Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 292:"After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—" ““PROHIBITION OF IMPORT OF WILD BIRDS (1)   Amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) as follows. (2)   In section 1 (protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs), in subsection (2)(a), after ““any live or dead wild bird”” insert ““from any country of the world””. (3)   In section 16 (power to grant licences), in subsection (1), paragraphs (d) to (g) are repealed.”” The noble Baroness said: I hope that our debate on this amendment will give us the opportunity to consider a much wider biodiversity than that of our own country. The intention behind my amendment is primarily to address the appalling situation faced by many countries that are the natural homes of such species as macaws and parrots. My amendment would ban the import of wild birds, by which I mean birds that are caught in the wild. It does not address the issue of birds that are bred in captivity and then imported, as that is a completely separate question. Perhaps I feel more strongly about this amendment than I do about any other amendment to the entire Bill. Throughout our debates on the Bill, we have talked about the importance of biodiversity and the Government creating Natural England to strengthen biodiversity in this country. Yet we continue to allow the import of wild birds, thereby devastating the biodiversity of other countries. On the scale of devastation, about 1 million birds are legally imported into the EU every six months. Of that million, 28,500 exotic birds were imported into the UK in 2001—a year for which I have figures. By 2003, that number had grown to 83,000. These are really big figures. The temporary ban on the import of exotic birds since October 2005—a ban that was imposed because of avian flu and that is intended at the moment to last until this May on an EU-wide basis—has saved a vast number of birds from being imported. Not only are those birds caught in the wild in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Costa Rica, but they are imported here and die in vast numbers on the way. I am sure that the Minister will remember saying in our discussions on the Statements on avian flu and the investigation of the Pegasus Birds quarantine centre that the mortality rate in the black-headed caique population was notably high. In fact, it is 100 per cent, so it is not rare for birds caught in the wild to die. One in 10 might arrive alive, so not only are the jungles being devastated for the sake of this import trade, but most of the birds are dead when they arrive. I shall not talk at all today about the illegal trade, as that is a different subject, except to say that continuing to allow the legal trade is providing a cover for the illegal trade. I remind the Minister that in the countries that have had a long-term ban on the import of caught wild birds—the United States has banned it for 14 years and Australia has banned it for 40 years—the illegal trade in wild birds has also dropped dramatically. I am sure that if the Minister took evidence from organisations in these countries such as BirdLife, which have experience of the effect of a total import ban, he would agree with me. I felt strongly about the amendment when I tabled it, but feel even more strongly about it since last week, which I spent in Costa Rica talking to the people who are trying to protect these species. Less than 36 hours ago, I was watching the scarlet macaws flying back from their forest reserve into the mangrove swamps in the evening and saw the benefits that eco-tourism can bring to a country such as Costa Rica, which appreciates that benefit immensely. It is illegal there, as it is here, to catch any wild species at all. They appreciate that eco-tourism can bring vast benefits. Yet, everywhere, they still have posters and inspectors addressing the poaching of eggs and chicks from their nests and adult birds being caught. Why is that? It is because the EU still provides a ready market for these birds. The Minister may say that the CITES convention addresses that issue. But an analysis, for example, of trade in grey parrots in Guinea conducted for CITES and IUCN found the species to be highly threatened by trade. The report recommended the suspension of all exports from Guinea, but the export quota remained unchanged. In many countries where CITES species are implicated, research has not been done into what is happening. We may comfort ourselves that CITES is providing control, but it is not. The RSPB briefing, which I am sure that other noble Lords have received, says that,"““the UK imports . . . 90% of the world trade in Senegal parrots ( . . . 44,000 birds a year), but no scientific field surveys have ever been undertaken on this species. And CITES ‘regulation’ has done little to protect the African grey parrot, where over-exploitation . . . has led a population crash across the species range””." The situation is severe for the most exotic birds, but it is also severe for less exotic birds—small, green parakeets and so on—in the way that we discussed during the debate on the first amendment. In the countries from which these birds come, the whole chain of biodiversity is important. It is of enormous regret to me that Lord Stratford is not here to take part in this debate. That is not only because I never had the opportunity to get to know him well, but also because he would have put the case far more eloquently than I am able to do. In November, he said:"““I believe that the current temporary ban on the import of wild birds should be made permanent. I do not see any reason why we should allow this trade to go on. It is unnecessary, abhorrent and entirely destructive. When you look at the statistics you realise how appalling they are. The European Union is the largest importer of wild caught birds in the world, responsible for 93 per cent of imports of threatened and endangered species””.—[Official Report, 17/11/05; col. 1284.]" Lord Stratford put that strongly and eloquently. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity that avian flu has given us to stop this abhorrent trade. I have not talked about the threat of importing wild birds in introducing disease, but I am of course very concerned about it. It is a primary threat to us, which is completely unnecessary when we can simply stop importing such birds. When we have debated the avian flu Statements, the Minister has said that migratory birds pose a greater threat. As we see at the moment, migratory birds often die en route or are too sick to migrate. Continuing to import wild birds is inexcusable in exposing our domestic poultry flocks to a threat. Finally, I remind the Government that in their publication, New Life for Animals, published under Labour Britain, there is an excellent piece entitled, ““Trapping Exotic Birds””. It states:"““Between eight and 20 million exotic birds are trapped in the wild each year. Up to four out of five die before they even reach the pet shop. Labour is against their import into Britain, and supports calls for a European-wide ban on the import of wild-caught birds””." I believe that there is a precedent in taking a lead on this, whether in veterinary terms or those of biosecurity. Whatever terms are used, the Government should seek a way of making the temporary ban permanent in Britain not only because we are concerned about the health of our own poultry flocks, but also because if we can use an entire Bill to consider and debate the importance of biodiversity for our country, we should recognise its importance for other countries—many of which are doing an enormous amount to try to protect their own wildlife, only to be undermined by the EU and countries such as ours as we effectively buy out their biodiversity and their children’s inheritance. I beg to move.