| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Friday, 10th May 2002.
Illegal Meat Imports
Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why there have been no prosecutions of air passengers at Heathrow in the last three years for bringing illegal meat such as "bushmeat" into the United Kingdom; and [HL4030]
Whether they intend to prosecute passengers at airports who smuggle in illegal meats such as "bushmeat"; and [HL4031]
Whether they intend to search more air passengers this year than in previous years for illegal meats such as "bushmeat" and meat from endangered species. [HL4032]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): A decision to bring a prosecution before the courts is a matter for the enforcement authority. They would take into account a number of factors, including the weight of evidence to prove intent to break the laws in question and the ability to bring the offender before the British courts. These criteria may not be easy to satisfy in the case of air passengers bringing in illegal meat, especially where small quantities are seized.
In 2001, HM Customs and Excise prosecuted three people for offences relating to imports of meat covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) involving "bushmeat". Two were convicted of CITES offences and one was acquitted but convicted under a separate animal health charge.
The level and focus of future controls to address the threat from imported meat will be directed by the risk assessment work which is already under way. We are committed in the light of that risk assessment to strengthen our efforts to tackle the problem of illegally imported meat.
EU Enlargement: Agricultural Support
Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether in the negotiations for European Union enlargement any ballpark figures have been put forward for the likely amount of annual agricultural support to individual acceding countries; and, if so, what those figures are for Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus and Slovenia. [HL4055]
Lord Whitty: We have received the Commission's proposals for annual agricultural spending for the period 2004 to 2006 covering 10 candidate countries as a whole (not Romania and Bulgaria). The figures for the whole are indicated below (1999 prices, million euros).
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |
| Agriculture | 2,048 | 3,596 | 3,933 |
Negotiations are still continuing on the agriculture chapter, including on financial matters, and so the above figures are still proposals; as a result there are no indicative splits by individual country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Whitty: The United Kingdom is already a member of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) by virtue of its membership of the EU. Fishing vessels over 24 metres overall length operating in the waters covered by NEAFC have to carry satellite monitoring equipment and submit their position reports every six hours.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Whitty: Clarification of the status of ecolabelling initiatives under WTO rules was one of the EU's objectives in its negotiating position at the fourth ministerial at Doha in November 2001.
Although it was not possible to reach a consensus on the need for negotiations on this issue at Doha, it was agreed that the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment should prepare a report on labelling for environmental purposes to be presented to ministers at the 5th WTO ministerial in 2003.
In the light of this report, the ministerial will decide whether to initiate negotiations on this subject. It is the UK's objective that analysis and in due course negotiations in the WTO should look at the issue of ecolabelling in a comprehensive way, including the status of mandatory and voluntary labelling schemes.
Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to join the satellite tracking system of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission as a means of protecting United Kingdom coral reefs. [HL4063]
Whether they have sought any clarification of World Trade Organisation rules on labelling; and whether they will ensure that any such clarification allows for mandatory and voluntary non-product related production and process methods labelling schemes for any social, health and environmental issue. [HL4122]
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Whitty on 29 April (WA 71–72), whether there are any current recommendations as to what shot size and shotgun type should be used for the culling of (a) foxes; (b) hares; (c) deer; and (d) mink. [HL4146]
10 May 2002 : Column WA205
Lord Whitty: (a) A shotgun of minimum 20 bore and minimum shot size BB (4.09mm diameter) is considered suitable for shooting a fox only at close range (under 25 metres).
(b) and (d) A shotgun of minimum 20 bore and shot size of at least number 5 (2.79mm diameter) is recommended for use in shooting hare or mink only at close range.
At longer range the use of a rifle is recommended for fox, hare and mink.
(c) A shotgun is not recommended for culling deer and would not normally be legal under Section 4(2)(a) of the Deer Act 1991. In certain circumstances the Act permits the use of a shotgun for humane destruction of a seriously injured animal or for use as a slaughtering instrument. Section 7 of the Act provides a defence for occupiers of land etc who use a shotgun where free ranging wild deer cause damage, further damage is likely and the action is necessary to prevent further damage. The minimum calibre permitted is 12 bore, using a single non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 22.68g (350 grains) or a cartridge purporting to contain shot which is 0.203 inches (5.16mm) in diameter (size AAA) (Section 7(2) of the Act).
Hunting with Dogs
Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Lord Whitty on 29 April (WA 71–72), whether they currently believe there is a distinction to be drawn between "cruelty" and "suffering" in relation to animals; and [HL4147]
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Whitty on 29 April (WA 71–72), whether they consider "cruelty" in relation to animals to be a subjective or scientific matter. [HL4148]
Lord Whitty: Central to the legal definition of cruelty to animals is the concept of "causing unnecessary suffering". This concept is contained in existing animal protection legislation such as the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.
In their consideration of cruelty the courts have held that this is an objective matter.
Energy Label Directives
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How supplier compliance under the European Union energy label directives is monitored. [HL4165]
Lord Whitty: Responsibility for ensuring that suppliers established in the UK fulfil their obligations under the European Union energy label directives rests with the UK enforcement authorities: in England and Wales and Scotland, a local weights and measures authority within the meaning of Section 69 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (local weights and
measures authorities); and in Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.However, the Market Transformation Programme, which is jointly sponsored by Defra and the DTI, has also carried out a number of spot checks on domestic appliances. This is to provide information relating to the operation and effectiveness of the UK energy labelling regulations and to inform discussions on related policy issues. The enforcement authorities are aware of the Defra monitoring activity and have access to the individual results. We are discussing the individual results, analysis and issues arising with suppliers of the tested products and with AMDEA (the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances) with the intention that the Government will routinely place such information in the public domain.
Public Services in Rural Areas
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What assessment they have made of the extra cost of providing public services in rural areas in England compared to urban areas. [HL4170]
Lord Whitty: There are a variety of factors which influence the cost of delivery of public services in different parts of England. These factors differ according to the nature of the service. In allocating resources, individual departments and service providers take account of the relative costs of delivery and other relevant factors. These may include specifically rural factors (such as sparsity of population) as well as measures of relative need and differing labour costs.
No overall assessment has been made of the different costs of providing public services in rural areas in England compared to urban areas.
Scottish Parliament: Charities
The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Scottish Parliament is constitutionally entitled to change the definition of a Scottish charity for purposes other than the application of reliefs from United Kingdom taxes. [HL3968]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 defines matters that are reserved and are therefore excluded from the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Section C1 of Part II of Schedule 5 reserves business associations but specifically exempts from this reservation "the creation, operation, regulation and dissolution of charities". As a result, these matters are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. As the noble Earl indicates, taxation is reserved and the application of reliefs from United Kingdom taxes is a matter for the Inland Revenue.
| Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |