Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 124:"After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—" ““PROHIBITION OF IMPORT OF EXOTIC WILD BIRDS (1)   Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person imports an exotic wild bird, he shall be guilty of an offence, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the trade in that species— (a)   does not constitute a threat to the conservation status of that species in its country of origin; (b)   does not constitute a threat to native biodiversity in the United Kingdom; or (c)   does not constitute a risk to animal or public health in the United Kingdom. (2)   In this section, ““exotic wild bird”” means a bird of a species which is not ordinarily resident in, and is not a regular visitor to, the European territory of any member state of the European Union in a wild state.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I proposed a blanket ban on the import of wild birds, which the Minister explained was not possible to implement for a number of reasons. So I have change my proposal from a blanket ban to a ban that sets out a number of criteria. An effective ban still remains my ultimate aim. In looking at the practicalities of achieving an effective ban I should mention a couple of points. Trade rules allow measures of protection that are proportionate to the problem that they are trying to solve. In this case, the problems caused by the trade are threefold—the risk to the sustainability of bird populations in the countries form which they come, the risks to human health posed by avian flu, and the risks to animal health and biodiversity. Regarding the information on whether the trade could be sustainable, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has been involved in bird life for many years through the RSPB, stated in Committee, at col. 34 on 27 February, that over 15 years we pretty much failed to find any way of establishing a sustainable trade. At this time of night, I shall not rehearse all the health risks in relation to avian flu, but that still poses a threat. In Committee, the Minister told us that the European Commission was meeting this month to discuss the extension of the ban. He also said that the Commission was arranging a meeting with stakeholders to discuss the possibility of either extending or making permanent that temporary ban. Can the Minister update me on any developments on those fronts and what the timescale is for the consultations, if they have not taken place? Finally, I return to the issue of trade law and whether a ban can be supported, because Article 30 of the European treaty allows national governments to adopt proportionate measures to protect animal health—so there could be a permanent ban on that basis. There have been a couple of cases in the European Court of Justice, where such disputes end up—one of which, no doubt, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will be interested in, because it concerned grouse. The second case concerned Danish bees, when it was held that the protection of domestic bees was a valid reason for an import ban, due to the threat from an invasive species. That threat might be in health terms or due to escapees, such as the well publicised case of the parakeet in the Richmond area, because such birds occupy an ecological niche that might otherwise be taken by other birds. So there are many reasons that the Government could choose to support a permanent ban. That is not impractical and I hope that the Minister will have a reply that will enable me not to press the amendment. I beg to move.