House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Apr 2000 (pt 23)

2.44 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on obtaining the debate. I hope that it is a small consolation for his not yet having had an opportunity to discuss his private Member's Bill. I recognise the sincerity of his comments on live exports. He has been a strong campaigner and has reflected the views not only of many his constituents but of a great many people in this country generally, including livestock farmers who are concerned about live exports for slaughter.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government have made their position clear on a number of occasions. Our preference is for meat exports, not live animal exports, which is right not only for the welfare of the animals, but for the added value to meat exports, for jobs in our country, for the economy and for our meat and slaughter industry. Exporting live animals also means exporting jobs and that should not be forgotten in terms of the rural economy and the issues that the Government are trying to address. It is also worth pointing out that live exports represent only about 5 per cent. of lamb exports. The vast majority are meat, so the argument about the overall economic impact of live exports is strong and it would surely be preferable to maximise meat exports. Much more attention should be paid to them rather than to live exports.

The Government welcome farmers coming together in marketing groups and support their co-operative ventures. Farmers have come together to establish their own ferry service for exporting lamb to the continent, which is a good principle, and I am encouraged that, according to recent reports, the Farmers Ferry board is investigating the use of the ferry for meat as well as live exports. It

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1340

should be just as easy for a facility that can handle livestock transporters and all the problems that go with them to take refrigerated vehicles carrying meat for export and we hope that the investigation will develop.

Many people in the livestock sector accept that there is a strong reaction to live exports. They are looking for the best return for their business and their products and we understand that, which is why we want to explain certain issues relating to meat exports. I have had talks with the National Sheep Association about the potential for meat export opportunities and we also know that companies are considering the establishment of ethical veal production in this country and the export of meat to the continent. The calf export trade has been halted and there is no prospect of it being restarted in the immediate future.

We accept that there are problems with long-distance live exports. There is also abuse on some occasions, particularly on the continent when animals exported from this country go to their legal destinations in France, Belgium or Holland and are sold on, loaded on to other vehicles and transported again. They are completely outside United Kingdom control. Monitoring depends very much on the member states responsible, and the Commission is responsible for enforcement. We have been scrupulous in our inspections and have tightened the procedures. We have also tried to be open and transparent. For example, the Departments website gives information about the number of animals going through Dover and the number rejected by our inspectors there. We must bear in mind that the primary inspection is carried out by the local veterinary inspector when the animals set off. There is a second inspection at Dover, which the Ministry established to make sure that there was no obvious problem with animals going through.

We take firm action within the law in relation to live animal exports and I understand my hon. Friend's case for changing the law to stop them completely, but we cannot do that at present. The European Court has established that live exports are part of the single market. Therefore, they are legal. We do not have the power to stop them, but we do have power to regulate and inspect them. We can ensure that journey plans are enforced, and that the animals are in good condition and are inspected properly--and we do that. We refuse to authorise long-distance journey plans in the summer when the ambient temperatures of the countries that the animals will pass through present a risk to their well-being. We also refuse to approve journey plans if we are not satisfied that there are proper facilities to cater and to care for the animals at their destination.

Sir Richard Body (Boston and Skegness): The United Kingdom Government have not yet invoked article 36 of the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Morley: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman has a good record on animal welfare issues. Article 36 is now article 30, and has been changed slightly. We have considered using article 36, but our legal advice is that we cannot do so on live exports. One of the cases taken to the European Court by Compassion in World Farming was based on article 36. It argued that we could stop the export of calves, which were going into systems that were illegal in this country. The European Court ruled that we could not, so we have a clear court ruling on that.

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1341

It is interesting that some Conservative Members who are arguing that we should use article 36 to stop pig imports argued against using article 36 to stop calf exports. That is an inconsistent position.

My hon. Friend gave two appalling examples of the abuse that occurs with long-distance transport. In the Bari case animals were being transported to Greece but were held up in Italy waiting for the ferry in the summer heat. The suffering of those animals must have been intense, and many of them died. Although they may have included some British sheep, the journey plan had not been authorised in the United Kingdom, and it would not have been authorised at that time of year. The sheep were sold legally and the company abided by the law, but they were sold on to another company who transported them to Bari and did not comply with EU law. We certainly need to address that problem.

There is also the issue of the appalling slaughter of animals for Eid El Kabir. If I were a French Minister, I would be ashamed to be associated with what has been going on. We have made representations to the French authorities. Although they have said that they recognise the problem and are taking steps to deal with it, I am sorry that, to say that it does not appear from the video evidence I have seen recently that much has been done to improve the situation.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently written to Commissioner Byrne to say that the regulation of standards is a European issue and should be properly enforced. Many hundreds of people from this country have written to the Commission and to the French authorities expressing their concern.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, we have a Muslim population. I am glad to say that we have sat round the table with Muslim organisations to talk about such problems. Through discussion and with the support and co-operation of Muslim organisations in the UK, we have made it illegal to carry out any religious slaughter that does not involve a proper slaughterhouse and a licensed slaughterman. I am sorry that the French have not done the same. I hope that they do so.

My hon. Friend talked about translating warm words into action. I understand his frustration, because he has campaigned on this issue for so long and with such sincerity on behalf of the many people concerned about the export of live animals. It is not easy for the Government, because we must abide by the law and work within the legal system. We are doing what we can to translate our preferences into action. For example, a brand-new slaughterhouse is being built in Wales. That will be important to the sheep market, and to Welsh sheep producers. The Government are supporting it with structural grants.

We are reviewing the transport regulations. I agree with my hon. Friend that the current European Union-wide review of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 gives us an opportunity to address ourselves to some of

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1342

the problems and abuses. It is perfectly legitimate for us to consider, for instance, why it is necessary to transport live animals over such long distances, whether the system can be properly enforced, and whether the enforcement is being properly applied or needs to be tightened in certain respects. Incidentally, we are conducting our own national review of the order.

I can give my hon. Friend a clear undertaking that we will look carefully at the Compassion in World Farming paper, which proposes ways in which the situation can be improved. Compassion in World Farming has made a number of suggestions to the Government on a range of issues. Its proposals for improvements in animal welfare are often sensible, reasonable and well argued, and we shall take its current proposals seriously. It should be borne in mind that we start from the premise that meat exports are far preferable to live exports, from the point of view of the livestock sector as well as the welfare point of view.

My hon. Friend mentioned local veterinary inspectors, who are currently appointed by the exporters. We propose that they should be appointed by MAFF. It is part of a two-stage change, stage one of which has been implemented. Stage one involved our establishing minimum benchmark standards for all local veterinary inspectors involving, for instance, the time that they spend on inspections that they conduct on the Ministry's behalf. We have consulted on the appointment of inspectors by MAFF; we have received a response, and are now involved in the final stage of the process, which consists of consulting the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Following devolution, we must obtain their opinions. We await their response, and I hope that we can make a decision as quickly as possible.