| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fishing Industry
6. Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to involve United Kingdom fishermen in discussions on future developments in the industry. [4132]
Mr. Baldry: I regard dialogue and consultation with UK fishermen as imperative. I already hold regular consultations, meetings and pre-Council of Ministers briefing meetings with many of their representatives.
Mr. Harris: I appreciate and applaud all that my hon. Friend has done in this respect. Still, can he convince me and the House that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the depth of anger of our fishermen, especially in the south-west, about the fact that as from 1 January 40 Spanish vessels will be allowed into western waters? Moreover, our fishermen almost certainly face significant cuts in their quotas; and to rub salt in the wound, taxpayers will have to pay large sums in compensation to Spanish interests for the removal of those wretched flag-of-convenience vessels from our register. Can my hon. Friend tell me and my fishermen what future the fishing industry has?
Mr. Baldry: First, it is important that the House recognises that the Factortame judgment has absolutely nothing to do with the fisheries policy. It is a judgment, in the Advocate General's opinion, on the freedom of business association for individuals in the European Union. It has nothing to do with fisheries policy. Indeed, if we were to leave the common fisheries policy, the Factortame judgment would still stand. I of course appreciate the UK fishing industry's concerns that it must
have a long-term sustainable future, and every part of every policy that I take forward is bent on that end. Certainly at the Fisheries Council meeting next week I am determined to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen, consistent with the scientific advice and the need to sustain stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Government are always bragging about their opt-outs in the Common Market? Why do they not opt out of the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Baldry: This House decided by a considerable majority in the early 1970s to join the European Community. In joining it, we signed up to the common fisheries policy. When the Labour party sought to re-negotiate our terms of entry, not a word was mentioned about fishing policy.
Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend for taking time to meet representatives of Kent and Essex fishermen earlier in the year. Can he give us any further news on the non-sector quota? It is restricting the supply of fish to such traditional fisheries, to the point that--I am afraid-- today they are sawing up their boats on the beach.
Mr. Baldry: I am trying to see whether there are ways in which we can allocate more quota to the non-sector fishing industry. I appreciate my hon. Friend's points. The industry has very real concerns and I am trying to see whether there are ways in which we can meet them.
Veal Crates
7. Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to work for an EU ban on the use of veal crates. [4133]
Mrs. Browning: The Government have already achieved a review of directive 91/629 on the welfare of calves, bringing it forward from 1997. As a result, the Commission has obtained the advice of its Scientific Veterinary Committee and is on the point of putting proposals forward to the Council of Ministers. We shall press the Council for an end to the veal crate throughout the European Community and for changes to the unacceptable EU dietary requirements.
Mr. Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Is not the way forward for it not to be necessary for calves to be trans-shipped to Holland or wherever, and that the issue should be tackled by having a robust United Kingdom calf-rearing industry, which will meet the market's requirements? Is work not being done in that respect at the Rosemaund experimental husbandry unit near Hereford? Will my hon. Friend tell the House what progress is being made?
Mrs. Browning: The launch of the Rosemaund experimental unit has attracted much interest. We have worked with the Meat and Livestock Commission to target interest in the catering industry especially, where much of the Dutch-reared veal is used; veal reared in those unacceptable crates. I assure my hon. Friend that the unit has proved very successful in introducing to people who are interested in raising welfare-friendly veal in the UK ways in which to go about it in the most welfare-friendly manner.
Mr. Shore: Have the Ministry and the Commission in Brussels never heard of the word subsidiarity? If they have heard of the doctrine of subsidiarity, why do not they apply it to the veal trade? Why does the Ministry not come forward with legislative proposals in this House to ban the export of veal under the present conditions and then wait to be challenged, if need be, in the European Court?
Mrs. Browning: We took the decision in the House in 1990 unilaterally to ban the veal crate. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that if we are seriously interested in the welfare of animals generally in the European Union, it should be as much a matter of concern to know that just over the channel those deplorable practices continue. We in this country have led the way with the banning of veal crates, and we hope that as a result of our actions--this year I have visited other Agriculture Ministers personally about the issue--other countries will understand that we did it not from an emotional viewpoint but from one of very clear science that shows that it is not in the animals' best interest. We want to see that policy applied throughout Europe--not in little England with the drawbridge drawn up.
Mr. Gale: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the personal efforts that she has made to try to bring an end to a vile practice? We had hoped to see a ban imposed on the use of veal crates throughout the European Union by the end of the year. When does my hon. Friend think that a ban may be possible? I ask her and her departmental colleagues to seek to ensure that farm animal welfare has a proper place at the intergovernmental conference next year.
Mrs. Browning: I can assure my hon. Friend that at the meeting of the Council of Ministers next week my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be seeking to hear the results of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. We are hopeful that our policy will be taken forward in Europe. The presidency has expressed its interest and concern that progress should be made, as have, interestingly, the Italians, who will take over the presidency in January. There is continuity in Europe to take forward the policy.
It has been the Government's policy to seek European-wide policies on animal welfare. But that is not the Labour party's approach. I shall share with the House a letter from a shadow Opposition spokesman. It was written only last month to Franz Weber. It reads:
"Thank you for your letter about the transportation of live animals across Europe. I strongly support your call for an end to the current legal provisions which allow the export and transport of live animals for slaughter." Opposition Members should understand that the greater prize is to be concerned about the welfare of animals throughout the Community.
Right to Roam
8. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a right to roam; and if he will make a statement. [4135]
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): As emphasised in the recent White Paper on rural England, we believe that a general right to roam is not acceptable.
Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is already an excellent network of footpaths? Farmers have made much more effort to maintain those footpaths properly and consequently they have an excellent relationship with ramblers. Does my hon. Friend agree that a general right to roam would put at risk the present good relationship, break down trust and lead to quite of lot of environmental damage? Will he educate the Opposition? If they want to win votes in the countryside, they should drop the policy of a general right to roam.
Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend puts the matter in a nutshell. There is already a wide and satisfactory network of footpaths. We would not condone any failures to keep footpaths open. We believe that any imposed general right to roam beyond the present network of footpaths would elevate one interest above all others, institutionalise rights without obligations, upset rural communities and cause a great deal of damage.
Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) advocated introducing wolves into Scotland? It now appears that he wants to train them to attack people in cagoules walking across land. Surely there is a need to be reasonable. There are large areas of land that traditionally have been open. That was the position in the past. There has been access to them for generations. It is possible to have a right to roam that will not compromise crops or livestock. It would be balanced with the needs of the people generally and those of farmers. Let us have fewer smears in Government documents and more realism in understanding that a balance could be achieved.
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that freedom to roam in open country may be appropriate in certain circumstances. The vital ingredient that he omits is that of agreement. I know that it may come difficult given the Labour party's philosophy, but we think that agreement is the most important element. These issues are most appropriately decided by agreement between landowners and local people, as they conspicuously have been in many good examples.
Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend have any plans in the near future to meet representatives of the Ramblers Association? If he does, will he tell them that it is not necessarily sensible for them to appeal against every order made by a county council extinguishing or amending the route of a public footpath? Does my hon. Friend understand that many farmers are prepared to deal with the Ramblers Association and to maintain rights of way as long as they do not interfere with their farming practices?
Mr. Boswell: I strongly agree with my hon. and learned Friend that megaphone diplomacy is most inappropriate in these instances. Last summer, we invited the ramblers to discuss with officials any specific cases under our access schemes where they considered that provision was unsatisfactory. I regret that to date the ramblers have not responded to our invitation. They would be welcome if they came forward. We would like to hear their views in detail on that basis.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |