| Home Page |
Column 807
House of Commons
Thursday 9 May 1991
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill
[Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 16 May.
East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill
(By Order) Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Monday 13 May at Seven o'clock. Mr. Speaker : As the next six Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.
Cattewater Reclamation Bill
(By Order)
London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
(By Order)
London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
(By Order)
Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
(By Order)
British Railways
(No. 3) Bill-- [Lords] (By Order)
London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill
[Lords] (By Order) Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 May.
Column 808
Oral Answers to Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Conservation Bodies
1. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times during the past 12 months he has met representatives of conservation bodies.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer) : I have met representatives of conservation bodies formallyon four occasions. My colleagues have also had a number of such meetings.
Mr. Nicholson : My right hon. Friend will know that my interest in the subject derives from the fact that my constituency ranges from the smallest English national park to the Somerset levels. Will he ensure that that land, which is not suitable for intensive and, therefore, fairly profitable farming or for conservation assistance, does not drift into a gentle decline? Will he therefore, as a matter of some urgency, bring forward proposals to ensure that all the countryside is farmed in an environmentally sensitive way?
Mr. Gummer : As my hon. Friend knows, I have had many individual and informal meetings with conservation bodies and I am pleased to find that they increasingly recognise that if the British countryside is to be conserved, it can be only through the activities of farmers. That is why we are insistent that the reform of the common agricultural policy should be driven by a demand for environmental support. The Government are working for that fundamental change, which we hope to achieve.
Mr. Geraint Howells : I hope that, when the Minister meets conservationists in Monmouth next week, he will remind them that Welsh farmers' incomes have dropped by 50 per cent. over the past two years and that 14 per cent. of Welsh farmers are contemplating giving up farming due to the policies of the Secretary of State for Wales, who has full responsibility for agriculture in Wales. The Minister may not be aware that his colleague said yesterday at the annual general meeting of the Farmers Union of Wales in Aberystwyth that there is worse to come. Is that policy due to the advice given by Ministers in London and by the Government?
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman's question would go down better were it not known that his party was wholly in favour of the European Community and supported the common agricultural policy. He knows perfectly well that the events about which he is talking are a result of the CAP, which we are committed to changing and which we are fighting to alter. The hon. Gentleman has no possible answers to that. He should not do this and he does so only because it is this week.
Mr. Onslow : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of conserving water resources in the countryside? Will he redouble his efforts to encourage farmers to impound the water from
Column 809
excessive rainfall in the winter rather than running down river levels by extraction for spray irrigation in the summer?Mr. Gummer : I agree with my right hon. Friend that the problems of water levels, especially in the east of England, are of great seriousness. Happily, even the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) cannot blame the Government for that. The truth is that we shall have to share out the use of water. I was very unhappy about some of the suggestions that the National Rivers Authority put forward originally. I am pleased to say that they have now been considerably revised in a way that will protect the water table and, at the same time, enable farmers to use water as they need it to produce crops. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are looking carefully at the water levels of rivers in which I know that he has a particular interest, which he has pressed regularly to me.
Mr. Dalyell : Why cannot the Minister tell Mr. Ian Richardson and other conservationists in his constituency who is behind the Swiss bond holders who own Heveningham hall, one of the 20 most beautiful houses in England? Does he understand that, as I represent Hopetown and Dalmeny, it would be quite remiss of me as a Member not to know who owns those great houses?
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman referred to a matter which is entirely under the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more careful with his comments and I also hope that he will recognise the enormous amount of work that has been carried out to save that particular house--
Mr. Dalyell : It is 20th century restoration of an 18th century house.
Mr. Gummer : --and take that in the context of a long period of misuse of the house by the former owners. Who that former owner was--he is now dead--is no more clear to me than it is to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and it would be quite improper for me to answer in any other way except to say that I do not know who the owner is.
Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Speaker : Order. It is not legitimate to raise that matter on a supplementary question.
Fishing Vessels
2. Mr. Harris : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels have taken the gear option as opposed to the tied option.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : One hundred and eighty-five vessels have taken the gear option while 258 have elected to tie up.
