| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Animal Welfare
5. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress in the intergovernmental conference on raising the standards of animal welfare across the European Union. [13107]
Mrs. Browning: Discussions continue on our proposal for a protocol on animal welfare, which will place a legally binding obligation on Community institutions. I am pleased to report an encouraging response.
Mr. Brown: I am glad to hear that answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much opposition in this country to the export of any live animals? In recognising that that trade is, however, likely to continue, will she assure us that the progress being made in the intergovernmental conference will result in other European countries applying the same high standards on the issue as we have?
Mrs. Browning: That is our exact objective. It would place a legal obligation on the Community to take account of welfare requirements. I believe that we have a very good record in this country on the transportation of animals, which my hon. Friend particularly mentioned. We would like such standards to be applied and enforced throughout the Community.
Mr. Sheerman: When will the Government stop wringing their hands and give consumers a choice? In terms of animal welfare, what consumers want is to be able to walk into a shop or supermarket and buy a product made from an animal that they know has been treated humanely over its lifetime. Whether we are talking about animals or genetically modified food, the Government do not seem to understand that consumers want a good clear choice.
Mrs. Browning: Under new Labour, people probably do not do their own shopping any more--I suspect that
6 Feb 1997 : Column 1130
they send out for the groceries in Islington now--so I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if one goes into a supermarket, as most of us do every week, one finds that there is a choice. I am sorry that he has not heard of Freedom Foods, for example, which offers a range of foods and is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. [Interruption.] First the hon. Gentleman asks for something, then he denigrates those who are trying to provide it. He has demonstrated clearly that he is just making a bit of noise, and does not know what goes on in supermarkets. There is choice, and it is up to the consumer to decide whether to support those schemes, which sometimes add a few more pennies to the price of the product.
Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that many advances in the treatment of animals--those in relation to veal crates and transport conditions, for example--have been achieved in the teeth of European opposition? Does she also agree that, if we had not been content to be isolated in Europe, we would not have achieved those advances, whereas the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to be isolated in Europe?
Mrs. Browning: Absolutely. My hon. Friend speaks with the experience of representing a farming community, and he will be aware how important it is to farmers that farm animal welfare and animal transport be considered at a European level. It is not simply a question of what goes on here; we can do things on our own, as we have with veal crates, sow stalls and tethers, but that does not offer much comfort about what goes on over the channel. The Government have pressed for, and achieved, much better standards of animal welfare at the European level.
Mr. Tony Banks: Before the Minister starts patting herself and her colleagues on the head, will she tell me why we are exporting eight and 10-week-old piglets to Spain and France, especially when we know how intelligent those creatures are? What is happening about leghold traps? What progress is being made? I understand that Commissioner Brittan is ensuring that the ban on such traps will not be introduced. What is he doing for animal welfare in the European Union?
Mrs. Browning: I have received correspondence about consignments of piglets. The hon. Gentleman will know that, if people bring to our attention individual cases in which they believe the law has not been applied, I shall investigate them. I looked into the cases concerned, and I am satisfied that the animal welfare conditions were observed.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend make a vigorous protest to the Government of Greece about the fact that, during the recent lorry drivers' strike, horses were kept in horse boxes or lorries without food or water for eight days and then transported 1,500 miles to slaughter? Is it not time the Government of Greece and many other European Governments learned a bit about animal welfare?
Mrs. Browning: Indeed, but when we want to influence countries whose cultural background means that they take a very different view of such matters, it is no good simply castigating them. The Government have
6 Feb 1997 : Column 1131
spent many hours talking and negotiating with other countries and we have, for example, secured a Europewide agreement on animal transport, which is about to be applied. That will cover Greece, and I assure the House that, once the laws are in place, we shall expect the Commission to apply them, whether in Greece or anywhere else.
Mr. Morley: It is true that most people in this country do not support the live export of animals for slaughter; so it was surprising to hear the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting defending that practice. Does he not believe that most British farmers want their animals to be slaughtered in British slaughterhouses as near as possible to the point of production, so that value is added to British meat exports, rather than to be exported live for slaughter? The Minister also criticised the Labour party for receiving a substantial donation from the International Fund for Animal Welfare--a donation that we, unlike the Conservative party, made public. As the Conservatives have also accepted a substantial donation from the same organisation, will that donation now be repaid?
Mrs. Browning: On the last point, discussions are in hand. On the wider point, it is in everyone's interest to add as much value as possible to exports on this side of the channel. However, that is very different from the position of some Labour Members who have campaigned for the total banning of live animal exports and who signed an early-day motion on the matter some years ago. The hon. Gentleman will know that we export breeding pigs and, at one time, we exported nearly 400,000 calves--a trade that Opposition Members wanted to ban. These animals are now slaughtered when they are less than 20 days old. We will always need provisions for some live animal exports, and our objective is to make sure that conditions for those exports are good and are enforced--particularly on journeys on the other side of the channel.
Mr. Luff: Is my hon. Friend aware that all the farmers whom I meet in Worcestershire are rightly proud of the high standards of animal welfare that they maintain on their farms? Would not Opposition Members and animal welfare groups be better employed supporting the British Government in their efforts to ensure that the same standards of animal welfare are maintained on the other side of the channel?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If a person breaks the law either on farm or in transport, he or she must be brought to book. I always welcome people bringing information on any individual to me so that cases can be properly investigated. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that farmers in this country have been the best custodians of farm animal welfare. We have a good message to send, and it is one that we shall try to enforce throughout the Community.
Beef Exports
6. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the lifting of the ban on United Kingdom beef exports. [13109]
6 Feb 1997 : Column 1132
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I met the Agriculture Commissioner on 28 January to discuss our proposals for a certified herds scheme. We will submit those proposals in writing in the next few weeks and will press the Commission for an urgent decision.
Mr. Barnes: Is not the beef ban still 100 per cent. in place? Following the Florence agreement, did not the Prime Minister come here and say that the ban would be lifted by November? The Minister has mentioned that he has not yet submitted the proposals on certified herds, despite the fact that that matter has been raised and discussed in the House on numerous occasions. The Government jump about from place to place--so much that one would think that the agreement was not from Florence but from Zebedee.
Mr. Hogg: We have now implemented all five of the Florence agreement preconditions, and we are now looking to the European states to honour their part of the bargain.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets his counterparts in Europe, will he give them the latest figures on BSE? Can he confirm that, last year, there was a further and dramatic decline in the number of reported cases?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right. I am glad to say that the numbers of confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom are falling year on year by about 40 per cent., and we hope to see the effective end of the disease in the United Kingdom national herd by around 2001. The latest figures I have--which may be of interest to the House--are as follows: in 1994, there were 23,944 confirmed cases; in 1995, that had fallen to 14,076; in 1996, the number of confirmed cases as presently assessed was 7,202. More pathological tests are to be completed, but that shows the trend.
Mr. William Ross: Even after the cull is completed, the EC will still have to satisfy itself that any region of the United Kingdom is free from BSE. Will the Minister therefore press ahead with all speed to ensure that, as each region of the UK is certified as free from BSE, the EC will investigate and confirm that that is so? Will he also urge his noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to do what she can to sort out the problem of the suckler herd holdings?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has always been concerned about the flagged herds. I understand that, and I know that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary shares that concern.
We are indeed anxious to proceed with the slaughter as rapidly as possible. I anticipate that in Great Britain the slaughter will start before the end of the month, and we have already begun the process of tracing. I hope that we will complete the tracing and most of the slaughter within six months or so, and we are certainly anxious to involve the Commission by way of inspections and reports.
Mr. John Greenway:
Will my right hon. and learned Friend concede that the ban was wrong and unjustified in the first place; that the Government's actions since it was
6 Feb 1997 : Column 1133
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I share his view that British beef is the best and the safest in Europe. It is important that the European Union should agree to a proper offal regime in its abattoirs, as we have in ours. I regret the fact that the Agriculture Council decided not to accept those proposals from the Commission. It would be enormously helpful if the European Union would copy our measures in mainland Europe, so that the prohibition on the use of meat and bonemeal in food rations was extended to all farm animals.
Dr. Strang:
Is it the case that the Minister did not find time yesterday to apologise to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union for the fact that the Government have delayed the lifting of the beef ban by a whole six months by shelving the Florence agreement? Is it also the case that he did find time to insult his audience with a pack of nonsense about the Labour party?
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) reminded us, the Prime Minister said in July that the beef ban would be lifted in November. Will the Minister tell the House when he now expects the ban to be lifted?
Mr. Hogg:
I had a very interesting discussion with the National Farmers Union yesterday, in which I made a number of points, one of which was that, in respect of BSE-related expenditure, we had committed £3.3 billion, the equivalent of 2p on income tax. I asked whether those attending supposed that the Labour party would have done that; it was clear that they did not. When I raised the matter of the near certainty of the Labour party removing relief for inheritance tax purposes from agricultural land, I noticed that they all agreed with that. On the selective cull, I did not have to remind them, because they know full well that until October they were opposed to it.
Mr. David Nicholson:
Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to remind our European counterparts that in this country we have slaughtered 1.3 million predominantly healthy cattle; that we propose under the Florence agreement to slaughter a further 100,000 or so predominantly healthy cattle; and that, as he has just reminded the House, this process is costing the British taxpayer--predominantly, with some help from Europe--more than £3 billion? As we have public debates in the country over the next few weeks, not only the farming community but the taxpayers will show their resentment at the continued discrimination against British beef by our European counterparts, and at their failure to put their own house in order.
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend's points are correct in every respect.
6 Feb 1997 : Column 1134
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |