Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-35)
4 DECEMBER 2003
MR BEN
BRADSHAW MP, MR
GEORGE NOBLE,
MR STEPHEN
WENTWORTH, MR
IAN PICKARD
AND MS
ELISABETH JENKINSON
Q20 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am talking
about the Constitution. The second part of my question originally
was saying that there had been no change between the existing
Treaties and the Constitution and I think you were going to get
some legal help as to where the provisions in the Constitution
are the same as in the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Mr Bradshaw: I apologise for reading
out a note that I have been passed by my officials on this which
says, "Following UK accession a series of ECJ cases culminating
in case 804/79 established conservation of marine biological resources
as an exclusive competence. There is no change in the existing
Treaty to show this."
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So we have
now established that it is not in the Treaty and it is only in
the case of the European Court of Justice. Well, I am grateful
for that clarification which is not quite what you started asserting.
Q21 John Robertson: Animal welfare, Minister.
The draft Constitutional Treaty did not contain any protocol along
the lines of the protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty dealing with
animal welfare. The Italian Presidency has now proposed a new
Article, Article III-5a, reproducing the substance of that protocol,
and I have to say, having read Article III-5a, it is a bit thin
on the ground, but perhaps other questions will pull that out.
At first I thought it was quite good and then I read it and it
could be all things to all people at the end of the day. The question
for you is: is this a provision which the United Kingdom will
support?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, and in fact
we are very pleased because, as Mr Robertson quite rightly says,
in the original draft there was no reference to animal welfare
whatever and following on from the United Kingdom's success in
getting an amendment in the Amsterdam Treaty, we were very pleased
that we had succeeded, with other like-minded Member States, in
ensuring that there is a provision on the face of the Treaty for
the first time on animal welfare. Mr Robertson may also note that
if he compares it to the wording that we managed to achieve on
the Amsterdam Treaty, it is actually stronger. It adds fisheries,
technological development and space policies to the areas over
which animal welfare should be given full regard. These texts
can always be improved, but I think, on balance, we are satisfied
that we have achieved a great deal.
Q22 John Robertson: I know it does say,
"shall give full regard to welfare requirements of animals",
but each country has its own interpretation of that statement
and that is what bothers me more than anything else. Can you assure
me that there will be a common interpretation of these words so
that every country is abiding by the same rules and not their
own interpretation of them?
Mr Bradshaw: If it is in an area
which is immediately binding for the EU as a whole, for example,
like animal transport or the welfare of farm animals, yes. Mr
Robertson, I am sure, will know that the welfare of non-farm animals,
pets or wild animals is still and will remain an area of national
competence, but we will still be bound by what the Treaty says.
It may well be interpreted in those areas where nation States
retain the competence in different ways, but I think that rightly,
Mr Chairman, reflects the different cultural attitudes and traditions
of certain countries.
Q23 John Robertson: Therein lies the
problem, particularly in the transportation of live animals.
Mr Bradshaw: No, because the transportation
of live animals, because it is part of agriculture, is an EU competence.
We are currently negotiating, as the honourable Member might know,
a revision and a modernisation of the rules on animal transport.
We hope, if not at this month's Council just before Christmas
then very early in the New Year, to achieve a significant improvement
to the rules regulating the transport of live animals both in
terms of journey times and in terms of the kind of conditions
under which they are kept during transport and again the United
Kingdom has been in the lead on this.
John Robertson: Well,
I look forward to seeing that.
Q24 Mr David: Just to pursue the point
slightly, I agree with what you say that significant progress
has been made, but nevertheless, there is still that fundamental
weakness which existed in the protocol and now in the main body
of the Treaty which states that there will be regard for welfare
requirements of animals, but then of course it goes on to say,
". . . whilst respecting the legislative and administrative
provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular
to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage".
Now, as we all know, many of the abuses of animals are precisely
because of so-called religious rites and cultural traditions.
That is a weakness which remains, so do you see any possibility
at all of that issue being addressed in some way?
