|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 91-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
FISHERIES AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE EU DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY
Thursday 4 December 2003 MR BEN BRADSHAW, MP, MR GEORGE NOBLE, MR STEPHEN WENTWORTH, MR IAN PICKARD and MS ELISABETH JENKINSON Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 35
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the European Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 4 December 2003 Members present Mr Jimmy Hood, in the Chair Mr Michael Connarty Mr Wayne David Mr David Heathcoat-Amory Mr Mark Hendrick Angus Robertson John Robertson Mr Anthony Steen ________________ Witnesses: MR BEN BRADSHAW, a Member of the House, Parliamentary Secretary for Nature Conservation and Fisheries, MR GEORGE NOBLE, Head, Animal Welfare Division, MR STEPHEN WENTWORTH, Head, Fisheries Directorate, MR IAN PICKARD, European Union Agriculture and Co-ordination Division, MS ELISABETH JENKINSON, Legal Department, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, examined. Q1 Chairman: Minister, welcome to the European Scrutiny Committee. We were just discussing before you came in whether it might be a good question for a pub quiz sometime to ask if there had ever been a minister appearing before the Scrutiny Committee who had previously been a member of the Scrutiny Committee. I cannot think of one, but Jane, who was on the Committee long before I was, tells me that she will have to research it because she thinks there may have been an occasion. I think this is the first occasion we have had a minister visit us who has been a former member of the Committee and because you are a former member you will be very relaxed, because you know how we operate and you will probably have been looking forward to this, as we have. Could I invite you to introduce your colleagues, please? Mr Bradshaw: On my immediate right is Stephen Wentworth who is Defra's Director of Fisheries, on his right is George Noble who is the Head of Defra's Animal Welfare Division, on my left is Ian Pickard who is the Head of Future of Europe Branch in our European Union Agriculture and Co-ordination Division and who has been responsible for coordinating our Department's input to the new EU Constitutional Treaty, and on his left is Elisabeth Jenkinson from Defra's Legal Department who has been advising on the draft Constitution. It is a pleasure to be back. Q2 Chairman: It is a pleasure to have you back, Minister, and I genuinely mean that. A few people have left this Committee and gone on to higher places and you are one of them, so we are very pleased about that and glad to have you. Article 12(1) of the draft Constitutional Treaty makes the conservation of marine biological resources an exclusive competence, with the result that the UK will have no power to adopt conservation measures even within its coastal and inshore waters. Are you content with this provision? Mr Bradshaw: I do not except the premise of your question, Mr Chairman. There is actually no change to the EU competence on fisheries recommended in the draft Constitution. If I can perhaps quote from our original Act of Accession back in the 1970s which made it quite clear: "The Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring the protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea." Marine conservation has always been an exclusive competence of the European Union. That does not mean to say that the United Kingdom is not free to act in a number of areas and I can go on to list those, but your Committee might find it helpful if I leave you a copy of a letter that the Foreign Secretary wrote in response to one from the honourable Member for Banff and Buchan back in August when he made exactly the same point and he has written a great long letter listing all the areas where we will still be free, as we always have been, to take conservation measures. Chairman: That would be helpful, Minister, thank you. Q3 Angus Robertson: Welcome to the Committee, Minister. I have got a long briefing document from the House of Commons' Library which goes through various items of agricultural policy which are exclusive to the European Union. I am interested as to why there are no exclusive competences in the field of agriculture listed in Article 12 yet fishing is? Mr Bradshaw: I do not know. I am not responsible for agriculture, Mr Chairman, but I am happy to write to the honourable Member and to your Committee on that. I do not know if any of my officials who have been involved in the agricultural discussions can answer that question. Mr Pickard: The question of shared competence is in a sense an objective distinction which is very clear in terms of exclusive competence exercised by the Community. In areas of shared competence Member States have the right to propose and make their own laws in areas where the Community has not done so, but the fact that the Community does so does not take away that distinction and it does not make it an exclusive competence area, it remains an area of shared competence in which the Community has acted and in that sense has restricted the ability of Member States to make proposals and legislation themselves, but it does say that in those areas the Member State could have powers and make legislation proposals where the Community