customs and other authorities are doing their best to stamp it out.

§ Baroness Byford
My Lords, might I press the Minister further? There have been 411 cases and only one prosecution. My question did not suggest that the enforcement agencies were not doing their job; my question was about why the Government were not having more prosecutions.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the question of prosecution for all smuggling offences is a matter in the first instance for Customs and Excise in most cases. Customs and Excise judges that its best efforts are focused on detection, seizure and, if necessary, destruction. Only in the most blatant and provable cases does it engage in prosecution. When it has done so, in this area—unlike in other areas in which I might have more sympathy with the noble Baroness—the sentence was exemplary.

§ Lord Livsey of Talgarth
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that the introduction of the Wild Bird Conservation Act in the United States has converted the USA from a major importer of wild birds to a non-importer? There are no more wild birds being imported into the USA. Would the Minister consider introducing legislation in the United Kingdom to that effect? Clearly, present legislation is inadequate.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, any move on importation would have to be an EU decision, not a UK decision. Indeed, half of the non-poultry birds imported into the UK come directly from European sources rather than from elsewhere. The single market would continue even if we were to ban non-EU trade. The situation is therefore not the same as that in the United States.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, given that reply, will the Minister initiate discussions with the EU since the European Union and Japan are now the two major markets for wild birds captured from the rain forests?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, one must make a judgment on priorities and the judgment we have made is to stop the destruction of endangered species. The prime concern is focusing on those listed under CITES— both birds and other species—to try to tighten and enforce all trade and welfare controls relating to CITES birds. We may come to the wider issue, but the endangered species must surely be the priority.

§ Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, will the Minister accept that when these birds are seized by our Customs the damage has already been done and that it is far too late? What are the Government doing to talk to the countries from whose rain forests the birds are coming?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, to a large extent I agree with that but it does not destroy the need for effective action at the point of entry. So far as CITES species are concerned, there are obligations on the country of origin and on those who are trading in such species as well as on Europe or any receiving countries. The same is not true of non-CITES animals and birds.