Mr. Harris : Although I accept that the gear option is not always practical for many boats in Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree that the number that have taken the alternative route and are tying up is gratifying? Will he
Column 810
accept the congratulations of the House on having fought so hard to ensure that that option was made available in the first place?Mr. Curry : My hon. Friend will know that when we entered the Council we faced proposals that included the 120 mm mesh size, a 10-day tie -up and no gear option. We had to fight very hard to get the tie-up limited to eight days and to get the gear option. I am pleased that that has been taken up by about one third of the Scottish fleet. We knew that it would not be appropriate for a large number of vessels and we did not pretend that that was other than the case. However, I hope that it is proving effective for those vessels that can take advantage of it. Tie-up is certainly the preferable option where it will work.
Mr. Salmond : Does the Minister accept that the boats have not elected to tie up but have been forced to tie up? Will he confirm that more Scottish boats are now affected by the regulation than boats in the rest of the European Community put together? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland spoken to the hon. Gentleman about his conduct during the tie-up debate and is the hon. Gentleman now able to apologise to Scotland's fishing communities or, better still, to signal a change of policy?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman says that more Scottish boats are affected than other boats. That is true. The stocks affected are those that are fished predominantly by Scottish fishermen. The rules stated that the boats affected were those with 40 per cent. of cod and haddock in their total catch in areas IV and VI which are fished predominantly by Scottish boats, and those with more than 100 tonnes. The action is imposed by the Community. It is not something which we have dreamt up. In fact, we mitigated that measure. We are acting to conserve stocks for the Scottish fishing industry. That was our sole reason for acting. Had we not done that in respect of stocks of haddock, of which we have 80-odd per cent. of the catch, and stocks of cod, of which we have 50-odd per cent. of the catch, we would have been remiss in our duties.
In the debate, I explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the fishing industry the facts behind the decision and the importance of making it stick. I have no apologies to make about the thoughts that I expressed during that debate, because I was simply expressing the truth. The fishing industry preferred to have the truth presented bluntly than to have it wrapped up in silken phrases that mean nothing.
Mr. David Porter : The tie-up rule clearly means "Thou shalt not fish." Is my hon. Friend aware that in some cases it means "Thou shalt not earn a living"? The fishermen on some boats that are affected claim that they cannot get other work, such as standby and diving support work. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into that matter?
Mr. Curry : In so far as I can assist, I shall certainly do so. The regulation was imposed upon us by the Community because of concern about stocks. We agreed that the stocks were in a serious condition. We did not say, "There is no problem" or "Let us pretend that the problem does not exist." We sought to obtain the most sensible application of a rule that we had to observe. Having obtained it, we are obliged to enforce that rule, or we will end up next year with an even more inflexible rule from Brussels. It would be in no one's interests if that happened.
Column 811
I shall look at the cases that my hon. Friend can bring before me, but I cannot alter the rules that we are obliged to follow.Fish Conservation
3. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for improving conservation of fish stocks.
7. Mr. Irvine : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends to make to the July Council of Fisheries Ministers on the conservation of fish stocks.
Mr. Curry : We have already announced unilateral conservation action to apply from July. My immediate priority now is to achieve greater selectivity of gear on a Community-wide basis.
Mr. Mitchell : As we have a conservation crisis in the North sea in particular, a proper system of conservation would require a ban on industrial fishing, a ban on bream trawling and a ban on fishing in spawning grounds during the spawning season. It would also require a ban on square mesh panels, a one-net rule and a series of such measures. Why is not the Minister developing a proper British conservation programme instead of sitting there like a Saudi kleptomaniac with a hands-off policy, waiting for the Commission to do it all by such daft measures as the eight-day lay- up?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman knows the facts. He cannot complain simultaneously that we are not introducing our own measures and that we are about to impose measures on the United Kingdom fleet because of the importance of the stocks that we must conserve. It is a difficult choice. We have not been afraid to take that choice. Many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are in the United Kingdom proposals--for example, the single-net rule, which is applicable. Other measures can be proposed only by the Community. Where we have national scope, it must be within the framework of the Community rules. That is why we had to apply, for example, a 90 mm square mesh panel in a 90 mm net. We did not have the flexibility to go beyond that proposal. We have not hesitated to take those actions. Where we have taken those actions, they have hardly been greeted with overwhelming acclaim by the fishing industry.