has ceased to exercise competence. So it is not a requested idea to say they have now exercised competence so we must treat that as exclusive because that takes away the opportunity that they might no longer use that competence and that would then fall back to Member States. Q4 Angus Robertson: That is all very interesting, but I have asked this question of the Leader of the House who was the Government's representative on the Convention and it seems that there is a different treatment of different policy areas within the draft Constitution and, with the greatest of respect, I do not think I have had an answer as to why is it that elements of policy relating to agriculture, which are currently exclusive, are being treated differently with respect to fisheries, which is one of the four areas of exclusive competences within the draft Constitution. This seems pretty important. Why is one policy area being treated differently from another? Mr Bradshaw: I do not think they are, Mr Chairman. I am not qualified to talk about agriculture, but what I am qualified to say is there has been no change on fisheries and my understanding is there has been no change in terms of competence in the Treaty as a whole. Q5 Angus Robertson: This is a follow-up question in terms of the genesis of why certain things are in the Constitution and why certain things are not and how the UK Government has dealt with this, and I know the Minister sitting here today is not directly responsible for this but perhaps his advisers would be able to help the Committee in understanding this. I have long had a concern about this issue and it is a concern that the Committee has also had in its reports about this issue, and one of the reasons why I have had concerns about this is that when I asked the Minister for Fisheries on 4 June, at a meeting that I attended with fisheries representatives from around the UK, about the UK Government's view on this very issue he said to me that he did not know anything about it and he advised me to go to the Foreign Office and speak to them about it. It seems to me that there is a very robust line coming from the Minister and yet only a few months ago there seemed to be absolute ignorance about what it was all about. Can you shed some light on why there is now a much stronger line coming out of the Department than previously? Mr Bradshaw: I do not understand the premise of your question. Q6 Angus Robertson: The Convention started in February of this year, so this issue was a matter of discussion and debate from February. Between February and June obviously the Fisheries Minister had absolutely no involvement or discussion or debate about the role of fisheries within the draft Constitution. Why is it that he knew nothing on 4 June about this? Mr Bradshaw: I only became fisheries Minister in July, Mr Chairman. Q7 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The document that defines competencies - at the minute it is a Treaty, obviously - and Articles 32 to 38 on agriculture, which include fisheries now, do not claim an exclusive competence over conservation matters, nor can I find it anywhere else in the Treaties. The draft Constitution does claim in unambiguous terms and the definition of a shared competence is that Member States cannot legislate at all in this area without permission, so there has been a change in the Treaties. The Minister said that there were certain areas where we would have an ability to legislate notwithstanding the claim exclusive competence. Perhaps he could give us some examples of where it will not be exclusive. Mr Bradshaw: I will happily do that, Mr Chairman. The copy of the latest draft of the Treaty that I have specifically refers under "areas of exclusive competence" to the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the same as the language I quoted from our Act of Accession back in the 1970s. Q8 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can we have a reference, which Article? Mr Bradshaw: This is Article 12(1). Q9 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: That is in the Constitution. I am asking where it is claimed in the Treaties? Mr Bradshaw: In the existing Treaties? It is Article 102 of our Accession Treaty. Q10 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am not talking about the Accession Treaty. I will ask the question again. This is the Treaty that defines Member States' competence in this area and the relevant Articles I gave before. There is a change between that and the draft Constitution which the Minister, quite rightly, referred to, it is Article 12, it is a change in exclusive competence and yet the Minister is saying there has been no change. I want him to point out where the saying exclusive competence is asserted in the Treaties. Mr Bradshaw: I may ask one of my officials if they know the answer to that. I think the point remains that there is no change of competence when it comes to fisheries policy proposed in the draft Treaty, it is exactly the same as it has always been, that is the exclusive competence on conservation rests with the European Union and shared competence is in all other areas of policy. If I can quote from the letter I referred to earlier that the Foreign Secretary wrote to the honourable Member for Banff and Buchan: "Examples of where the UK could act independently, even in the exclusive competence field, include