'(1) In sections 1(6) and 4(5) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, for the word ''two'' in each place where it appears there is substituted ''five''.

(2) In regulations 3(1), 3(2)(b), 4(1)(b), 4(2)(b), 4(3)(b), 6(b), 7(2)(b), 8(8)(b) and 9(7)(b) of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 for the word ''two'' in each place where it appears there is substituted ''five''.'.—[John Mann.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Good afternoon, Mr. Cran. I hope that in this afternoon's spirit of rapid legislating the Minister will consider suitably this modest clause. It is designed to increase the maximum sentence for illegal wildlife trading from two to five years' imprisonment, which would make offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 arrestable.

I do not intend to take up much of the Committee's time with the argument. The issue was the subject of early-day motion 862 last year, which garnered the support of more than half of the Members of the House. I am sure that Ministers, Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople and Parliamentary Private Secretaries would have joined the queue to add their names if protocol had deemed that suitable. Indeed, informal soundings suggested that many would have done so if released from their more onerous duties.

The aim of the clause is to strengthen the law, and considering the feeling of Parliament and the country, we have a duty to the wider world as well as ourselves to pass it.

The hon. Gentleman does the Committee a great service in introducing the clause, and I hope that he will take in good spirit the comments and suggestions that I may make about it. My reading of the clause and the briefings that I received on the background prompted both considerable sympathy with his aims and one or two slight concerns, which I felt that I should share with the Committee. We may be able to formulate a way forward, or the Committee may decide to accept the new clause in toto.

We need to decide what we are trying to get at. I have a basic reservation about raising the maximum tariff of an offence for the purpose of making it arrestable. The hon. Gentleman will understand what I am getting at. I accept that offences need to carry a potential penalty of five years' imprisonment for them to be arrestable, but there are exceptions. If Parliament so chooses, we could make the offence arrestable without making it carry a five-year sentence. We could simply provide that notwithstanding the fact that the maximum sentence is two years, the offence should be arrestable.

That prompts further questions. First, is the current tariff too low for the highly objectionable offences? Have judges faced with sentencing indicated that they are unhappy about the two-year maximum and that a five-year maximum would be more appropriate and help the sentencing in a case of mass trafficking in endangered species? On the other hand—the Minister may be able to help us on this—does the history show that the vast majority of sentences have been fines or short terms of imprisonment? If so, it would be difficult to suggest that there was a problem with the tariff and that it needed to be raised from two to five years.

The second issue that the Committee must consider is whether the inability to arrest someone immediately for such offences has caused problems for those who seek to enforce the law. Someone who turns up at an airport with products from an endangered species in their luggage will be summonsed—or, under the new provisions, receive a written charge. Is there evidence that, as a result, people are being intercepted but never brought to court because the lack of arrestability of the offence makes that a problem?

Those are the two key issues, and I need to be satisfied about them, rather than told in a nebulous way that it would be sensible to raise the sentence to five years to make it arrestable. If I can be persuaded on either matter, I shall not stand in the Committee's way.

I shall listen carefully to the Minister, but I return to my basic point. If the problem is the lack of arrestability, it may be better to make the offence arrestable, and we could do that in a slightly different way from that suggested in the amendment. On the other hand, if there is a joint problem of a lack of arrestability and the fact that the courts find it impossible to sentence properly and feel that their hands are tied behind their back, the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has

much to commend it. However, we must look at the two issues separately, and the Minister or, indeed, the hon. Gentleman may be able to help us.

For several reasons, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw for tabling the new clause. First, I agree with it, and I will say why in a moment. Secondly, some of us have pursued the same line for a great many years. I do not want to go too far back into history, but there was a time when I worked for the World Wide Fund for Nature and made such proposals in the context of the Environmental Protection Bill back in the early 1990s.

