---

Aviculture

: I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate and commend his constructive and informative speech. He is a living example of the lack of contradiction between an interest in observing and enjoying wild birds and an interesting in keeping birds. He is right to point out that bird keeping is a legitimate and old human practice, dating back at least as far as the Egyptians, and probably further. The Government estimate that about 2 million people in this country keep birds, and they get great pleasure from it. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, bird keeping has therapeutic and social benefits. Many birds thrive in captivity better than they do in the wild. Some live longer, and there can be conservation benefits. Some species that are rare in the wild have become common in captivity, and aviculture, as the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, has pioneered ways of breeding that are now used to boost the numbers of several endangered species. Captive breeding by hobbyists, such as the hon. Gentleman, has reduced the need to import wild caught birds. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the debate about the whole trade in wild birds, which I am sure will continue and in which I hope he will play a leading role, as the European Union must reach a decision on whether to extend its import ban. It is right to point out that there are two sides to the argument. The point is made in some quarters—including the United Nations convention on international trade in endangered species—that for many of the poorest communities in the world as long as the birds are being harvested sustainably they are an important source of income. The trade in some of those places is an incentive to conserve a valuable resource. However, I am sure that we shall return to the debate and that the hon. Gentleman, with his expertise, will play a leading part in it. The main job of Government is to ensure that the welfare and conservation of birds will not be jeopardised and to prevent the spread of avian flu between birds or from birds to humans. The Animal Welfare Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons last month, should help to ensure that the welfare needs of birds kept in captivity in this country are met. As the hon. Gentleman said, the vast majority of owners, who love their birds and care for them diligently, have nothing to fear from the Bill. However, a small number do not come up to scratch, and the Bill will help allay the fears of those animal rights fundamentalists who believe that it is intrinsically cruel to keep birds; we believe that they have nothing to worry about. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Animal Welfare Bill is not about banning anything; it is about increasing welfare. If he is interested, I hope that he will be fortunate enough to secure a place on the Committee that considers the Bill when it eventually comes before the House; his expertise will be a great help to the Committee. We have no intention of banning the keeping of particular species, either in the Bill or in secondary legislation. The Bill should not ban anything unless an incontrovertible case can be made that an activity is intrinsically cruel, and we have no evidence to suggest that bird keeping or bird showing, as he described it, is cruel. However, the Government are considering whether more protection should be given on conservation grounds to some of the world's most endangered species. As the hon. Gentleman will know, article 8.2 of the EC regulation that implements CITES provides for member states to prohibit the holding of endangered species, particularly live specimens of the most endangered species. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), launched a public consultation in July to seek views on the option to regulate the holding of certain species subject to control under CITES. That concluded on 31 October, and the results are still being considered. The Animal Welfare Bill should help clarify some of the controversy surrounding pet and bird fairs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I was sorry not to be able to attend the parrot show in Staffordshire. It was held on a Sunday, and as a busy Minister and constituency MP, my Sundays are particularly precious, but I hope to attend a similar show in future. However, John Bourne, the head of my animal welfare team who is leading on the Bill, was there, and it may have been his report that the hon. Gentleman cited. I would be happy to meet a delegation from the Parrot Society UK to discuss some of its fears. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are some well organised and well funded non-governmental organisations; he is right also that those who keep birds tend to be quiet individuals who are not used to coming together to agitate or to organise political activity. It would be useful to hear their views before considering the relevant provisions in Committee. The Government do not have any evidence that bird and pet fairs are intrinsically incapable of providing for the welfare needs of the animals in question. The hon. Gentleman eloquently outlined some of the potential benefits of fairs. People are nervous about putting small ads in papers, especially for reasons of security given the high value of some birds, and such gatherings allow the exchange of information; indeed, if our proposals go through, they will be able to license birds. Licensing will be welcomed by most of the organisations that run such events; it would help deal with potential welfare problems, especially in organisations that are not so well run. Naturally, future proposals made under the Animal Welfare Bill will be made through secondary legislation. Such instruments will be subject to full public consultation and approval by both Houses. Again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will play a leading role in those deliberations. The hon. Gentleman was also right—I am glad that he welcomed this—to highlight the recent temporary EU ban on gatherings like bird fairs and the import of wild-caught birds on health grounds in the context of avian influenza. I was grateful for his considered response, and I hope that he will continue to be involved in the dialogue on whether a ban is justified and, if so, for how long. It is important, when making such decisions, that the Government should take account of the views of the organisations and hobbyists that he speaks for—I hope that he will continue to do so—as we weigh up the animal and bird risk, and the human health risk associated with avian flu. The ban will be reviewed again next month. However, that does not affect the Government's long-term proposals for the licensing of bird fairs or our long-term policy on the import of wild-caught birds. I suspect that the hon. Member for Uxbridge is absolutely right to say that there is currently a shift of opinion on the import of wild-caught birds. In a way, the avian flu outbreak is a diversion from the issues that he raised on conservation and ethical matters, which have helped to spark a debate that will continue as we reconsider the ban in the weeks ahead. The hon. Gentleman will know that another result of the discovery of highly pathogenic avian flu at the quarantine facility in Exeter has been an independent review of Britain's quarantine procedures. That was a sensible measure and has raised questions about quarantine procedures, including the practice, for example, of mixing species of birds. Perhaps we should do more to separate species in quarantine. Of course, that is a hypothetical matter at the moment because the import ban is in place, and no birds are being imported. However, were the import ban lifted, we would have to be satisfied that the quarantine procedures are robust and are being correctly implemented and enforced. That investigation is continuing and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured the House that she will keep hon. Members updated as and when information comes to light. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will take part in future discussions on the ethical, health and conservation considerations for the international trade in wild birds. Mr Cummings, I would be happy to have the coverage of my activities in the Parrot Society's magazine mentioned by the hon. Gentleman for Uxbridge. If you have not already seen it, Mr Cummings, I commend a recent profile of the hon. Member for Uxbridge in Cage and Aviary Birds, which was a charming report of both the hon. Gentleman and his mother. There is a picture of him beside his aviary and a picture, I assume, of one of his birds. That report demonstrates nicely the pleasure and sense of responsibility that is derived from keeping birds. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, and I hope that I have been able to reassure him about some of the concerns that he expressed about the potential impact of the Animal Welfare Bill, the current debate on the import of wild birds and the, in many cases, unfounded, fears of the public about avian flu.