Mr. Irvine : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems with the conservation of fish stocks is that, while the British Government play by the rules and take effective enforcement measures against our own fishermen, too many other European Governments do not properly apply the rules against their own fishermen? Will my hon. Friend take care at the Council meeting in July to make that point forcefully to his European counterparts?
Mr. Curry : Because of our desire to have effective conservation, we defended at the previous Council meeting, and will do so at future Council meetings, the basic idea that the common fisheries policy should be enforced by the member states in the waters that they control. We can impose that system on all vessels fishing in those waters. If that policy disintegrated and enforcement
Column 812
were handed over to some centralised control, or if we were to slacken our enforcement, I fear that we would then have differentials.Certain member states enforce rules strongly. The Dutch, for example, impose a tie-up on their own fishermen and are suggesting that the tie-up should become the principal instrument of Community conservation. We would have great difficulty with that, but we will certainly do our best to make sure that we get a proper level of enforcement. That is one respect in which the United Kingdom is acknowledged to be ahead of the field.
Mr. Wallace : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last week on a visit to Scotland that fishermen had to take an initiative in conservation. Will he confirm that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put to the Government a comprehensive conservation package almost two years ago, that the industry has also proposed a decommissioning scheme and that some sections of the industry have actually advocated that the industry make a contribution to a decommissioning scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the confusion at the recent meeting between Scottish fishery leaders and Ministers on the Government's position on decommissioning and say whether the door is still open to some form of decommissioning scheme, possibly involving an industry contribution?
Mr. Curry : My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that he is ready to examine any workable proposal for the industry that is based on an industry-funded scheme and would deliver long-term conservation gains. That is a perfectly clear statement. The hon. Gentleman said that the industry brought forward its proposals two years ago, which is true. Those proposals were based on 90 mm mesh with an 80 mm panel.
We tried to get those policies accepted in Brussels, but they were not acceptable. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has now understood that. I understand that it recently introduced proposals, accepting that it should go further on the size of the square mesh panel, but that there are also other conditions. The industry is moving and recognises that it must move forward, and we welcome that fact. As I said, we are willing to look at a package of measures that will assist the industry, provided we get effective gains which would be in the interests of the fishermen. It is their futures that are at risk.
Sir Michael Shaw : Is my hon. Friend aware that fishermen in my constituency fully realise the need for conservation, but that, at the same time, they demand fairness in the enforcement of the restrictions on gear and quotas throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Curry : I appreciate the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. Although our fishermen fish for different stocks in different vessels, we must ensure that they all play by the same rules. We can hardly complain about other people failing in this regard if we do not maintain effective enforcement around our own coasts. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the enforcement authority in Scotland has now become an agency. I am extremely confident that that agency will make a great contribution to enforcement practices north of the border. We shall ensure that that is the case south of the border also.
Column 813
Dr. Godman : The Minister said a moment ago that the eight-day tie-up was imposed upon him by the Fisheries Ministers Council. I must question the accuracy of that statement because Mr. Marin, the European Commissioner for Fisheries, said that that proposal came originally from the Minister's Department. Is not the truth of the matter the fact that the fleet is too big and has to be reduced and that the most humane and fair-minded way of doing that is by a decommissioning scheme?Mr. Curry : No, it is not true that that scheme originated in my Department. It originated with the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which stated that there must be a 30 per cent. reduction in effort. The Commission translated that into a 10-day tie-up per month. We got that reduced to eight days, for various reasons, partly because we thought that it was excessive. We must have effective effort control. We cannot dodge that issue. That is why it is important that we enforce the rules effectively this year and that fishermen obey them because, if they do not, there is a danger that we will be faced with an even more draconian scheme next year which, like everything else, will go through on majority voting. We are anxious to avoid that. That is why it is important to make the proposals work this year.
Mr. Morley : During these exchanges hon. Members have expressed the need to link conservation measures with a reduction of effort. I was recently in Brussels to talk to the fisheries directorate-general, which expressed great surprise at the fact that, of all the countries in Europe, this country has not taken the opportunity of using the EC funds that are available for decommissioning schemes in order to reduce that effort. I agree that we need a package of measures and that, on its own, decommissioning would not be adequate. However, will the Minister give the House the undertaking that he will make it a priority to discuss with the industry a total package on conservation and, above all, on effort limitation, which would involve fair compensation for the fishermen who have suffered so much as a result of the measures to reduce the pressure on fish stocks?
Mr. Curry : My right hon. Friend the Minister has already begun that debate with the fishing industry. We accept that we can put together a package of measures that will be of benefit to the industry, and it is essential that we do so because we are talking about the long-term future of the stocks.
On the capacity problem, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman what I am sure he already knows : when we finally receive the figures for the first guidance programme from Brussels, we will find that the United Kingdom is over target by much less than was originally suspected. We do not have any idea about the targets for the second programme and, until we have them, it is clearly a little premature to talk about how we can reach a target that does not yet exist. However, we have begun discussions on a sensible package of proposals and we shall pursue them.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. We have spent rather a long time on fishing, but I recognise its importance. We must now get on more rapidly in the interest of those hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.
Column 814
Whales
4. Mr. Archer : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the proposal at the International Whaling Commission to review the moratorium on the killing of certain species of whale.
Mr. Gummer : I have received a very great number of representations, many expressing appreciation of the Government's strong stand on the conservation of whales.
Mr. Archer : Although I do not dissent from that statement, will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm that our common ecological heritage is as much a legitimate subject of international law as our common security? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will do everything possible to give effect to the overwhelming consensus among civilised countries in favour of the continuing enforcement of the moratorium, if necessary by trade embargoes on those countries that ignore it?
Mr. Gummer : I have made it absolutely clear that there is no case for raising the moratorium and we are using every possible pressure to ensure that it continues. We have been successful in using the framework of the International Whaling Commission. It has a lot of faults and we want to extend its framework to cover some of the small cetaceans which some people believe are not covered, although we believe that many are. We have a lot of work to do and we should press on and make sure that the protection of whales continues.
Mr. Skinner : Introduce legislation and stop blubbering.
Mr. Gummer : It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to make comments from below the Gangway, but some of us take seriously the conservation of whales and do not make jokes about it.
Mr. Ashby : Does my right hon. Friend understand that most people in Britain find whaling abhorrent and extend that feeling to the fishing of porpoises? Countries such as Japan are fishing thousands of porpoises for no real reason. Is there any possibility of extending the moratorium?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend is right, particularly about Dall's porpoise. The Japanese have carried out a major attack on that species and I am concerned to extend the controls. However, we have used the present framework effectively up to now. I am determined that we should use it more effectively in future. No one must be in any doubt about our commitment to the protection of the whale.
Dr. David Clark : Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in Britain about what is regarded as the abuse of scientific whaling, especially by Japan? Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that he will oppose commercial whaling and tighten up scientific whaling so that it is not abused by other countries in future?
Mr. Gummer : I made it clear as long ago as the conference in Brighton that the Government are wholly opposed to scientific whaling being used as a cover for commercial whaling. We shall continue to fight that. We are particularly concerned that not just one but a number
Column 815
of nations have signified their intention to extend their whaling activities. In today's circumstances, that is clearly unacceptable.Mr. Dickens : Does my right hon. Friend agree that whales are slaughtered throughout the world in barbaric ways and that the numbers of many species are getting rather low? The management of the slaughter of whales is deplorable. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance this afternoon that he will not agree to anything until he is satisfied that those dreadful trends have been reversed?
Mr. Gummer : The history of monitoring and controlling whaling shows a very poor record. One reason why we are concerned about management proposals is that management has been very bad in the past. I see no sign that the problems are being overcome. We have succeeded much beyond our expectations so far. Our job is to make sure that we continue to do so.
EC Surplus Food
6. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that EC food distribution is available to all pensioners ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Curry : I see no reason to provide free food for people like my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington or the hon. Gentleman's friend the chairman of Mirror Group Newspapers.
