Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the fullness of her reply. I shall start with the last point first. She is absolutely right about the codes, but it would be a very serious matter if someone did not abide by the exotic bird code, for example, and introduced bird flu that affected all our poultry flocks and possibly also human health. As she said, there are lines that can be followed. On the substantive amendment, the Minister mentioned that certain decisions would be taken at EU level by October. I hope that the Government will press for the ban to stay in place at least until October, pending a more permanent decision. She also mentioned the movement of goods as a reason why we could not impose a permanent ban, but I believe that it is accepted more and more that live birds and live animals cannot be treated simply as if they were any other moveable goods. The case law that I quoted when I moved the amendment leads me to believe more firmly that there will be a separation between what is and is not reasonable. I encourage the Minister and her department to consider the developments of case law that would enable us to look to a permanent ban where we believe it to be in the interests of animal health or national biodiversity. I believe that the law is beginning to recognise that live creatures are different. There are a couple of myths which the Minister needs finally to dispel. One is that the trade in imported wild birds can be regarded in any way as sustainable. The second is that CITES species are in some way adequately protected. I do not want to repeat those arguments at this hour, but will say merely that there is not enough scientific evidence to assess the impact of the trade on CITES species listed in Appendix 2. I believe that every NGO in the business would accept that, as, I hope, would her department. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 50 [Codes of practice in connection with invasive non-native species]: [Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]