| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend runs out of time in this important debate, would he care to comment more on the charade that has taken this place today? By using a parliamentary tactic, Labour Members prevented discussion of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but not even 100 of them were present to take this Bill seriously.
Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I shall not try to outdo him on it. However, it was an absurdity.
Mr. Leigh: The fact is that Labour Members' hatred of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is greater than--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going well outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Gray: I would like to continue in the tone of even-handed, intelligent and careful thought with which I started my contribution.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: In one moment perhaps. The entire debate about fox hunting has achieved levels of passion on both sides that are extremely unhelpful. It should be a quiet and sensible debate about agriculture and the benefits to the countryside. We have heard about the many people who would lose their jobs if hunting with dogs were banned, and that might apply in my constituency more than any other. Many people there work in, support and take part in hunting. Supporters of the Bill have failed to consider the people who look after the horses that are used in fox hunting. I am chairman of the horse and pony taxation committee, and about 40,000 horses are kept exclusively for the purpose of fox hunting. Many of them--they are medium-quality horses--would have to be destroyed alongside the 27,000 foxhounds that would be put down. Many more hounds would have to be put down as a result of a ban on fox hunting than the 16,000 foxes that are killed in any one year. As to the Minister's suggestion that shooting and fishing would not be affected, the RSPCA has made it plain that it thinks that fox hunting, shooting and fishing should be banned. It has also made it plain that it believes that intensive farming should be banned. That devalues the evidence given by the RSPCA, which simply believes in banning anything to do with the countryside. It certainly devalues the Minister's comment that fishing and shooting would not be banned as a result of the Bill. That is the logical consequence, and the RSPCA shows exactly how such people think. It believes that anything to do with killing animals in any shape, size or form--and that includes intensive farming in the countryside--should be banned. That is a disgrace.
A ban on hunting with dogs would be a disaster for the rural economy; it would be a disaster for the environment and the countryside such as that in my--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 April.
Remaining Private Members' Bills
EXPORT OF FARM ANIMALS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Second Reading what day? No day named.
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Touhig.]
Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover):
I am pleased that my Bill to ban live animal exports lives to fight another day and to have a Second Reading, but in the meantime I should like to take the opportunity to rehearse the arguments for banning the export of live animals.
The election year of 1997 was not only a good year for the British people and the Labour party; it was a good year for British sheep. Fewer sheep were exported from our shores in that special year than in any other year in the decade. Even in 1997, however, more than 270,000 lambs and sheep were forced to endure the rigours of crossing the English channel and were exposed to further suffering on extended journeys across Europe--a suffering that often ends in slow, painful death at the hands of untrained and inept slaughtermen.
Since then, the number of exported sheep has risen dramatically, and figures from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food show that in 1999 the number of lambs and sheep exported for slaughter topped the 1 million mark, with more than 1.1 million being exported. That means that the inhumane trade has more than doubled in the past couple of years.
Before I came to the House, I was a merchant navy officer, and when I was sailing on deep sea vessels I regularly witnessed the live animal ships discharging their miserable cargoes in middle east ports. I have seen the injured and dying animals being dragged off the vessels with hooks and whole holdfuls of dead sheep being winched ashore in cargo nets. More recently, when I sailed on the Irish sea and the Dover cross-channel ferries, I saw the awful image of broken limbs protruding from animal trucks. In bad weather, I heard the cries and even smelt the fear of those wretched animals close up.
Those are some of the reasons why I want the UK to prohibit the export of live farm animals. A trade that regularly inflicts great suffering on living creatures has no legitimate part to play in a civilised and caring society, and it certainly has no part to play in the new fairer Britain that the Labour Government have set about building.
Today's animal exports, typically, are first sent to Belgium and Holland and, 24 hours later, re-exported to southern Europe. Many are trucked on appallingly long journeys to Italy, Greece and Spain, where they are killed in abattoirs using cruel and illegal slaughter methods. The journey to Italy can take 40 hours or more, and up to 100 hours to Greece.
Compassion in World Farming investigators have seen the state of the animals once they reach southern Europe. Many are exhausted and dehydrated, some are injured, and others have collapsed on the floor of the truck, where they have been trampled on by their companions. Yet others stick their heads out through the truck's ventilation slats, desperately panting and gasping for air. Their plight is due to overcrowding, the extreme heat in summer, the lack of water and proper ventilation on many trucks, and the sheer length of the journey.
In the worst cases, large numbers of animals die. Last August British sheep were left in the port of Bari in southern Italy for 48 hours, waiting for a ship to Greece.
They were kept in the trucks in blistering heat without any water. After repeated pleas from Compassion in World Farming, the Italian authorities at last relented and opened up the trucks, but by then many animals were already dead and many were gasping their last breaths. Those of us who have seen film of that will never forget it. Over the next few days, more animals perished. In all, 115 British lambs and 45 French sheep died in that disaster.
As long ago as 1993, a European Commission report concluded that
On this side of the channel, the exporters Farmers Ferry told me that they exercise the highest standards of animal welfare. That claim is derided by Kent Against Live Animal Exports, the local protest group, whose observers keep a close watch on port activities from the white cliffs of Dover.