Mr. Cryer : When the Minister has finished with his little sneers at pensioners, does he realise that men and women who fought for this country in the war have queued up to find, when they get to the end of the queue, that they are denied butter which they have paid for, since the Government have handed over £14 billion to the Common Market in the past 10 years because of their arbitrary impositions? Would not it be a decent gesture to allow all pensioners to have that little bit of butter, especially since some charities--the public schools of this country, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy go--are also eligible for free butter?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the scheme from his days in the European Parliament. He will be aware that there are 3,000 tonnes of beef and 3,800 tonnes of butter. He will therefore be able to do the mathematics. If they were distributed to all those eligible and all pensioners, they would each get the princely amount of 7.5 oz of beef and 9.5 oz of butter. If that is the gesture that we are about to make to them, I expect that I would get a gesture in return.
Mrs. Gorman : Although I have no objection to the distribution of surplus food to pensioners or anyone else, does my hon. Friend agree that pensioner families, like all others in this country, are now contributing £830 a year on average to the common agricultural policy and pensioners, like the rest of our families, would rather have that money in their pockets to spend on the food that they choose to buy?
Mr. Curry : I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to deal with surpluses is to tackle them at source so that they cost less to ordinary people and to those on relatively modest wages. The surplus should not be perpetuated and
Column 816
then dished out free, because that is most inefficient. If there is food to be distributed, the United Kingdom will have its share and it will go to the poorest people in society, which is the right way to do it. I am determined that that should happen. However, the thesis that my hon. Friend proposes is the sensible one--not to produce surpluses in the first place, which would cost us all less.Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally inadequate answer to my question and the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) described Bradford pensioners as stupid, I reserve the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Holt : He has no right to do that.
Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly contain himself. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to say that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has been here long enough to know the rules.
Mr. Speaker : Unless the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) contains himself I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber for this afternoon. Will he please be quiet.
Common Agricultural Policy
8. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the reform of the common agricultural policy.
Mr. Gummer : The reform of the common agricultural policy was considered at the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 22 and 23 April, where discussions concentrated on the Commission's 1991 agricultural price proposals.
Mr. Welsh : This is beginning to get close to "The Muppet Show". When the Minister meets his European counterparts, will they do something about the plight of the soft fruit industry, especially the Scottish raspberry industry, which is under threat from a flood of cheap eastern European imports? Is he aware of the importance of raspberries, not only in terms of direct employment but for the transportation industries? Will he obtain an extension of the minimum import price system until the end of this year and, in the long term, seek to maintain a stable market through quantitive controls?
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has kept that matter very much in my mind. Therefore, on every occasion when it has been possible I have raised the matter in the European Community. I have obtained a further extension of four months, but that is not enough. However, more important than the extension is ensuring that it is monitored. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have strong objections to the way in which the Commission has so far failed to monitor properly the arrangements which it put in place at our insistence. I am perfectly well aware of the importance of the Scottish raspberry industry and the soft fruit industry to the United Kingdom. We need to provide a market for eastern
Column 817
European products and to insist that that market is at a price similar to that which we get at home. Otherwise the benefit goes to the processor, not to the eastern European country. The disbenefit is to the British farmer. I am determined that, as far as it is possible to find new ways to press the European Commumnity, we shall do so. I believe that the Commission has let us down on this issue.Mr. Hunter : In the light of continuing arguments in some circles that nitrogen quotas should form part of a reformed CAP, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to explain his continued opposition to that argument?
Mr. Gummer : I could give my hon. Friend a large number of reasons. First, it could not be policed ; secondly, what does one do about natural nitrogen that comes from farmyard manure ; thirdly, how do we make sure that others keep the rules, even if Britain were able to police such a system ; fourthly, how could one ensure that it was a fair system ; fifthly, how would rationing be done in countries where the authorities have no idea what people used in the previous year, anyway ; and, sixthly-- well I could give a number of other reasons which would all go to show that the system would be unworkable.
