House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Jan 1993

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : How many wars and military strikes are the Government prepared to allow that punish Iraqi people but do not resolve anything? How many deaths are to be added to the 100,000 that resulted from the Gulf war? When will the Government show a readiness to save the lives of Iraqi children, whose death rate has tripled since the Gulf war, instead of engaging in this sort of jingoism?

Mr. Rifkind : I remind the hon. Gentleman that the targets against which action was taken today were exclusively military. He should be the first to appreciate that the best contribution that could be made to the welfare of the Iraqi people would be Saddam Hussein's giving up power in that country, and allowing his own people to be represented in a more acceptable way.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : Will the Government be pursuing United Nations resolution 799 with equal vigour?

Mr. Rifkind : The Government give their support to all United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : In view of the statement made earlier tonight by Sir David Hannay, our ambassador to the United Nations, that the British Government believe in the enforcement of all United

Column 1021

Nations resolutions without priority and differentation, will the Secretary of State explain to the House and to the international community--particularly the international Islamic community-- why such swift, heavy military action was taken in this case, whereas western powers seem to stand by and turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and to the transportation of more than 400 Palestinians to a freezing desert in no man's land? Is that not an example of pathetic double standards? Are not the real friends and allies of Saddam Hussein people such as the Secretary of State, who is a member of a Government who supplied arms to Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman talks typical nonsense. He should be aware, in making comparisons with the situation in Bosnia, that not only has the United Nations introduced a no-fly zone resolution for Bosnia but that since its inception no combat aircraft have flown. It is precisely because of the use of combat aircraft by the Iraqi Government that today's action was necessary.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and to those brave men and women in the Royal Air Force, the fervent thanks of those people on the ground in the marshes in southern Iraq--from whom I have received this evening messages of gratitude?

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan) : I do not believe it.

Madam Speaker : Order. The House must hear the hon. Lady.

Miss Nicholson : My right hon. and learned Friend may like to remind the House that the BBC World Service is heard in the marshes of Iraq and that the telephone service is usable. Some of us have regular contacts there, and it is derisory of the hon. Gentleman to question that particular point.

I remind my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues of the grave difficulties under which the people of southern Iraq are suffering. For example, the sewage disposal in Basra is 80 per cent. raw ditch disposal-- and has been for many years, because of Saddam Hussein. There is no education in the south and no medicine in the marshes, and the people are deprived of all the usual human facilities and all possibility of leading any kind of a normal life. That is due to Saddam Hussein, and has nothing to do with the actions of the allies in the Gulf war. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make absolutely certain that we do everything possible on the ground to relieve those poor people from the devilry that Saddam Hussein constantly inflicts on them, out of sight of western cameras.

Mr. Rifkind : I listened with great care to my hon. Friend's remarks, because I know that she has made a number of courageous visits to the marshlands of southern Iraq, to make her own outstanding contribution to the welfare of the oppressed people in that area. We are not only pleased that the no-fly zone has helped to reduce that oppression but are always anxious to explore other ways of assisting the people to whom she has given such a high degree of personal commitment.

Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness) : Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the

Column 1022

Government will seek ways to strengthen the United Nations forces currently patrolling the demilitarised zone around Kuwait? Can he confirm that large amounts of weaponry have already been retrieved by the Iraqis, including four Silkworm missiles that could be used against coalition forces? Can he assure the House that any remaining weaponry in former Iraqi territory that is now part of the demilitarised zone will be moved out of the reach of the invading Iraqis?

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to that particular problem. There is considerable difficulty in that United Nations personnel are not normally armed and therefore have been unable to resist incursions by armed Iraqis who removed assets, including Silkworm missiles. It is clearly important to draw the appropriate conclusions from those incidents, to ensure that they do not recur.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : It is clear that the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members are entirely convinced that it was vital, in the interests of world peace, to prevent the United Nations from being made a fool of by Saddam Hussein. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is no less vital that the United Nations should not be made a fool of in Bosnia and Serbia?

Mr. Rifkind : Of course. That is, indeed, a very important objective. The way in which we try to prosecute the interests of the United Nations has to take account of the particular circumstances of each country. We try to use the most effective means available to us to achieve those objectives.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : The Secretary of State should be aware that the action taken tonight is worse than a crime--it is a blunder. It is a blunder because, when the fog of war clears tomorrow, we shall find that the people who have been not "spanked", as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) had it, but torn limb from limb and incinerated under the bombs--smart or otherwise--will be people who never voted for Saddam Hussein and who are not responsible for the crimes that he has committed down the years, including all the years during which the British Government were selling him arms.

The radicalisation and Islamicisation that is occurring across the Arab area and the broader Muslim world will be greatly intensified by what will be regarded as western double standards, whereby the west is ready, at a moment's notice, to pulverise Iraq, but unable, over decades, to do anything about Israel's rejecting and ignoring international law and international standards, or to do anything to save the lives of the tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims who have died in the current campaign in former Yugoslavia.

Is not the Secretary of State aware that, across the Arab world, Saddam Hussein has been made into a hero by those double standards, and that the blunder and crime that was committed this evening will come back to haunt us in years to come?

Mr. Rifkind : I must first tell the hon. Gentleman that his views are not the views of Arab Governments in the region, who are already welcoming the action that has been taken today. I must also remind the hon. Gentleman that, whereas the coalition today restricted itself

Column 1023

deliberately to military targets, the no- fly zone was introduced to prevent Iraqi aircraft, ultimately commanded by Saddam Hussein, from bombing innocent civilians--innocent men, women and children--in southern Iraq. If the hon. Gentleman's advice were accepted, it would lead directly to the non-continuation of the no-fly zone restrictions and to the resumption of the bombing of innocent people. That is where the hon. Gentleman's policy would appear to lead.

Sir George Gardiner (Reigate) : My right hon. and learned Friend will already know that the bulk of the British population will support the rather limited counter action that has been taken against Saddam Hussein. Will he acknowledge that, in the perception of the bulk of our citizens, the time will come when we will need not only to give Saddam Hussein a bloody nose but to go for his throat?

Mr. Rifkind : Clearly, if the Iraqi regime continues to ignore United Nations resolutions and to take aggressive action, it will invite further action by the international community. That would be not only proportionate but necessary if such circumstances arose.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Does the Secretary of State accept that he will have my party's support for action undertaken to uphold United Nations Security Council resolutions because we believe that to do other than enforce those resolutions would be to be ineffective and to follow the rather sad example of the League of Nations which was the precursor of the United Nations? However, we believe that all Security Council resolutions should be pursued with equal vigour and not on a selective basis.

As an hon. Member who represents a constituency with a substantial number of armed forces personnel, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what mechanisms are being established to ensure that, should further action be undertaken, the families are aware of the circumstances? He will be well aware of the problems that families face in such circumstances. I remind him, too, that I speak as an hon. Member who lost a constituent in the previous Gulf conflict.

Mr. Rifkind : I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their support for today's action. We are always anxious to give maximum information to families. It is in the nature of such operations that they have to be kept entirely confidential and secret until they have taken place. Thereafter, however, we try to provide as much information as is consistent with normal security considerations.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : My right hon. and learned Friend has quite properly reassured the House that our Arab friends have welcomed the action today. But our Arab friends would be further reassured if we were to take proportionate action to make sure that Israel also abided by international resolutions. What action do the Government intend to take to provide that reassurance?

Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend must put specific questions of that sort to my right hon. Friend the Foreign

Column 1024

Secretary. I know that my hon. Friend has done so in the past, and that he has been impressed by the answers which he has received.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Why does the Secretary of State not admit that the action taken today has more to do with the vanity of the lame duck President Bush than anything else, and that the British Government tagged along like lap dogs, as they did in the Gulf war? How many of the installations which were knocked out were provided with British technology?

The Secretary of State has some cheek to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) or anyone else about being an ally of Saddam Hussein when he is a member of a Government who could not tell the difference between an Iraqi gun and an oil pipeline until the truth emerged and we found that the Government were involved in squalid deals to enable Saddam Hussein to carry out genocide against his people.

Mr. Rifkind : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically robust intervention in these matters. His views are not unexpected, although they are based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. However, a complete misunderstanding of the facts has never deterred the hon. Gentleman in the past, and there is no reason to suspect that it would have a different effect today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Why is it that the Government of Turkey have denied the use of bases? Is it not a fact that the Government of Jordan have deplored the action and asked for a negotiated settlement?

On a question of fact, do the British have any control whatever over a decision of the United States to use some of the 400 Patriot missiles that have been installed? What is the position on the increased number of American troops in Kuwait? Can the British Government give an assurance that the American troops will be consulted if there is to be any land action?

Do the Government know that there are more Shia Muslims than Sunni Muslims in Baghdad and that this is far from a cut-and-dried situation?

Mr. Rifkind : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Turkey is giving its full co-operation to the imposition of the no-fly zone in the north of Iraq. Indeed, British Royal Air Force planes and United States aircraft are based in Turkey with the full support of the Turkish Government.

On the hon. Gentleman's latter comments, we had the closest consultation with the United States and with France on the particular operation that I have described today. Such consultation will also apply to any other possible action that might be taken in support of the United Nations or the international community.

Mr. Dalyell : And Jordan?

Mr. Rifkind : We shall have to examine exactly what the Jordanian Government said. We all hope that there are prospects for negotiated agreements. Regrettably, force is sometimes required precisely because Saddam Hussein has shown scant respect for diplomacy and because he only appears willing to acknowledge the use of force.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, contrary to what various Opposition Members have said, this is an attack on not the people of Iraq but the regime of Saddam Hussein? Does he

Column 1025

also agree that the vast majority of the people of Iraq, be they Sunnis from Baghdad, Shi'ites from the south or Kurds from the north, will warmly applaud this action and hope that it will hasten the downfall of the evil regime of Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of those who have been oppressed by the Iraqi regime. None have been more oppressed than the Iraqi people themselves.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : May I, as I did two years ago, welcome military action against this dictator in the middle east? Although a majority of hon. Members are required, and are willing, to support military action, is it not strangely ironic that only two weeks ago officials of the Baghdad regime were in the United Kingdom negotiating with a major British defence contractor for the supply of telecommunications equipment to Baghdad? Surely Ministers should give honest and open answers to Parliament on that matter.

Mr. Rifkind : While I note what the hon. Gentleman says, I would wish to examine the basis of the comments that he has made before making any further comment on them. They are serious matters. I would wish to see the evidence that he has for that allegation.

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) : May I ask the Minister to be factual in his answer to my questions? First, did the strikes against the Iraqi forces take place inside or outside the no-fly zone? I understood that the United Nations resolution was about a no-fly zone, not a no-walk zone, no- run zone or no-missiles zone. Did the United Nations resolution specifically authorise the coalition forces to bomb missiles which might be inside the no-fly zone?

Mr. Rifkind : On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can confirm that all the targets that were the subject of attack by coalition forces were in the no-fly zone. On the hon. Gentleman's second question, once a no -fly zone has been authorised in accordance with international law, it is entirely appropriate to act in self-defence to ensure the safety of those who are imposing the no-fly zone. It is because the Iraqi Government introduced SAM missiles in the no-fly zone which represented a very serious threat indeed to the safety of those air force crews from the various countries concerned that it is entirely justifiable and in accordance with international law to take the action that was taken today.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate) : Is it not a matter of great satisfaction that the allies have shown such resolve in this matter? May we congratulate President Bush in the last few days of his presidency on the actions that he has taken, together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of France? Is the action not something for which Saddam Hussein bears full responsibility for bringing against his own people and for which he should pay the price?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes. I would add that President Bush can be congratulated on the resolute way in which he has acted throughout his presidency. He has been a superb President in the contribution that he has made to dealing with the aggression represented by the Iraqi regime. That has been to the benefit of the international community as a whole.

Column 1026

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : Can the Secretary of State give the House estimated Iraqi casualties in the strike tonight? Did the Iraqis return fire?

Mr. Rifkind : At this stage we cannot estimate casualties. But I emphasise that all the targets were military. The operation took place at night. Therefore, it is unlikely that the casualties were substantial in number. On the question about any resistance to the allied effort, I can inform the House that some radar activity was noted during the operation. There was also some anti-aircraft activity in the area of the target and it is possible that some surface-to-air missiles were fired. But it is difficult to be certain at this stage. I can assure the House that there were no casualties and none of the coalition aircraft was hit or damaged in any way.

Dr. Norman A Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : It is surely the case that throughout the United Kingdom people of all political persuasions share a deep detestation of Saddam Hussein and his evil regime. However, the dramatic decisiveness shown by the coalition nations in this action stands in stark contrast to the craven reluctance of the United Nations and so-called coalition nations to take such decisive action on behalf of the people of Tibet, who have suffered something close to genocide at the hands of those ancient men in Peking. They have also shown craven reluctance to help the people of Serbia. Surely what is needed in the United Nations is a unified military command structure and an honourable consistency in the organisation's peacekeeping and peace making activities.

Mr. Rifkind : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the United Nations has dramatically extended its peacekeeping activities during the past three or four years. In the first 40 years of its existence, it was able to initiate only about 13 peacekeeping operations ; a further 13 have been authorised in the past three or four years, which shows that the objectives to which the hon. Gentleman aspires are clearly resulting in some significant enhancement of the UN's ability to influence events and to try to reduce oppression.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Will the Secretary of State for Defence admit that for many years Her Majesty's Government have been the greatest friend and ally of Saddam Hussein, as they have succeeded in arming him to the teeth? Will he also admit that the likely consequences of his statement are that Saddam Hussein will renew his persecution of Kurds and Shias, that the people of Iraq will unify behind him and that the alienation of the Arab and Islamic countries against the west is likely to intensify further, and accusations of double standards against the west, because of its eagerness to bomb Iraq but to appease Serbia, will be made time and again? I therefore ask the Secretary of State to apologise and to withdraw his earlier remark against an Opposition Member who--like many other Opposition Members--is merely guilty of opposing the Government's dreadful record on oppression, Saddam Hussein and double standards.

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Saddam Hussein oppresses the Kurds and the Shias only in response to actions by the international community is a most extraordinary proposition. The reality is that nothing would be more likely to lead to a resumption of oppression

Column 1027

against the Shias and the Kurds than if the no-fly zone imposed by the international community had to cease because of our unwillingness to take effective action when there have been transgressions against it by the Iraqi Government.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Could the Secretary of State bear to admit that many Opposition Members have never supported Saddam Hussein and have consistently stood up for human rights in Iraq, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Madden)? What appalls us is that the British and American strategy has resulted in 300,000 deaths, poverty throughout Iraq and cholera in the streets. What is the objective-- is it further bombardment, or is there a serious political objective of bringing peace to that region?

Mr. Rifkind : The international action has led to the liberation of Kuwait and the protection of the Kurds in northern Iraq and of the Shias in southern Iraq, and the hon. Gentleman should be doing all in his power to help to lead that international action towards the eventual disappearance of Saddam Hussein as ruler of Baghdad.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : May I join the Secretary of State in congratulating our personnel on their courage and proficiency in an operation which was successful and probably inevitable? May I also invite him to admit that they are the fall guys for the failure and bankruptcy of the policies of the Government and their allies in the Gulf? First, the Government armed Saddam Hussein and then they prosecuted a war that caused devastation to the infrastructure, the people and the environment of the region, but Saddam Hussein and his odious tyranny is still there, killing the Kurds and Shi'ites and committing acts of aggression against the Kuwaitis and others in the region. The fact is that the allies' policy has failed abysmally and the Secretary of State should have the honesty to admit it.

Mr. Rifkind : I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The allied policy has led to the renewed independence of Kuwait and the protection that is being given to the Shias and the Kurds. I waited with interest, but without success, to hear the hon. Gentleman's scenario as to what would have been more likely to achieve those results.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Security Council resolutions are quite wordy and in some ways rather precise, such as resolution 688. Which detail of the resolution justifies the action that the Americans and the Government have been involved in in Iraq? Can the Secretary of State quote the detail that allows that to have taken place and justifies it?

Mr. Rifkind : Security Council resolution 688 calls on Iraq to refrain from further repression of its civilian population. It was in pursuance of that resolution that the no-fly zone was introduced in accordance with international law. In accordance with international law, it is appropriate to take action to defend those who have the responsibility of applying that policy.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : Will the Secretary of State tell us what action is now planned to protect the Kurds should there be further attempts by Saddam to strangle and harass the Kurdish people? Can he assure us that, as well as thinking about military action, the

Column 1028

Government are serious about trying to bring about democratic change in Iraq? The Iraqi opposition wants that rather than a stand-off that keeps Saddam in power.

Mr. Rifkind : We attach importance to the rights of the Kurdish population in northern Iraq and that is why we have a no-fly zone in that part of the country as well. It has been successfully applied and any transgressions against it by the Iraqi regime would be treated with great seriousness.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce (Rotherham) : The Secretary of State's robust defence of the United Nations resolution would ring a lot more true if we pursued others as vigorously as we have done this one. No doubt he will be aware of the violations of human rights that are everyday occurrences in Kashmir, yet United Nations resolutions, outstanding from 1947 and 1948, have never been acted upon. We have not had any explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman of who authorised today's action. Who authorised it?

Mr. Rifkind : The action was obviously the responsibility of the countries that participated in the operation. They are the countries which have applied the no-fly zone and, in accordance with international law, they are entitled to take action in defence of their own aircrews. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would have preferred a situation where the RAF would have been exposed to attack by the Iraqi air force without the right to defend itself. If that is the action which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, it would have been consistent with discontinuing the no-fly zone, with all the consequences that that would have meant for the Shia population.

Mr. Boyce : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Order. There is no point of order at this stage ; we are in the middle of questions on the statement.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : In the interests of maintaining international authority, will the Secretary of State assure the House that attention will not be restricted purely to the no-fly zones, at least until the United Nations aircraft are able to fly into Baghdad and United Nations inspection teams can complete their work there?

Mr. Rifkind : I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Security Council also attaches the gravest importance to the refusal of the Iraqi Government to allow those missions to proceed to Baghdad in United Nations aircraft. Earlier today, there was a report that the Iraqi deputy Prime Minister had said that United Nations planes might be permitted. We hope that that is to be the Iraqi policy, which would be a welcome reversal of the stance that it has taken recently.

Dr. David Clark : In view of what I said previously, I do not think that the House or the Secretary of State can be in any doubt of my support for the operation or, indeed, can be in any doubt that my judgment is at variance with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). However, on reflection, the Secretary of State may have slightly misjudged the issue by saying that my hon. Friend was an ally and friend of Saddam Hussein. I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not think that it helps the House for the message to go out

Column 1029

that Saddam Hussein has any friends at all in the House. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would consider reflecting upon his earlier comment and withdrawing it?

Mr. Rifkind : I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the remark that I made was that the hon. Member for Bradford, South might think of himself as an ally and friend of Saddam Hussein. If the hon. Gentleman does not think of himself in those terms, I and the House would be delighted to hear that. I must repeat the fact that I believe that the policies that he espouses work to the advantage of Saddam Hussein and will be well received in Baghdad tonight.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let me make absolutely plain my position on this matter, which the Secretary of State raised directly. I do not regard, and have never regarded, myself as a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein. Now that I have said so, will the Secretary of State completely withdraw his slur against me? I have never sold guns to Saddam Hussein or anybody else.

Mr. Boyce : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. What redress is available to an ordinary Back Bencher who puts a legitimate question to the Secretary of State and is replied to with a question containing serious allegations about that Member's personal stand on the action taken today? Are we to understand that the Secretary of State may answer questions with questions and that Back Benchers have no redress?

Madam Speaker : Back Benchers learn very quickly to pursue matters by various methods. I have been a Member of this House for 20 years. When the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough, he will find ways and means of doing this.

PETITION

Disabled People

11.5 pm

Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) : I should like to present a petition from a large number of members of Mencap in Birmingham. It reads as follows :

Support Civil Rights Legislation for Disabled People-- To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of supporters of Birmingham Mencap shows. That people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled (for whatever reason) are continually having to face widespread, unjustifiable discrimination.

That legislation is necessary to outlaw this discrimination. Therefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination against people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled as soon as possible.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Column 1030

Aujeszky's Disease

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]

11.6 pm

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central) : I am extremely grateful to have been granted an Adjournment debate on the subject of Aujeszky's disease and its effect on the pig industry in the United Kingdom. My county --Suffolk--has more pig producers than most. The obvious exception is Humberside, as is shown by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and other hon. Members who feel very strongly about this issue.