the ability to take non-discriminatory conservation measures up to 12 miles offshore, the right to take temporary emergency conservation measures where there is evidence of serious and unforeseen threat to the conservation of living aquatic resources, the right to request the Commission to take emergency conservation measures," - as we did recently for the deep sea coral reefs off the Darwin Mounds - "the ability to take conservation and management measures in all waters provided they are applicable solely to UK flagged vessels." In the field of shared competence the examples of where the UK can act independently include the authority to restrict fishing by non-UK vessels in waters up to 12 miles offshore, to vessels that traditionally fish in those waters, only UK vessels are allowed to fish within six miles, UK controlled and enforcement, including licensing and penalties, measures for the management of UK fleet capacity and representation of UK overseas territories in regional fisheries organisations. There is a lot more than that, Mr Chairman, and I am happy to leave you that letter. Q11 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister mentioned the 12 mile limit and it is true that a Council regulation dated 20 December 2002 gives us the ability to take conservation measures within the 12 mile limit, but that regulation is derived from the existing Treaty. There is no reference to the 12 mile limit or those permissive derogations in the draft Constitution so how can the Minister be certain that that regulation will not be repealed and replaced with something under the Constitution that does not refer in any way to a national 12 mile limit? Mr Bradshaw: That could happen now if there was agreement within the Common Fisheries Policy, but it does not change as a result of the draft Constitutional Treaty. Q12 Mr Connarty: It is quite clear that the Minister is defending the position that was there before because he thinks that is perfectly adequate. I hope it has been registered from some quarters, particularly in Scotland, that people do not think the present provision is adequate and this was a chance to amend our position. We have had a similar discussion about energy where some would argue all that was happening in the Energy Chapter is a restatement of policy and that restatement of policy had caused great concern to the oil and gas industry. Clearly the debate that has been going on for some time is that the present competence arrangement is of grave concern to people in the fisheries industry and people believe that their economy, particularly the Scottish economy, has been damaged by that competence. It does seem that we are in a position where, since it is attached to the Common Fisheries Policy, it could either increase or decrease the interpretation of that exclusive right at any time. Does the Minister agree with that? He seemed to say so in his last reply. Does he not think that, similar to energy policy, we should have asked for some strong belt and braces measures to safeguard the arrangements that allow that exclusivity to be modified? Mr Bradshaw: No. What I am keen to do, Mr Chairman, is to address some of the myths that have been spread, particularly in Scotland, by the Conservative Party and the Scottish Nationalists that this Treaty is about increasing or expanding European competence on fisheries; it is not. We know why they are spreading these myths. It is because both those parties' official policy is to leave the Common Fisheries Policy - I do not know if anyone has seen the Leader of the Tory Party, he is supposed to be lunching today with "friendly" centre right parties in Paris - and they see anything like this in that light. I happen to believe and the party that my honourable friend represents happens to believe that to leave the common fisheries policy as those parties suggest would be absolutely devastating to our fishing industry and would not be without us leaving the European Union as a whole and that is why I am trying to be absolutely clear about this, to nail this myth once and for all. Q13 Mr Connarty: I am very pleased for the Minister to do this and I am glad he has got it off his chest. The point is we still have a duty to perform on the Scrutiny Committee. Is there not a better deal you can get for the UK under the present policy? It does seem to me that there is something odd about the scope of the exclusive competence over conservation of marine biological resources as defined by the reference to the Common Fisheries Policy which is the shared competence. It does seem to me that that shared competence can be removed because the Commission v United Kingdom judgment actually said, "Member States are therefore no longer entitled to exercise any powers of their own in the matter of conservation matters in the waters under their jurisdiction." Do you agree that if that was to be interpreted entirely without any exclusions being allowed - and it could have been, that is my point - we could lose some conservation controls that we have at the moment and the EU could assume entire control of those matters? Mr Bradshaw: I think the honourable gentleman makes my point for me, that as we are at the moment the European Union has exclusive competence over marine conservation issues. That does not mean to say that the UK cannot at the moment and will not in future be able to take certain measures. He is absolutely right, it is possible for the UK Government to fight for better deals for their own fishing industry, which is something we try to do regularly at annual Council meetings. He will be aware that, led by the EU, the European Commission instigated probably the most radical overhaul of the Common Fisheries Policy we have seen in a generation at last December's Council which we think puts the Common Fisheries Policy on a much more sensible, environmentally sustainable footing and one which will guarantee a sustainable and profitable future for our fishing industry. That is the way to fight for our fishing communities, not to pedal this false hope that somehow all of their problems are going to be resolved if we withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy, as is proposed by the Scottish Nationals. Q14 Mr Steen: It is delightful to see you in the ministerial seat bearing in mind you started off here as a modest backbencher around this table. I have, as you know, the second largest fishing port in England and Wales in my constituency. I do not think many of the fishermen are terribly enamoured by the Common Fisheries Policy. What they keep saying is "It's our fish. Why don't we have a share of the trees in Scandinavia? Why don't we have a share of the coal in Germany? Why do they have a go at our fish?" You said a moment ago that if we left the Common Fisheries Policy it would be disastrous and I could not understand why. Mr Bradshaw: I am not sure whether the honourable gentleman is saying that he is a supporter of his party's official policy on this, I suspect he is not. One of the reasons is that fish, unlike trees, move around, Mr Chairman, and they are no respecter of national boundaries. Were we to try, which I have already indicated would be difficult without leaving the European Union as a whole, to leave the Common Fisheries Policy we would then have to renegotiate all of those agreements that we make as a member of the Common Fisheries Policy with the individual countries that we share our waters and fisheries with, who have an historical record of catching in our waters, as we do in theirs and we would, on top of that, be trying to negotiate with non-EU fisheries nations like the Faeroese, Norway and Iceland on our own. Does anybody here honestly think that an isolated future government of whatever political colour that has narked the whole of the rest of Europe off by trying to leave the Common Fisheries Policy is going to be able to achieve a better deal on behalf of our fishermen than we can at the moment through constructive engagement? I do not think so and I do not think the honourable gentleman thinks so either. Q15 Mr Steen: We also have crabs and lobsters along the South Devon coast. They are running a very successful business down there. I am not clear whether the Commission v United Kingdom judgment in 1981 means that the EU can actually dictate to the crab and lobster fishing industry bearing in mind it is all inshore. Mr Bradshaw: No, it is not laid down in the Treaty, but the regulations can be set amongst European Union members. One of the things that some of the Euro-sceptics have constantly said is that we would lose control over our six mile limit and semi-control of our 12 mile limit. We have not done that just as we have not lost control over relative stability which protects our share of the fisheries that we have had historically. It is very nice to hear a fisheries MP and particularly a Conservative one highlight one area of our fisheries which is doing extremely well under the Common Fisheries Policy, namely our booming crab and lobster industry which is not only doing wonders for the economy of the south-west but it is also earning us a great deal of money in exports. Q16 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We have got to get to the bottom of this 12 mile limit and the inshore fishing point. The Minister said that under the proposed Constitution our right to take conservation measures in the 12 mile limit will be preserved and in defence of that he referred to some existing regulations, but that is not the point. In the text we have before us there is no assurance that the Union will not claim exclusive competence right up to the shoreline and if they have exclusive competence, as it says quite clearly here, we do not. I would like him to confirm that. In the light of that how can he assert so confidently that existing rights to preserve crabs and lobsters and other species up to our shoreline will be preserved? I am perfectly well aware that they are under existing regulations, that is not the question. The question is whether the draft Constitution preserves those rights in a clear manner. I would be grateful, rather than making generalised comments about political motives which are completely gratuitous on this Committee, we want to get at the facts, if you would clearly answer that question. Mr Bradshaw: The simple answer is the existing Treaty does not guarantee the protection of those rights. What guarantees the protection of those rights is no support for ending those rights within the European Union and within Europe there is absolutely no prospect of other countries giving up their exclusive rights to their six mile limits until that is a practical case. There is no change from the existing Treaties in this Constitution whatsoever that impacts on our rights to our six or 12 mile limits. Q17 Mr Connarty: Where people wanted to get copper-bottomed guarantees they changed the wording. They did not just take what was in previous Treaties and stick it in the new Constitution, they tried to make it better. Some would argue that some people have tried to make fast and loose with it by taking powers that were not in previous Treaties and sticking them in. It does seem, given the deep concern, that this could be an opportunity to try to do something that advanced our position. Are you really saying that you did not think we needed to advance the position, you think that ad hoc-ery is alright? It seems ad hoc arrangements are what we have. We have arrangements which are suited to everyone at this moment, but they may not be suited to a number of countries in the future and we may lose out. Could this not have been an opportunity to do something which took a bit back for the British fishing industry or do you not think we are required to do so? Why have we not tried to improve our position in this Constitution and just accepted what was there before? Mr Bradshaw: I do not accept the fact that just because you are not putting regulations that exist into a new Treaty means that you are going to end up with the worst situation on the grounds that there is a will within the European Union specifically at the moment to reform the Common Fisheries Policy, which I accept and I think most people in this room accept has not served our fishing industry or the interests of the rest of the European Union's fishing industry or our fish stocks well, but that reform is already underway regardless of what is or what is not going to be in the new Treaty. I think the fundamental issue here is a great who-ha has been made by some, which I believe is politically motivated, to try and convince people that there is some great change involved in this proposed Constitutional Treaty regarding fisheries. This is a question that I have been asked ad nauseam particularly by members of the Scottish National Party who have been trying to exploit the difficulties that the Scottish industry are in at a time when we are doing our very best to get the best deal we can on the Council for the Scottish fishing industry and at a time when this Prime Minister has, for the first time in 30 years, ordered a massive strategic review of our fishing industry which will be published in January. So the implication of your question that the Government is not concerned about getting a better deal for our fishing industry is simply wrong. We are working hard at that all the time, but it has to be on a sustainable basis. It is no good saying you can carry on catching all the cod there are when the cod are dying out. It is simply unsustainable and it is a cruel deception on the industry. Q18 Angus Robertson: I must confess that I am rather disappointed that the Minister has descended to petty partisanship now three times whilst giving evidence whilst, unfortunately, not answering some of the key questions that we have put to him. I would like to ask the Minister what assurances he is able to give to fishing communities about the status of relative stability and what will happen to the likes of the Shetland, the Irish and other arrangements? What advice has he received and what detailed assurances can go on the record so that people in fishing communities know what impact there might be on their livelihoods? Mr Bradshaw: I am sorry that the honourable gentleman, who I know to be a pro European, has picked up this issue and run with it for not the best motives. There is no prospect of relative stability within the Common Fisheries Policy being weakened or abolished unless there was a majority of Common Fisheries Policy members wanting it to happen and they do not. The only country I am aware wants it to happen at the moment is Spain. Spain is in a minority of one. It is not in the interests either of the Common Fisheries Policy or of the Member States to change that and it is something that time and time again the Europhobes have raised as a kind of potential disaster for our fishing industry and it has never happened. Successive governments have managed to defend it and I am confident we will continue to do so. Q19 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister was going to get some additional help from his legal adviser. We have established that there is no legal protection for inshore fishing and it is now just a political aspiration. Mr Bradshaw: There is legal protection under the regulations but not under the existing Treaty. 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, the welfare of farm animals, yes. Mr Robertson, I am sure, will know that the welfare of 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. That is something that 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 although the legal base is the same, I think in terms of encouragement and the political importance it is given, that is reflected in it. 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 our 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 kept to. 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 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 animals actually 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. 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. |