INFORMATION ON DNA PROFILING IN BIRDS OF PREY

Dear Sir or Madam,

PART ONE OF TWO

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...
PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN BLUE BELOW IN
EIGHT POINTS PLEASE IN THE HANSARD TEXT. 11 MAY 2009.

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → July 1994 → 20 July 1994 →
Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT
Wildlife Sales Controls
HC Deb 20 July 1994 vol 247 cc321-3W 321W
§ Mr. Garnier
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a
statement on the outcome of his review of wildlife sales controls
in Great Britain.
§ Mr. Atkins
I announced the outcome of the first stage of the review on 25
April 1994. This focused mainly on changes in the bird registration
system. The rest of the review covered a range of issues concerning
secondary controls on native and exotic wildlife, and enforcement.
We plan to make some changes which should take effect from 1
October. These will simplify paper controls and improve
enforcement. There are seven main elements:
1. (i) The Registered Sellers of Dead Birds—RSDB—scheme allows
people, mainly taxidermists, registered with the Department to sell
dead birds. In return for a triennial fee, registered sellers do
not have to submit individual sales applications to the Department.
However they are required to fix a marker to specimens and to keep
records which are returned to the Department every six months. The
scheme was intended to discourage the taking of birds from the wild
for taxidermy and to allow people already legitimately trading in
birds to continue to do so without the need to apply for individual
sales licences. We believe that these objectives can be achieved
more effectively by issuing a general licence allowing the sale of
captive-bred and legally-taken dead birds. The wording of the
licence would make it clear that sellers must be able to
demonstrate conclusively that the legal requirements have been met.
We shall be issuing a formal consultation letter shortly.
2. (ii) The Department issues about 2,500 individual sales licences
each year to allow the sale of live or dead wildlife specimens, or
parts thereof, for example where they have been bred in captivity
or artificially propagated, or are needed for research. This means
that substantial resources are being devoted to authorising
legitimate activities which have little or no apparent effect on
the conservation of the species concerned. We shall therefore be
moving to a control system base on wider use of general sales
licences which will enable us to operate more effective checks on
specimens for which individual licences will continue to be
required. The new system will rely on the increased use of DNA
tests to check claims that specimens have been bred in captivity.
3. (iii) My Department has financed research on the use of DNA
testing to identify the parentage of birds, and I shall place a
copy of the results in the library of both Houses as soon as they
are available. QUESTION 1 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A COPY OF THE
RESULTS DNA tests have already been used in four recent and
successful prosecutions, QUESTION 2 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH THE
DETAILS AND/OR ANY INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE PROSECTIONS AND
ON WHAT DATES THE PROSECTION OCCURRED and further cases are in the
pipeline. QUESTION 3 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH THE DETAILS AND/OR ANY
INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE PROSECTIONS IN THE PIPELINES AND ON
WHAT DATES THE PROSECTIONS ARE DUE TO OCCUR We shall be looking
into the feasibility of extending the use of DNA testing where
appropriate to help enforce controls on other endangered species.
QUESTION 4 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE
FEASIBILITY OF EXTENDING THE USE OF DNA IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY SINGLE LOCUS PROBES.
4. (iv) Four amphibian species are subject to sales controls, but
not a prohibition on the killing, injuring or taking of wild
specimens, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—the common
toad, common frog, smooth newt and palmate newt. At present these
species can be sold only if an individual licence has been issued
or if the vendor has obtained a 'trader' licence. The reported
level of trade in these species, which is in the low thousands, is
unlikely to have a discernible effect on populations in the wild,
which run into millions. We shall therefore be issuing a general
licence for these four species, subject to conditions agreed with
our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
restricing the times and locations when they can be collected. We
shall also be asking the JNCC to look carefully at the