Mr Bradshaw: Well, apart from
the fact that I think not just in this country, but in the European
Union widely there is a growing recognition of the importance
of animal welfare as an issue, and I think that was reflected
in the fact that we achieved what we did with the protocol on
the amendments with the Amsterdam Treaty. This is better than
the protocol because it is actually in the Treaty for the first
time and the legal base is the same. However, if you are suggesting
that in the near future Spain should be forced to ban bullfighting
because other European Union countries do not like it, or we should
be forced to ban something that other European Union countries
do not like, for example, the ritual slaughter which is important
to our Muslim and Jewish communities, then I do not think that
is something that any Member State is yet ready to have determined
at European Union level. I think it is right that those issues
are still decided at the level of nation State.
Q25 Mr Steen: I do not think we should
beat around the bush, Minister, about animal welfare. He will
know that most Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies
are equally troubled by the issue of how animals are looked after,
not only in this country, which I think has greatly improved,
but in European countries. I am not saying that they are all barbarians,
but I do think that the way animals are cared for is appalling
in many of our rich European countries and by treating them badly,
not only is that against our human mores, but, more important,
they cram as many chickens as they can in the most appalling conditions
and pigs are appallingly treated in many of the European countries.
The result is a financial one. I used to have lots of pig farms
in South Hams, but I can count them on one hand now. They cannot
make a living because they have got to abide by all of the pig
rules and regulations of this country and quite rightly they do
and the pigs are much better treated here, but it costs more.
The Danes and the Spaniards, among others, are not caught under
the same laws. What I am really asking you is this: rather than
saying everything is wonderful and the Convention is superb and
the Treaty is the best thing since sliced bread, is the Government
really going to kick this out and say, "Look, we are not
prepared to do a deal on this whole Treaty and this whole Constitution
unless we have", this awful phrase, "a level playing
field for animal welfare", because it is not like for like?
I do not know what the Poles do and I have got no idea what the
Estonians or the Latvians do on animal welfare, but the Commission
is so inadequately staffed, they have not got a clue either of
what is going on and the whole area of animal welfare concerns
me and I wonder if it concerns you, Minister.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, it does, although
I was slightly confused by Mr Steen's argument because he began
by saying that animal welfare is very important and the way that
chickens and other animals are kept has been appalling, but, on
the other hand, he complained about farmers being put out of business
when the Government has demanded that they took animal welfare
precautions and measures. There is always a balance to be struck
here.
Mr Steen: I will just put you
right, if I may. I am saying that if one country has high standards
which cost more and the others do not, the people who are in the
farming community in the areas, in the countries improving the
quality of welfare get put out of business because they cannot
produce the same goods as they do in the other countries at the
same price. That is what I am actually saying, so that is the
argument, that we should be doing what we are doing, but we should
see that in the other European countries, they actually are enforced,
particularly in the new countries coming in. That is the point
I am making. I do not say our standards are marvellous, but they
are better than some of the Eastern Bloc countries. Certainly
in France, what about pâté de foie gras? It
is absolutely disgraceful the way these geese go round and round
until—
Chairman: I think the Minister
gets the gist.
Q26 Mr Steen: Pâté de
foie gras is something you can understand.
Mr Bradshaw: I understand very
well the point Mr Steen is making, Mr Chairman. All I would say
is that it is another one of these things I would add to the Euro-mist
which is that we are the only country which has high animal welfare
standards, which is actually not true. It is not true. It was
true in the past that in the pig industry the standards that were
required legally in this country were higher than those demanded
by the European Commission, but the European Commission has now
caught up and the Commission does regularly visit and inspect
other countries to make sure that they are complying with animal
welfare standards. It may well be the case that in some areas,
in some countries those animal welfare standards are not being
met, but the rules in the European Union are the rules and there
is in law at least a level playing field which the Commission
tries its best to make sure is observed. Certainly as a government,
I am interested in high animal welfare standards because I think
it is in our interests, but I am not interested in imposing extra
burdens on our industry which put them at a competitive disadvantage
not just with other European Union nations, but also with trading
nations outside the European Union who import a lot of animal
produce to the European Union, but from places where animal welfare
standards are far lower.