During the Committee stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000—it was about wider environmental issues, rather than endangered species—we struggled to ensure that there were appropriate tariffs for crimes against the environment. There was often considerable agreement between me, as the spokesman for my party, and the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who spoke for the Government. However, the problem with dealing with such issues in a wildlife Bill was that there was inevitably a read-across to the Home Office, which was not represented. This is not a criticism of Government communications; it is simply difficult in the context of a wildlife Bill, which deals essentially with environmental issues, to have the right advice to hand as to the effect of offences and how they are dealt with by the investigating authorities and the courts. It is useful to have an opportunity now to discuss at least one such issue in the context of a criminal justice Bill, and that does not often happen.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that the new clause addressed a serious problem, and I know that he has pursued it in other ways and in other debates in the House. Now is not the right time to make a general speech about the trade in endangered species and the implications for the convention on international trade in endangered species. However, we must recognise that there is a great deal of trafficking of endangered species and products made from them. That happens throughout the world, including regularly in this country. One estimate is that, on average, two and a half items of ivory or elephant-skin products enter the country every day of every year. That places the issue in context.

The problem with CITES, which has its critics and its supporters, is that it is only as good as the individual jurisdictions' ability to enforce it in the various countries throughout the world. Although this country has sometimes been reasonably good at interdiction of material, it has not always been good at achieving successful prosecutions.

There have been extraordinary cases. In July 2002, 10 live crocodiles were intercepted in the hold of a plane at Heathrow. That strikes me as a fairly extraordinary seizure. I, in my naive way, might think that 10 live crocodiles were quite difficult to hide in one's hand baggage when entering Heathrow airport, but someone attempted to do so and clearly felt that they had a reasonable chance of success.

I have figures for seizures and prosecutions through CITES, which perhaps relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. In 1997, there were 495 seizures, but no one was successfully prosecuted. In 1998, there were 498 seizures, but no one was prosecuted. In 1999, there were 336 seizures, but no one was prosecuted. In 2000, there were 441 seizures and one prosecution. In 2001, there were 434 seizures and two prosecutions. There have been three prosecutions so far, according to the latest figures available. Obviously, 2002 has passed, but we do not yet have the final figures for it. In any case, the figures that I have given show that there is something wrong with the system.

Yes, I suspect that something is wrong with the system, but I would still like some help on what. I have been to Heathrow. I looked in particular into the seizure of illegal foodstuffs being imported. Stuff is seized on a massive scale if people apply their mind to it, although a lot gets in because they do not have the necessary resources. The truth, I have noted, is that there is no will to prosecute having seized, because people are so overburdened with other things to do that they do not seem to get their act together. However, that does not quite answer the question about whether the failure to prosecute is due to the inability to locate the person once he has moved on.

I think that that is a fair criticism, although I cannot answer it. Perhaps the Minister can. There is an issue about the will to make the laws apply effectively, but I am happy to say that the atmosphere is changing. For instance, the Magistrates Association said recently that it wanted environmental crimes to be put before local benches much more often, and for courts to take those offences much more seriously.

The National Criminal Intelligence Service recently extended its sphere of operation to have a specialist wildlife group. That is wholly welcome, because one problem that police forces throughout the country have is that, sadly, this matter is always a very low priority. I understand why it is a low priority: because the system is so stretched in other ways and it is difficult to maintain a fully equipped unit within a police force area to deal specifically with such crime. In any case, it is often conducted on a national or international basis. Organised crime is often involved nowadays, because we are talking about very large sums.

One sad result of listing particular endangered species is that substitute products are often made from related species and they, in turn, become endangered. There are all sorts of complexities. I believe that people are finally waking up to the fact that this area of crime must be treated seriously in the courts. I agree that there should be an evidential base for it, but my instinct is that the tariff is part of the problem. The fact that there are so few prosecutions compared with the number of seizures supports that contention, although I accept that it is not conclusive. If that environment is changing and we are prepared to take those crimes more seriously, the Bill can play a part.

Obviously, the Minister must tell us whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that there is a case to answer and that he is prepared to accept the amendment or to provide an alternative. I return to the important point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw: we can do something in the context of this Bill that could not be done by a different set of people with a different set of priorities in relation to wildlife legislation.

I defer to those who have carried out more recent research on the subject than I have. It is clearly complex and some important legal issues arise from it. When I heard the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and looked at the clause, I was surprised to see that the sentence is as low as it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is right in saying that we must respond to what the courts tell us about the adequacy of sentence and to judges who feel that they do not have a sufficiently high maximum sentence available to them.