Dr. David Clark : Does the Minister realise that while Opposition Members support the Government in resisting the details of the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the CAP, we still believe that there must be a fundamental reform if we are to get a fair deal for the British consumer and farmer? The Minister should take the high ground. Will he take the offensive and table his proposals for reform of the CAP so that we can start arguing on our terms rather than on MacSharry's terms?
Mr. Gummer : I hope that the public recognise that the hon. Gentleman's willingness to advise others stops short of his willingness to learn that proposals cannot be tabled at the EC in that way. Proposals are tabled only by the Commission. I am determined to see that the Commission's new proposals contain our suggestions. I have put those proposals forward absolutely clearly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer a question that is now being widely asked. In the event of there being a future Labour Government who would cut spending on the national health services, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said yesterday, how much would the hon. Gentleman cut from the support given to farmers?
Animals (Live Exports)
9. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects final decisions to be taken regarding the future of minimum values on the export of live horses and ponies ; and if he will make a statement.
10. Mr. Burns : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the draft directive on the transportation of live animals to be next discussed at a meeting of the European Community Council.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : EC discussions have recentlresumed on the welfare of
Column 818
animals during transport, but we will resist most strongly any proposals to resume the export of live horses and ponies.Mr. Greenway : Is my hon. Friend aware of the passionate concern that exists across the country about the continued pressure on the Commissioners to end minimum values in 1992 on the export of live horses and ponies? Animals would end up being brutally and viciously slaughtered if they were exported in that way. Will he shake up the EC and seek an early assurance that if the EC's present plans go forward, horses and ponies will not be exported from this country after 1992 in such an inhumane way?
Mr. Maclean : The only good thing about the present proposals is that they unite the Government and all the welfare organisations, including excellent bodies such as the International League for the Protection of Horses. I assure my hon. Friend that we are in harness on this issue, along with all the British people, in arguing to keep our specific minimum value proposals. I am not interested in getting an early decision from Brussels. I am determined to get the right one and that should be that we do not have to resume the export of live horses and ponies.
Mr. Burns : Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Chelmsford warmly welcome the efforts that are being made by him and his Department on minimum values, but are disgusted and dismayed at the prospect of the live exportation of animals across the continent as a result of EC measures? In view of the improvements in refrigeration in the 30 years since the signing of the treaty of Rome, why must animals be subjected to such inhumane transportation practices, despite the efforts that are being made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food improve the arrangements? We beg the Minister to fight hard in Europe to put an end to this Euro-nonsense.
Mr. Maclean : Animals have been and can be transported safely across international boundaries. Britain has had the most comprehensive detailed regulations on the safe transport of animals for many years. We take as our starting point in EC negotiations the excellent British regulations and we suggest that they should be the basis on which the EC comes up with proposals on the movement of animals to apply to the whole of Europe. We are also keen to encourage an EC-wide inspectorate so that the high standards of animal welfare that we enforce in this country will be enforced throughout Europe.
Mr. Corbett : I welcome the fact that the Minister is so firmly opposed to the export of ponies and horses, but why does not he apply his opposition to the transport of calves and sheep? Will he acknowledge that it is impossible for this country to ensure that the arrangements and regulations in place in the rest of Europe are enforced? Would not it be sensible to promote a policy of slaughter as near to the point of production as possible?
Mr. Maclean : We have always transported cattle and sheep safely and believe that it can be done. The hon. Gentleman should realise the conditions of the EC treaty, under which we have no power unilaterally to ban the transport of live animals. We make a distinction in the case of horses and ponies, however, because we believe that, from a welfare point of view, they are quite distinct. The
Column 819
sad, sordid history of their export shows that they cannot be transported safely but only at great risk of damage. Cattle and sheep can be moved safely round the country and are moved safely from Ireland and the Scottish islands to the mainland. We must be very careful before seeking a unilateral ban on the safe movement of animals which would severely disadvantage many parts of the United Kingdom.Mr. Pike : Does the Minister accept that, although he has widespread support in resisting moves to transport horses and ponies, it is essential that he makes no concessions in securing the best possible transport of animals or with regard to ponies and horses? The House will accept no concessions. Should not the Government be doing more to encourage the transportation of meat by hook rather than on the hoof?
| Next Section
| Home Page |