Q27 Mr David: Some of Mr Steen's concerns
might be addressed if the welfare of animals were actually included
in Article III-123 so that animal welfare became an objective
of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Mr Bradshaw: I do not understand
the point that the honourable Member is making. There is a reference
to animal welfare on the face of the Treaty. Was he suggesting
there was not?
Q28 Mr David: I was suggesting that it
should be included as one of the improvements of the Common Agricultural
Policy and my understanding is that at the moment it is not.
Mr Bradshaw: Well, we are satisfied
with the wording as it stands in Article III-5a where it makes
clear that in implementing the Union's Common Agricultural Policy,
it adds fisheries, transport, internal market research and it
adds technological development and space policies that Union Members
should pay full regard to. Now, we implicitly take that as the
Common Agricultural Policy and the honourable Member himself may
know that in terms of our own UK legislation, away from farmed
animals for a moment, the Government proposes to update our animal
welfare legislation, most of which is nearly 100 years old, in
the form of a Bill which we hope to publish in draft in the spring
which will give members of this Committee and others in Parliament
another bite at the cherry, if you like, on animal welfare.
Q29 Mr David: You mention and you have
accepted, as far as the Government is concerned, that it implicitly
implies the Common Agricultural Policy, but being implicit is
not enough and I would suggest it ought to be explicit.
Mr Bradshaw: It does not concern
me, Mr Chairman, because we have achieved a lot already in terms
of animal welfare in the European Union and in the Common Agricultural
Policy with a worse Treaty-based text, if you like, than the one
that we are hoping to achieve now, so I am confident that with
this improvement, we will be able to make even more progress.
Q30 John Robertson: I think there is
a conflict there, Minister, between the CAP and Article III-5a
in that one could take precedence over the other. I think the
great fear is that the CAP would have first call because it would
have a direct effect on the requirements on the internal market
and, therefore, animal welfare goes flying out of the window.
Mr Bradshaw: I do not think it
will, Mr Chairman. I think this is a really important point because
if you look at the reforms that were achieved in the summer to
the Common Agricultural Policy, my view, and I think probably
the view of my Department, would be that they have enormous potential
to improve animal welfare. The Common Agricultural Policy now
is no longer going to be based on units produced, so people are
not going to receive money for, going back to Mr Steen's point,
cramming chickens into cages or pigs into pens. They will receive
subsidy insofar as they do in the livestock sector for other things
than production, so I think there are huge potential animal welfare
benefits to be got from the reform of the Common Agricultural
Policy and we just have to make sure that it is implemented in
a sensible way.
Q31 John Robertson: I would like to think
you are right. I would like to believe that you are right and
you believe what you say, but the problem is that other people
might not and that is why I would like to see something put into
Article III-123 which would solve that problem of conflict.
Mr Bradshaw: I do not see that
there is a conflict there, Mr Chairman.
Q32 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: One source of
distress and suffering in animals can be research and experiments
carried out on animals. Is the Minister worried by Article II-13
of the proposed Constitution which says, "Scientific research
shall be free of constraints"? This comes from the Charter
of Fundamental Rights which now is fully incorporated into the
Constitution, as the Minister knows. I know that the Minister
is not responsible for laboratory animals, but a lot of research
is carried out outside laboratories, on farms and so on, as I
have seen, and it can be a source of severe suffering in animals.
I am certainly worried that this unqualified statement that scientific
research should be free of constraints could be used to override
any well-meaning provisions elsewhere in the Constitution and
certainly the apparent conflict there and it is not at all certain
that good will prevail in this, so could he comment on that and
whether he is taking measures to modify it?