The exporters' claims of high standards are hardly borne out by the Ministry's figures, which show that in the last seven months of last year, a massive figure of 12,558 sheep transported to Dover docks and destined for export were rejected by the local veterinary inspectors as unfit to travel. Some were already dead on arrival. It is a scandal that the exporters, who claim to have such high animal welfare standards, try to send so many unfit animals for export.
The problems are not confined to the long journeys. Equally disturbing are the slaughter conditions awaiting the animals at their journey's end. Last year Compassion in World Farming investigators visited three Greek sheep abattoirs. Two were making no attempt at all to stun the animals, which is not only cruel, but illegal under EU law. The third was stunning the animals, but so ineptly that they regained consciousness before having their throats cut.
Recently we witnessed one of the worst aspects of this wretched trade. Each year thousands of British sheep are exported to France for outdoor ritual slaughter during the Eid El Kabir festival. The animals are slaughtered without stunning, in the open air. They are held down on the ground and their throats are crudely cut while they are fully conscious. They are often left to bleed to death in agony. It is clear from the filmed evidence that the slaughtermen are untrained. They are seen hacking away at the sheep's throat with blunt knives, and the animals are seen writhing in their death agonies for several minutes before they eventually succumb.
Under both EU and French law, ritual slaughter must be carried out in abattoirs. The activities in the killing fields of Paris are expressly prohibited. However, neither the European Commission nor the French authorities take any meaningful action against these illegal acts. I urge the Government to make further and stronger representations on these matters.
All the suffering and cruelty inherent in the live export trade is unnecessary. Transporting animals hundreds of miles to slaughter is not a necessary part of the process of feeding ourselves. Most of the animals exported from
Britain will be slaughtered on arrival at their destination or shortly afterwards. It is senseless to subject animals to the misery of long journeys, only to slaughter them at journey's end. Animals should be sent to slaughterhouses as near as possible to the farm of rearing, and all our exports should be in meat form. Many respected organisations have echoed this approach.
With all the evidence clearly linking long journeys to bad animal welfare, it is disappointing that we still allow companies to ship live sheep from places such as the Gower peninsula to places such as the Greek islands. When will our Government begin to translate their warm words into concrete commitment and actively encourage the principle of slaughtering near to the farm of rearing, and transporting the product as meat?
A marvellous opportunity has arisen. The European Union transport directive was due for review at the end of last year. It must not lead to the EU simply tinkering at the margins of the problem, with some journeys becoming a little shorter and many becoming longer. That happened after the previous review in 1995. The EU must adopt a major change of policy whereby the long-distance transport of live farm animals is abandoned and replaced by a trade in carcases. I urge the Government to take a vigorous lead in persuading our EU partners to adopt that fundamental policy change, which will spare farm animals much suffering and will be so welcome to the public.
In the meantime, until this cruel trade is ended, EU transport directives must be much more rigorously enforced. Last year, the European Commission published five reports, which showed that EU laws that were designed to give animals at least some protection during transport are widely ignored in France, Greece, Italy, Belgium and Ireland. Compassion in World Farming has produced an excellent paper, which it has sent to the Minister. It shows how the enforcement of the directive could be improved. I urge the Government to take a lead in persuading our EU partners to adopt those practical and sensible suggestions.
I am disappointed that the Government have not succeeded in reducing the volume of live exports. I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary's often-repeated statement that he would prefer United Kingdom exports to be in meat form rather than live animals. None the less such statements have had little effect; live exports have more than doubled in the past two years, since our Government have been in office.
The time has come for new initiatives from the Government. First, they should urge farmers' leaders to join them in working out the details of a phased voluntary withdrawal from the live export trade. The Government should remind sheep farmers that they receive huge subsidies from the public purse and that in return for that financial aid, taxpayers are entitled to expect farmers to respond to public anxieties by pulling out of an inhumane trade.
Secondly, the Government should seek a derogation from EU rules to ban live animal exports, in the same way as the previous Government gained a derogation for horses and ponies. Thirdly, they should take the lead in persuading the EU to replace the long-distance transport of live animals with the meat trade.
Fourthly, the Government should urgently effect their warmly received 1997 decision to remove exporters' rights to select and pay for the services of local veterinary
inspectors. That is essential to demonstrate the inspectors' independence. We have waited nearly three years for its introduction.
The Government have resisted my past calls on behalf of animal welfare groups for a ban on live animal exports on the grounds that it would breach EU rules on free movement of goods. However, last year, a legally binding EU protocol on animal welfare came into force which recognises animals as sentient beings. It can therefore be argued that animals are no longer subject to EU rules on the free movement of goods. Many people believe that the Government should use that argument to justify a ban on live exports. The case should at least be tested.
2.32 pm
long distance transport in overstocked vehicles, combined with dehydration and starvation, results in very poor welfare and often in high mortality.
All the evidence shows that that remains the case, and there are extensive documentation and numerous directives supporting that simple link.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |