Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I will begin by speaking to Amendment No. 124. We accept that the sustainability of the current trade in wild birds is a matter of considerable public concern. It is very difficult for the UK to take action addressing these issues in isolation from the rest of the EU. There are provisions that enable the UK to introduce stricter domestic measures on wildlife trade, but they raise complex legal issues that require careful consideration. At best, this measure would be difficult to enforce, given the free circulation of goods within the EU. At worst, the measure could result in infraction proceedings by the European Commission on the grounds that it is contrary to the provisions of the treaty or that it contravenes WTO rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the European Commission is already looking at these issues in the light of the threat from avian influenza, and the import of all wild birds into the EU has been suspended until 31 May as a precaution. The Commission has also been asked to consider whether there are grounds for extending the ban on a more permanent basis. For that reason, we feel that it would be premature for the UK to introduce any stricter measures with respect to the importation of wild birds, pending the development of a wider EU position on this matter. The UK is of course very concerned about the levels of mortality among some imported wild birds and we have already asked the Commission to look into this. Officials have already met the three relevant directorates general to discuss these issues and have hosted a round-table discussion with key stakeholders to examine the impact of trade bans on illegal trade and livelihoods. In the meantime, I should point out that CITES, which is implemented within the EU by means of European Council Regulation 338/97, already provides a robust mechanism for protecting some 1,700 bird species considered to be at risk from unsustainable trade. Action has been taken in the past to suspend trade or impose quotas with countries that fail to implement CITES properly, and we will continue to support such action in the future. The European Commission also has powers under Article 4.6 of Council Regulation 338/97 to make regulations to prohibit the import of other species for which trade is considered unsustainable or where there is a threat to native biodiversity. These powers have already been used to prohibit the import of the ruddy duck and the American bullfrog into the EU, and we are currently considering using existing powers in the regulation further to prohibit the keeping of these animals within the UK. We also have domestic legislation in place to deal with threats to native biodiversity. Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild any animal, including birds, that is not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Britain. Supplementary to these existing provisions, Clause 49 of this Bill also includes provisions to regulate the sale of non-native invasive species. The timetable for consultation on the bird ban in the EU is in the hands of the Commission. It is awaiting an opinion from the European Food Standards Agency on the impact of bird trade on animal health and welfare and it is expecting a report in October. We believe that it would be premature to adopt an additional tier of regulation on top of the existing controls on the trade in exotic birds. Such overlapping legislation is likely to be confusing to traders and enforcers alike. We believe that we should have consultation before such a measure is taken and we want to await the outcome of the current deliberations within the EU. Nothing that I have said on Amendment No. 124 should be taken as minimising the strength of feeling of which we are aware not only in the House but among the British public. I shall seek to respond to the amendments spoken to in this group by the noble Baroness.