The need for this debate was made urgent by the increased risk of the importation of Aujeszky's disease into this country, and by recent Government proposals to take over the remains of the fund established to eliminate the disease here. In many ways, the issues raised encapsulate the problems that membership of the European Community increasingly poses for the agricultural community. Those who understand the pig industry in this country will know that it is not subsidised as many other sectors of agriculture are. It is efficient, competitive and self-reliant. This self- reliance has never been better demonstrated than by the pig producers' determination to eliminate Aujeszky's disease from this country some years ago. This debate is about how Aujeszky's disease was eradicated, the money that was used to do it, the likelihood of the reintroduction of the disease from other Community countries, and what should be done with the money left over from the eradication scheme.

Aujeszky's disease is a viral disease that causes high mortality and unthriftiness in both breeding and finishing pigs. Between 1983 and 1990, pig producers funded the eradication of Aujeszky's disease from Great Britain through a compulsory slaughter policy. The scheme followed a poll of producers in 1982, and had the full approval of Ministers. The Government recognised the strong case for eradicating the disease, but were unable to finance the programme. However, they agreed to provide the services of the state veterinary service for the purpose of having the compulsory slaughter policy carried out, and having the necessary blood testing conducted.

The total cost of the programme was £38 million, and after recovery of money through carcase sales, the net cost to pig farmers was £27 million, financed by a levy of30p per pig, which was collected through the Meat and Livestock Commission and was held in the pig disease eradication fund. Complete freedom from the disease was declared in May 1991 and £780,000 now remains in the pig disease eradication fund, which belongs to the nation's pig producers. Two recent changes have necessitated tonight's debate : first, imports of live pigs are to be permitted from January 1993, increasing the risk of reintroducing Aujeszky's disease into this country ; secondly, the Government's stated intention to take over the money remaining in the fund, which belongs to pig producers. So, having eradicated the disease from this country, there is a renewed threat of it returning from Europe, and the money that could have been used to deal with that eventuality is to be taken over by the Ministry and used as it sees fit.

Column 1031

Because the Minister understands the matter well, he will appreciate the unique animal and plant health record of this country, helped to a large extent by the fact that we are an island and have been zealous in policing imports and maintaining the highest possible standards. From January this year, that position has changed ; we are now obliged to allow the import of live pigs from other European countries in a way that was not previously permitted.

Time does not allow me to go into the various categories of pigs to be imported or how they will be checked and tested. Suffice it to say that the EC Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels has agreed various rules and our Ministry has been working hard to make things as tight as possible. Nevertheless, pigs will now be allowed in not just for breeding purposes but for further fattening and slaughter. They will be allowed in from all those Community countries where Aujeszky's is a notifiable disease. Although we are obliged under EC rules to allow those imports, all veterinary advice suggests that it will be a retrograde step and will increase the likelihood of importing diseases such as Aujeszky's.

The new rules governing the import of pigs for breeding are reasonably strict ; those for pigs for further fattening are less so ; and the rules on pigs for immediate slaughter are the least strict of all. How can we be certain that all those rules and regulations will be obeyed? More important, how can we be certain that, even with the closest possible control, infected pigs will not somehow slip through the net?

Aujeszky's is often difficult to spot in pigs without testing and there must be a real possibility, with greatly increased numbers of pigs of all kinds entering the country, that the disease will come with them. It is a sad day when our membership of the Community means lower standards of animal hygiene for this country. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at the import of live pigs and ask himself, given our excellent national record in the matter, whether those changes can be justified. He will recall that the Government intended to bring the standards of European farmers up to ours, not lower our standards to theirs or endanger our herds and flocks with imported problems.

Given the real dangers of importing Aujeszky's disease which I have described, one would have thought that the Government would have been only too happy to leave the £780,000 belonging to pig producers in the pig disease eradication fund against the eventuality that it may be needed again for its original purpose, which was to slaughter infected pigs and keep this country Aujeszky's-free. It is pig producers' money, raised for a specific purpose, and there is every indication that it might one day have to be used again for the same purpose. I understand that the Minister has said that, in the event of the reappearance of Aujeszky's disease, a slaughter policy would be immediately implemented and the levy system reactivated. Pig producers insist that those funds have been raised for a specific purpose and should be held available, should the need arise. In November, the Minister announced that, following the latest review of public spending, he would take the money from the pig disease eradication fund and use it for

"some of the Agriculture Department's activities".

Next Section

Home Page