INFORMATION ON DNA PROFILING IN BIRDS OF PREY

ross errington made this Freedom of Information request to Animal Health This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Waiting for an internal review by Animal Health of their handling of this request.

ross errington

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

Cotterill, Chris (AH), Animal Health

2 Attachments

Mr Errington,

Please see our response to your recent request:

<<090618 AH0502 - Info released letter.doc>>

Chris Cotterill
Information Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)

Animal Health HQ,

Block C

Whittington Road

Worcester WR5 2LQ

Tel 01905 768660

GTN: 6180 8660
Fax 01905 768866

E: [email address]

References

Visible links

ross 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

Cotterill, Chris (AH), Animal Health

I am currently out of the office, returning on 24 Jun 09. Your e-mail has
not been forwarded. I cannot access emails remotely, so I will deal with
this when I return.
For urgent enquiries, email Tony Spittle at
[email address]