Written question asked by Baroness Byford (Conservative), in the House of Lords. It was due for an answer on Wednesday, 21 July 2004. It was answered by Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Labour) on Wednesday, 21 July 2004.

---

McIntosh of Haringey, Lord

Question

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 5 July 2004, 663 c68WA, how many of the seized imports: (a) were declared for export in the country of origin; (b) were brought in through ports; (c) were brought in through airports; (d) were seized in consignment loads; (e) were seized individually; and (f) were seized from persons known to have imported endangered species previously; and Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 5 July 2004, 663 c68WA, what estimate they make of the proportion of the 411 seizures of imports of endangered species which were (a) destined for individual collections; and (b) to be sold on through pet shop outlets; and Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 5 July 2004, 663 c68WA, of the 15 seizures made of plant imports, how many were brought in for personal use; and how many for commerical purposes; and Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 5 July 2004, 663 c68WA, whether the 2,044 plant items seized were tested for disease; and how they were disposed of [HL 3713] [HL 3714] [HL 3715] [HL 3716].

---

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

HL 3713; 664 c55-6WA

Session

2003-04

Subjects

Airports Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Diseases Imports Ports Nature conservation Pets Plants Retail trade Wildlife Testing Smuggling Seized articles Reoffenders