effectiveness of sale-only controls in its next quinquennial review
of schedules 5 and 8 of the Act.
5. (v) In the past, some species have been subject to sales
controls under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976.
In many instances, these controls 322 have been superseded by the
EC CITES regulation or duplicated by the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981. These controls have taken precedence and the sale of most
of the small number of species remaining has been permitted under
an open sales licence for some time. In December 1992, the then
Minister, my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, announced that 200
additional species would be made subject to sales controls
following the establishment of the single market. On further
investigation we are not convinced that sale controls are an
effective means of controlling trade in these species and we do not
now propose to introduce these measures. Furthermore, we do not
propose to add any new species to the Act for the purposes of sales
controls unless our scientific advisers judge that an undesirable
level of trade in any wide specimens of particular species is
taking place.
6. (vi) We believe that there is room for improving controls on the
import of CITES species. In particular, the Department will give
greater emphasis to its powers to impose conditions on import
permits and to ensure that conditions which have been imposed are
complied with. Where an import of a CITES appendix I (or EC
Regulation Annex C1) specimen is allowed only because of the
purpose for which it will be used, for example for specific
research or breeding projects, a condition will be imposed
requiring prior authorisation from the Department before it is used
for any other purpose. We will continue to make use of the
provision to restrict the movement of a specimen from the address
specified on the import permit. The Department's wildlife
inspectors will carry out more inspections to ensure that specimens
are used and kept as proposed.
7. (vii) The Department already monitors advertisements offering
endangered species for sale in a range of specialist journals. More
journals will be scrutinised and advertisements followed up; to
guard against possible sale offences. QUESTION 5 PLEASE SUPPLY ME
WITH A COPY OF THE RESULTS AND ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE.
We also propose to make a number of changes which will take longer
to implement. First, we will review our publicity on both primary
and secondary controls, with a view to issuing additional material
by March 1995. Secondly, we shall consider whether there is any
scope for the conservation agencies assuming responsibility for
some of the licensing controls currently operated by my Department.
Thirdly, we will begin work to consider amending the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 to exclude captive-bred birds and remove
duplication with the EC CITES regulation.
These changes as a whole will reduce bureaucracy, and release
resources to improve enforcement of the import and sales controls
which protect genuinely endangered species. The additional
enforcement measures I have described—more inspections, DNA tests,
stricter import conditions and monitoring of advertisements—will be
introduced by October this year. QUESTION 6 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A
COPY OF THE RESULTS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO DNA TESTING AND WHY
DNA TESTING WAS STOPPED IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY SINGLE
LOCUS PROBES.
We also recognise the scope for further improvements in enforcement
and in the links between enforcement agencies. These need to be
considered in detail with other interested groups, including the
voluntary bodies QUESTION 7 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A COPY OF THE
RESULTS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO DNA TESTING AND WHY DNA TESTING
WAS STOPPED IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY SINGLE LOCUS
PROBES. I therefore propose to establish an official level working
group on enforcement involving relevant enforcement agencies and
non-Governmental organisations. Its composition and detailed terms
of reference will be announced shortly.
I have placed a paper giving more about these proposals and the
background to them in the Libraries of both Houses in accordance
with our commitment to open government. QUESTION 8 PLEASE SUPPLY ME
WITH A COPY OF THE RESULTS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO DNA TESTING
AND WHY DNA TESTING WAS STOPPED IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY SINGLE LOCUS PROBES.
323W
Back to Litter
Forward to Departmental Houses
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → July 1994 → 20 July 1994 →
Written Answers (Lords)