I qualify my own remarks. If nobody has ever been prosecuted for this offence, it is difficult for us to establish on a reasonable basis whether the available upper limit of sentence will ever be adequate.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In setting maximum sentences, we must have regard to the seriousness of the mischief at which they are aimed, and to public concern. I do not know whether the trade was first made an offence in 1976. It might have been legal before, but the decision was then taken to make it a criminal offence. The time is overdue to consider setting a higher maximum sentence. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view. I appreciate that this will probably cover a wide variety of offences. If, with a higher maximum sentence, we will attack and get at the people who are making large sums of money out of trading in endangered species, I shall be sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause. I should know more about the matter than I do; it is a serious mischief, and we shall be responding to the concern of many of our constituents. They want the House to send a signal about how seriously we regard the offence of trading in endangered species. I cannot see how making it an arrestable offence would harm the enforcement of the law.

This has been an important and useful debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for having initiated it by tabling the new clause. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the seizure and prosecution figures. Most of the seizures are items taken from tourists returning to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, there is no public interest in prosecuting following seizure. It might also be helpful to the Committee to point out that the penalty for smuggling offences in relation to these species is up to seven years in prison. We are considering the current two-year penalty for trading in the species.

On arrestability, police officers can enter premises where they believe that there might be evidence only after applying for and obtaining a search warrant. In the meantime—we have had representations from the police on this matter—the individual may have the opportunity to move or conceal evidence, making it more difficult for them to be prosecuted. Making the offences arrestable in the way that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) supports would give police officers stronger powers, including, when a person is believed to have committed an arrestable offence, to enter and search their premises and seize evidence without a search warrant.

There have been some prosecutions under the provisions. There are a relatively small number a year—I understand that there are fewer than 10. However, it is precisely because the Government accept the argument that there is a case for increasing the penalty, for the reason that I have explained in relation to arrestability but also because of the seriousness of the offences, that the Government have already proposed that the penalties for such offences should be increased. We published a consultation document earlier in the year but have not quite finished the period of consultation yet. However, we shall soon have a clear idea of the response to our proposal. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw would be prepared to withdraw the motion, we shall return to the issue on Report.

I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it is important that we do not miss the boat—if that is not inappropriate—because timing is critical with regard to preparing new clauses for Report. Vehicles for such legislation do not go past very often. I worry that the matter will be pushed into a tray pending a countryside Bill or a wildlife Bill, and those, unlike Criminal Justice Bills, do not come past very often at all, as we know to our cost. The issue is urgent and critical. The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to 1976. I think that 1976 was probably the time of the enactment of legislation on the basis of CITES in 1973. However, we have not taken the issue sufficiently seriously in this country for a long time, and now there is an opportunity to do so. I welcome what has been said, but please, let us not miss the boat.

I welcome the Minister's remarks and look forward to seeing the Government's ideas on Report, to which we are likely to respond favourably.

I also welcome what the Minister has said. He asked us to be patient and said that things would be forthcoming, and I think that we are all grateful for that. I happen to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who has had a long-standing interest in these matters too, feels especially strongly on the issue, so I am sure that he will be delighted to read in Hansard what the Minister has said.

I welcome what the Minister said. I am in such an unrebellious mood this week that I perhaps was overly brief. I should have pointed out that the penalty for smuggling, which comes under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, is seven years. In essence, we have the absurdity whereby if one is caught at Customs, there is a proper penalty, but if

one gets through and starts trading in the country, one might not even get a slap on the wrist. There are a number of notorious cases in recent years in which that has been the case. The worst example that has been highlighted was that involving the shahtoosh shawls, in which 2 per cent. of the entire world numbers of a Tibetan antelope were slaughtered and imported by one London company. Those responsible were eventually caught and were fined £1,500. That was in 2000, so the case for strengthening the law and making such offences arrestable is, in my view, proven.

The others who would give evidence to that effect are the wildlife crime officers. About half of British police forces have one. I hosted a reception with them here some time ago, and their view was that if they had more power—if it was an arrestable offence—they would be able to pursue those who trade in such materials more vigorously and more effectively.

Finally, I have spoken to the Indian Wildlife Board about the matter and it is in no doubt that the same gangs, particularly from the far east, who smuggle people and drugs and launder money, are also smuggling those items. It is therefore not the individual entrepreneur who is breaking the law but organised criminals.

I heard what the Minister had to say. I look forward to hearing a further response at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.