Mr Bradshaw: I would be worried
if there was not a very encouraging trend, not just in this country
but in the rest of the European Union to improve the conditions
of animals that are kept and used in experiments. As Mr Heathcoat-Amory
rightly says, this area of animal welfare is the one area of animal
welfare which is not in my Department but is the responsibility
of the Home Office. I would be more worried if the text of Article
III-5a did not include formulating and implementing the Union's
technological development. This is the first time this has been
mentioned in European Union treaties, which I would certainly
take to include animals used for experimentation and for research
purposes that the Honourable Member just mentioned.
Q33 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister
is again here relying on the hopes that future legislators will
take sensible decisions. I am worried by the text as it will be
interpreted legally, there is an apparent unrestricted right here
to conduct scientific research and therefore somebody inventing
new forms of super productivity on farms can do horrible things
to farm animals and when someone tries to stop him he will say,
"I have a right under the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights
that is fully judiciable, I shall be free of constraints"
and therefore all of this welcome trend towards dignity and regard
for animal welfare could be jeopardised. That is what concerns
me. Could you address yourself to the actual text which is legally
binding?
Mr Bradshaw: If it would reassure
the Committee I am happy to ask my Home Office colleagues to write
to the Committee about how they interpret the exact wording that
Mr Heathcoat-Amory is referring to. I have to say I do not share
that concern because certainly under existing law in those areas
of animal welfare where Defra is responsible there are very strict
rules and nobody is suggesting those rules are going to change.
In fact the reference made to animal welfare in the new Treaty
is broader than that and includes research and technological development
as well as agriculture. If anything I am more reassured that this
Treaty will help us to continue to make more rapid progress on
animal welfare not just in agriculture but also the welfare of
animals used in scientific research, an area again in which the
United Kingdom has taken the lead in restricting the types of
animals used, for example the ban on animal testing for cosmetics.
We will continue to make progress in that area. I will get my
Home Office colleagues to write to the Committee with clarification
if you think that would be helpful.[2]
Q34 Mr Steen: It is very refreshing to
see a witness with the enthusiasm and idealism of youth in the
shape of the Minister, but when you have been in the House as
long as I have you will realise a lot of this optimism may be
misplaced. In particular I am just wondering what investigations
you and your Department have made as to the Commission's ability
and progress in evaluating and checking just whether they are
looking at animal welfare. My feeling is that the Department and
the Commission that deals with these matters has one man and a
dog—the dog is important—I wonder if you could do
some work on this to see to what extent there is a valuation of
this? The second thing I want to ask you is this, and it may not
be in your competence, in my constituency a lot of animals have
an enormous amount of hormones injected into them so you do not
end up with animals with disease but you then find you are eating
this animal which is full of chemicals, I am just wondering whether
there is some standard that the Minister involved with this and
his fellow agriculture and fisheries ministers could look at to
regulate the amount of injections and chemicals that are pumped
into these animals.
Mr Bradshaw: Absolutely. I am
delighted to have this opportunity to update Mr Steen with the
news that the injection of farm animals with hormones for growth
has been illegal for some time in the European Union. There is
still a little use of that when it comes to antibiotics as a treatment
for various medical conditions which some people have in the past
worried about and can double up as growth enhancers. Great strides
forward have been taken. To return Mr Steen's initial point, I
have always found Mr Steen a great optimist, like myself, somebody
who believes in the possibility of improving the lot of humankind
and I am sure each generation that comes through this place will
be doing its best to achieve that as he has done in very many
areas in his long, prestigious and distinguished political career.
Q35 Chairman: Minister, thank you very
much for your optimism and your robust response to our questions
today, we found it very, very interesting. As I said earlier it
is nice to see somebody come along as a Minister who was a former
colleague of ours. I hope that you found our hospitality as warm
as you would expect it to be and we all certainly appreciated
your robust evidence to us today.
Mr Bradshaw: It is very nice to
be among old friends, Mr Chairman.
2 See page Ev 9.
Back
|