PLEASE SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REQUEST IN italics PLACED
IN THE HANSARD TEXT IN 3 SECTIONS.
Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → April 1994 → 25 April 1994 →
Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT

PART TWO OF TWO

Birds of Prey
HC Deb 25 April 1994 vol 242 cc40-1W 40W
§ Mr. Tony Banks
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what
representations he has received in respect of his proposal to lift
protection from birds of prey; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Atkins
I announced on 21 February 1994 that, following our review, we
proposed to make changes to the bird registration system to reduce
unnecessary regulation and to ensure that the controls are targeted
and implemented more effectively. We consulted around 7,000
organisations and individuals about our proposal and a copy of our
consultation letter was placed in the Library. Some 192 responses
were received. QUESTION 1 PLEASE SUPPLY A COPY OF THE CONSULTATION
LETTER, THE REPLIES AND ANY OTHER INFORNATION ESPECIALLY IN
RELATION TO HYBRIDS BIRDS OF PREY.
The Government remain convinced that the bird registration system
is in need of change. It was introduced for conservation reasons
and mainly in response to concerns about the major decline in
populations of birds of prey in the wild. Since the introduction of
the registration system of 1982, populations of some species have
recovered, particularly sparrowhawks, kestrels and common buzzards.
Some concern was expressed by consultees that the removal of
ringing and registration requirements could lead to an increase in
the taking of birds of prey from the wild. However, we believe that
the strict controls which will continue to protect birds of prey in
the wild should avoid any threat to the conservation of the three
United Kingdom breeding species to be removed from registration
requirements: the sparrowhawk, kestrel and common buzzard. The
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 generally prohibits the injuring,
killing or taking of birds from the wild. It also generally makes
it an offence to possess any bird or egg, whether alive or dead, or
any part or derivative of such a specimen.
The Act will continue to be strictly enforced. Moreover, the
resources which will be released by deregistration will enable the
Department's wildlife inspectorate to give 41W greater assistance
to the police and other enforcement agencies in protecting all wild
birds, particularly those more endangered species such as the
hobby, red kite and golden eagle. Reorganising work in this way
will also provide resources to expand the use of DNA testing
techniques to verify captive breeding claims. QUESTION 2 PLEASE
SUPPLY ANY INFORMATION RELATION TO AVIAN DNA [NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY] AND WHY IT WAS NOT EXPANDED AND ALSO WHY DID NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY’S SINGLE LOCUS PROBES NOT WORK CORRECTLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEY LOST THE CONTRACT AFTER MANY YEARS OF PUBLIC FUNDING.
COULD YOU ALSO SUPPLY THE DETAILS ON THE RSPB SETTING UP THE DNA
PROFILING AT NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY?
Concern was also expressed by the RSPCA and others that freedom of
movement of specimens within the European Union would create
opportunities for illegal trade in non-native birds, including
globally threatened species. We have therefore decided that ringing
and registration controls should continue to apply within Great
Britain to birds of prey which are threatened with extinction on a
global basis, in order to assist international conservation
efforts. In particular this means that the following species
originally proposed for deregistration will be retained on schedule
4 to the Act.
Species
Black Honey-Buzzard Henicopernis infuscatus
Madagascar Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vociferoides
Pallas's Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus
Steller's Sea Eagle Haliaeetus pelagicus
Mountain Serpent-Eagle Spilornis kinabaluenis
Adaman Serpent-Eagle Spilornis elgini
Madagascar Serpent-Eagle Eutriorchis astur
Small Sparrowhawk Accipiter nanus
New Britain Sparrowhawk Accipiter brachyurus
Imitator Sparrowhawk Accipiter imitator
Gundlach's Sparrowhawk Accipiter gundlachi
White-necked Hawk Leucopternis lacernulata
Grey-backed Hawk Leucopternis occidentalis
Ridgeway's Hawk Buteo ridgwayi
Galapagos Hawk Buteo galapagoensis
Hawaiian Hawk Buteo solitarius
New Guinea Eagle Harpyopsis novaeguinae
Great Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi
Adalbert's Eagle Aquila adalberti
Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca
Wallace's Hawk-Eagle Spizaetus nanus
Plumbeous Forest-Falcon Micrastur plumbeus
Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni
Mauritius Kestrel Falco punctatus
The Government proposal to invite the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee to advise on criteria for the listing of species on
schedule 4 and our proposal that the list of species should be
subject to regular review, will enable us to respond to changes in
population levels of particular species and introduce or reinstate
registration requirements in the future. QUESTION 3 PLEASE GIVE THE
DETAILS AND RESULTS OF THE AFORESAID PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO
HYBRID BIRDS OF PREY ESPECIALLY. If necessary, this can be done
swiftly to meet any conservation need. I have today made an order
under section 22 of the Act. This will remove the following species
from schedule 4 to the Act: sparrowhawk, kestrel, common buzzard,
non-native and irregular visitor species of birds of prey—except
the Barbary falcon and the globally threatened species listed
above—and certain other birds which are not commonly kept in
captivity.
Back to Leaseholders
Forward to TRANSPORT
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

WILDLIFE SALES CONTROLS REVIEW
HL Deb 20 July 1994 vol 557 cc37-40WA 37WA
§ Lord Gainford
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the outcome of their review of wildlife sales controls in
Great Britain.
§ The Earl of Arran
We announced the outcome of the first stage of the review on 25
April 1994. This focused mainly on changes in the bird registration
system. The rest of the review covered a range of issues concerning
secondary controls on native and exotic wildlife, and enforcement.
We plan to make some changes which should take effect from 1
October. These will simplify paper controls and improve
enforcement. There are seven main elements:
1. (i) The Registered Sellers of Dead Birds (RSDB) scheme allows
people (mainly taxidermists) registered with the Department of the
Environment to sell dead birds. In return for a triennial fee,
registered sellers do not have to submit individual sales
applications to the department. However they are required to fix a
marker to specimens and to keep records which are returned to the
department every six months. The scheme was intended to discourage
the taking of birds from the wild for taxidermy and to allow people
already legitimately trading in birds to continue to do so without
the need to apply for individual sales licences. We believe WA 38
that these objectives can be achieved more effectively by issuing a
general licence allowing the sale of captive-bred and legally-taken
dead birds. The wording of the licence will make it clear that
sellers must be able to demonstrate conclusively that the legal
requirements have been met. We shall be issuing a formal
consultation letter shortly.
2. (ii) The Department of the Environment issues about 2,500
individual sales licences each year to allow the sale of live or
dead wildlife specimens, or parts thereof, for example where they
have been bred in captivity or artificially propagated, or are
needed for research. This means that substantial resources are
being devoted to authorising legitimate activities which have
little or no apparent effect on the conservation of the species
concerned. We shall therefore be moving to a control system based
on wider use of general sales licences which will enable us to
operate more effective checks on specimens for which individual
licences will continue to be required. The new system will rely on
the increased use of DNA tests to check claims that specimens have
been bred in captivity.
3. (iii) The Department of the Environment has financed research on
the use of DNA testing to identify the parentage of birds, and
copies of the results will be placed in the Libraries of both
Houses as soon as they are available. DNA tests have already been
used in four recent and successful prosecutions, and further cases
are in the pipeline. We shall be looking into the feasibility of
extending the use of DNA testing where appropriate to help enforce
controls on other endangered species.
4. (iv) Four amphibian species are subject to sales controls (but
not a prohibition on the killing, injuring or taking of wild
specimens) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—the common
toad, common frog, smooth newt and palmate newt. At present these
species can be sold only if an individual licence has been issued
or if the vendor has obtained a "trader" licence. The reported
level of trade in these species, which is in the low thousands, is
unlikely to have a discernible effect on populations in the wild,
which run into millions. We shall therefore be issuing a general
licence for these four species, subject to conditions agreed with
our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
restricting the times and locations when they can be collected. We
shall also be asking the JNCC to look carefully at the
effectiveness of sale-only controls in its next Quinquennial Review
of Schedules 5 and 8 of the Act.
5. (v) In the past, some species have been subject to sales
controls under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976.
In many instances, these controls have been superseded by the EC
CITES Regulation or duplicated by WA 39 the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981. These controls have taken precedence and the
sale of most of the small number of species remaining has been
permitted under an open sales licence for some time. In December
1992, the then Minister for the Environment my noble friend Lord
Strathclyde announced that 200 additional species would be made
subject to sales controls following the establishment of the single
market. On further investigation we are not convinced that sale
controls are an effective means of controlling trade in these
species and we do not now propose to introduce these measures.
Furthermore, we do not propose to add any new species to the Act
for the purposes of sales controls unless our scientific advisers
judge that an undesirable level of trade in any wild specimens of
particular species is taking place.
6. (vi) We believe that there is room for improving controls on the
import of CITES species. In particular, the Department of the
Environment will give greater emphasis to its powers to impose
conditions on import permits and to ensure that conditions which
have been imposed are complied with. Where an import of a CITES
Appendix I (or EC Regulation Annex C1) specimen is allowed only
because of the purpose for which it will be used, for example for
specific research or breeding projects, a condition will be imposed
requiring prior authorisation from the Department of the
Environment before it is used for any other purpose. We will
continue to make use of the provision to restrict the movement of a
specimen from the address specified on the import permit. The
environment department's wildlife inspectors will carry out more
inspections to ensure that specimens are used and kept as proposed.
7. (vii) The Department of the Environment already monitors
advertisements offering endangered species for sale in a range of
specialist journals. More journals will be scrutinised and
advertisements followed up, to guard against possible sale
offences.
We also propose to make a number of changes which will take longer
to implement. First, we will review our publicity on both primary
and secondary controls, with a view to issuing additional material
by March 1995. Secondly, we shall consider whether there is any
scope for the conservation agencies assuming responsibility for
some of the licensing controls currently operated by the Department
of the Environment. Thirdly, we will begin work to consider
amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to exclude
captive-bred birds and remove duplication with the EC CITES
Regulation.
These changes as a whole will reduce bureaucracy, and release
resources to improve enforcement of the import and sales controls
which protect genuinely endangered species. The additional
enforcement measures that have been described—more inspections, DNA
tests, stricter import conditions and monitoring of 40WA
advertisements,—will be introduced by October this year.
We also recognise the scope for further improvements in enforcement
and in the links between enforcement agencies. These need to be
considered in detail with other interested groups, including the
voluntary bodies. We therefore propose to establish an official
level working group on enforcement involving relevant enforcement
agencies and non-governmental organisations. Its composition and
detailed terms of reference will be announced shortly.
We have placed a paper giving more about these proposals and the
background to them in the Libraries of both Houses in accordance
with our commitment to open government.
Back to ENVIRONMENT AGENCIES: PAVING BILL
Forward to AFRICAN ELEPHANT: ENDANGERED SPECIES CONFERENCE
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

Yours faithfully,

R Errington

Dear Cotterill, Chris (AH),

I want the information requested and I known that you have it.
Defra is a part of the same organisation as you work for. The DNA
was stopped as you know. If I may quote 'it will all end in tears'
and it did so please stop treating me like a fool and supply the
information requested.

Yours sincerely,

ross errington