| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): The Minister will be aware that most of the veterinary
profession believes that the science and technology is achievable and will be effective. However, there will be deep concern about the enforcement regime proposed by the Minister. If I heard him correctly, there is a glaring loophole. It seems that the obligation for checking and for making the scheme 100 per cent. effective, as he said, will lie with the private operators, the ferry companies and others, and that MAFF, or the Government, will do an audit or check only "from time to time". That is not good enough. If the full might of Her Majesty's immigration service cannot prevent massive numbers of illegal immigrants from coming into this country--the subject of another Bill--how does the Minister think that, by his Department, or the Government, opting out of the responsibility for checking all animals, the scheme can be enforced properly in future?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, although I understand his concern. He is right to be concerned that the public protection measures work; I am not quarrelling with him on that. However, it is not necessary to employ directly a person to check that the certificate pertains to the animal. As long as the person who is trained to do that knows what he is looking for, it is perfectly possible for that to be done with integrity by the private sector, as much as by the public sector. However, that procedure is only one part of the safeguard.
The essential part of the safeguard is that a professionally qualified, authorised person--in short, a vet--has checked the animal for its vaccine, and has made sure that the vaccine has been followed up by a blood test confirming that the vaccine has taken. If it has not taken, the vaccine will have to be given again. That information is recorded on the certificate, and we will then rely on the professional standards of the vet to make sure that that is recorded correctly. We do not require another professional to check; we require someone to check that the document pertains to the animal.
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire):
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, the terms of which are almost exactly the same as the recommendations made five years ago by the Select Committee on Agriculture. I recall that the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), told us that we had no chance of ever implementing them. In the intervening years, a lot of work has been done on the necessary technology and a lot of experience has been gained from other countries which employ parts of that technology. Is it not a long time until April 2001 for the full implementation? Is there any chance of that long wait being shortened, as people have waited a long time for the scheme?
Mr. Brown:
The Select Committee report was valuable. It informed our decision making in opposition and in government and was one of the reasons why we commissioned the original Kennedy report. On the time scale, I am not setting time limits; I am saying that we will get on with it. I want to get the pilot schemes up and running as soon as I can, but there are technical matters to be addressed, such as whether we have pre-entry checks or point-of-entry checks. The answers to such questions
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea):
There will be broad support for what the Minister has said, and appreciation of the patience and lack of prejudice that he has exercised since taking office--against, I suspect, some of the recommendations of senior officials within the Department.
The question of delay continues to arouse anxiety in some. In particular, will the pilot schemes be comprehensive, and will he accelerate them? Regarding his second meeting this afternoon with the kennel owners, I do not take the charitable view that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) articulated about that bunch of people. The Minister should bear in mind that, once their days are numbered, the already horrendous conditions that prevail in most of their establishments will continue as they are run down. He has a statutory responsibility to inspect those establishments, and that is not rigorously applied in many cases. Will he tell the kennel owners that there will be no fall in the frequency and intensity of the inspections during that running-down period, and that everyone expects them to live up to the obligations inherent in that responsibility?
Mr. Brown:
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I plan no change in the inspection regimes, which will continue as now. It is to the credit of the kennel owners' trade associations that they made the same point to me as he has made; although not in the same terms. They said that, if trade became more competitive, they would not want the standards in the sector to be driven down so that those with lower standards gained a competitive advantage.
There is no compulsion for different operators to take part in the pilot schemes--if those in one sector do not want to, that is a matter for them--but, at the meeting that I had with carriers yesterday, there was a great deal of interest in what the Government intended, and people asked questions, some of which were searching, but all along the lines of how they could participate. Officials are holding discussions with each sector, and we intend to proceed. I am more than happy to have pilot schemes for each sector, to avoid any competitive advantage. If they want it, there will be schemes for the rail operators, the port operators and the airlines.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the broad welcome for his statement? One of the exotic infections that worries the country is the rabid anti-Europeanism that infects the Conservative party. Does he agree that children, in particular, will welcome the announcement, because 14 million British people travel to the continent for holidays each year, and many families have to leave their pets behind? As we have seen, people who are separated from their pets could well grow up to be Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, and we certainly do not want that.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme is very good news for the British tourist industry? In the rest of the continent, people can travel with pets, with proper vaccination, but they are discouraged from coming here. I expect that we will have many more visitors from the continent to our wonderful tourist areas, including Rotherham in South Yorkshire, when they can bring their pets with them.
Mr. Brown:
I am pleased that the delights of Rotherham will be open to even more people than at present. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are a number of horrors to be avoided, and I will not list them all. He is also right to say that the pattern of family holiday taking on the continent includes the family pet, and I think that that will develop in this country as our citizens go abroad and as people come to visit us with their pets. If that can give a boost to the tourist industry, I welcome it.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
The Minister will be aware that the all-party animal welfare group has long pressed for the implementation of the Agriculture Committee's original recommendations. In that, we have been given tremendous support by Passports for Pets and various animal welfare organisations. I broadly welcome all that the right hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly, there are details that have yet to be tied up. We want the scheme to be implemented as soon as possible, but we accept that the welfare of the animals concerned, and broader animal welfare issues, are paramount.
I have just returned, within the past hour, from other parliamentary business in Canada, where considerable interest was expressed in the scheme that the Minister was obviously about to announce. The Canadians want to be included as swiftly as possible.
Will the Minister consider the very special circumstances of British diplomats serving abroad, and try to find a way of incorporating them in the scheme, wherever they are? Will he also consider special provision for hearing dogs for the deaf and guide dogs for the blind?
Mr. Brown:
Of course a special case can be made out for those dogs--that is at the forefront of my mind--but it may well be that we have the schemes up and running so quickly that there is no need to limit the pilots by category of dog owner. The needs of the blind or people with hearing dogs will be at the forefront of our consideration should there be any need to limit the schemes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |