Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

No one can fail to be impressed by the passion with which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, moved her amendment or the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke in support of it. The strength of feeling on this issue was demonstrated also by the noble Duke in his few remarks. We understand the strength of feeling on this issue in Committee and beyond. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to my noble friend Lord Stratford, whom we all miss. I remember well the way in which he spoke on this issue some months ago in this House. The noble Baroness and I can both imagine how he would have put his case today—with great passion, strength and with much wit. I have no doubt on which side of the argument he would have stood if he had been here. I should try to explain how we see Amendment No. 292. To some extent, it is linked to Amendment No. 293A which will be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in due course. The amendment increases protection for wild birds in trade and amends Section 1(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to ban the possession of live or dead wild birds from any country of the world. It has two parts: the first is to tighten up the circumstances under which it is permissible to possess wild birds and the second is to tighten up the circumstances under which wild birds may be killed, taken or possessed under the terms of a licence. I shall take each part in turn. The current measure contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to possess any wild bird which has not been lawfully taken from the wild in Europe. The amendment attempts to extend that offence so that it applies to birds from any country in the world. The amendment is, however, a little confusing to us, as it depends on the word ““lawfully”” which is defined in the defence found in Section 1(3) and which relates to member state legislation implementing the Birds Directive. As it would not be an offence under this legislation to take a bird from the wild in, for example, Africa, the defence in Section 1(3) would apply and such a bird could be lawfully possessed in England and Wales. That is a detail. It is quite clear what the noble Baroness is arguing. Indeed, she said so clearly and explicitly that the intention behind her amendment is the importation of wild birds. I should remind the Committee that powers are already available under existing EU legislation to enable the Secretary of State to protect exotic species from the consequences of unsustainable trade. It is neither practicable nor desirable for the Government to attempt to regulate the capture and transportation of animals within territories that fall outside their jurisdiction. We believe that it is inappropriate to use domestic legislation, which is designed to protect European and native wildlife, to protect populations of wild birds in non-EU countries. A general prohibition on trade would raise serious practical and legal difficulties for us given our obligations under the EU treaty and as members of the World Trade Organisation. And, of course, not all birds are threatened by trade. It could be argued that it is more appropriate to protect those species that are vulnerable than to introduce a measure that is applicable to all species. The international trade in some 1,700 bird species is already strictly regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, which has been referred to.