| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord. I would have needed notice to give him those details. We are continually on the lookout for that disease among the horse population. We have had one or two incidents in the past couple of months in
31 Jan 2008 : Column 744
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a more serious problem with more European countries coming into the European Union, such as Romania, because they are exporting horses?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a trade within Europe, particularly the new countries and the southern European countries, of horses for slaughter for food consumption, and the welfare conditions are nowhere near as good as we would wish. That is why we want to work through the EU so we can get scrupulous and vigorous implementation of the regulations. As I said, they were improved by Regulation 1 in 2005, which came into force last year, and are due for review in 2009. In the review of those regulations, we intend to do what we can with the welfare organisations to improve the welfare conditions of horses during transport.
Agriculture: Bluetongue
11.30 am
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether it is their policy that all susceptible domestic ruminant animals in the United Kingdom should be vaccinated against bluetongue.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, Defra has placed an order with Intervet to supply 22.5 million doses of bluetongue vaccine for a vaccine bank. Those will be used in England and, potentially, in Wales. Keepers of susceptible animals in the protection zone will be able to protect their animals from bluetongue by purchasing vaccine doses from the bank.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that this is a very serious disease and that it is much more aggressive in its second year than it appeared to be in its first? For example, in Belgium, what seemed to be a mild outbreak in 2006 ended up with 40.9 per cent of Belgian sheep having to be killed because of bluetongue.
What funding will there be for vaccine? I understand that in Holland, for example, the cost of the vaccine is being fully reimbursed by the EU, which is also paying 50 per cent of the administration costs. What degree of importance is the Minister placing on publicity to farmers and other animal keepers to ensure that a high level of vaccination is achieved in order to eradicate the disease?
31 Jan 2008 : Column 745
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Countess is right about what happened in northern Europe last year. We are in a fairly unique position in this country; from the latest figure, we have had 66 outbreaks. There have been more than 19,000 in Germany. It is rampant in parts of Europe and was in fact rampant before it was discovered. The incidence was low at the end of last year and when it comes back—there is no question about that—we will potentially have enough vaccine for animal keepers in the protection zone. I emphasise that, under EU rules, only animals in the protection zone can be vaccinated, but we can change the shape of the zone to include more keepers than before.
Discussions are due to take place in Brussels on the Commission’s announcement regarding funds being available to reimburse certain costs. Our vaccine supply will cost Defra around £11 million, but it may be that farmers themselves will be able to vaccinate their animals if the vets think that they are competent to do it. That would reduce costs. Regarding reimbursement, that is of course affected by the United Kingdom’s rebate from EU funding, which sometimes stands in the way of our getting benefit from particular schemes.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, will livestock owners be doing this on a voluntary basis under direction from Defra? Will the virus that is used for this be the same virus that has been rampant in the European Union? Will vaccination be co-ordinated with what is happening on the Continent?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it will be voluntary. All these issues are actively being discussed, and have been for several months, with scientists, vets and representative members of the industry. We are not doing anything as if it is coming down from Defra; we want to take the industry along with us, in partnership, so it will be voluntary. The vaccine is to deal with serotype 8 of bluetongue. There are 23 other serotypes, and we almost have to hope that the one which comes back will be number 8, as that is our vaccine. I think that Spain and Portugal deal with three different versions of bluetongue, and other countries deal with different numbers. There is an issue there, but we need to deal with it by good partnership.
There is lots of publicity for farmers and animal keepers, so they know exactly what they need to do. Once we have the vaccine available and have completed the discussions in Brussels, there will be full announcements, consultation and all relevant publicity.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that British livestock farmers now face their biggest challenge ever, practically speaking, and especially in 2008? We must prevent any further spread in the UK, as the alternative is the decimation of our cattle herds and sheep flocks. Will Defra scour the world to obtain more than those 22 million vaccine doses? That was well done; it was an achievement to do it. Yet the fact of the matter is that unless all cattle and sheep in the UK are vaccinated, many farmers will be on the road to ruin.
31 Jan 2008 : Column 746
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the 22.5 million vaccine doses comprise 20 million doses for England and potentially 2.5 million for Wales, as requested by the Welsh Assembly Government. However, under EU rules, one can vaccinate only in the protection zone. If the disease comes back on a different scale, it may be possible to make the whole country a protection zone, because that would be good for internal trade. We fixed the figure for doses on the basis of it being a voluntary vaccination in the protection zone. I do not think that there will be a shortage. It is a new vaccine, which is certified only for sheep and cattle at present. It can be used on other susceptible animals, but that would have to be on the advice of a private vet.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in a previous remark, the Minister explained to the House that the rebate got in the way of the European Union paying for the vaccine. That is not strictly accurate. It is not the rebate, but the UK Treasury.
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. If the rebate did not exist, we would be paying more into the EU net, I understand, than France and Germany. I shall not argue about the rebate. The mechanism by which the Commission will want to help member states with vaccinations has not been agreed. The vaccination is new. A vaccine was not available for Belgium, Holland and Germany. I understand that the Netherlands ordered vaccines last week. Until then, the United Kingdom was the only country in the EU which had ordered any vaccines for serotype 8, which we did some weeks ago. If the EU offers help, it may make loads of rules. It may demand compulsory vaccination. It may demand vaccination only by vets, which would vastly increase the cost. We want to be flexible and avoid unnecessary costs. To that extent, we will not want a lot of EU rules attached to EU money.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will bluetongue affect deer?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, susceptible animals are all ruminants, including sheep, cattle, deer, goats; and camelids, including llamas, alpacas and a couple of others that I cannot pronounce. They are susceptible, but whether they will catch it as easily, I do not know.
Business of the House: Debates Today
11.36 am
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of the Lord President on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank set down for today shall be limited to three and a half hours and that in the name of Lord Ramsbotham to two hours.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
31 Jan 2008 : Column 747
War Powers and Treaties
11.37 am
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank rose to call attention to Her Majesty’s Government’s consultation paper on War Powers and Treaties (Cm 7239); and to move for Papers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of a United States defence company called Colt. I am grateful for being able to introduce this important debate on war powers and treaties. The excellent and helpful consultation paper produced by the Ministry of Justice states:
“The power to send men and women abroad into a situation of armed conflict is one of the most important decisions a government can ever take”.
In a democracy, it is surely desirable that decisions by Governments to use Armed Forces extensively and substantially be taken on the basis of thorough and accurate information made publicly available, and of candid and consistent explanation by Governments, fully involving Parliament in advice and decision. However, although it is highly desirable, can it be fully entrenched in our constitutional practice?
We should be cautious in letting the experience of the Iraq war, which has undoubtedly given impetus to the debate, overinfluence our deliberations. Recent armed conflict has taken many forms. The background and run-up to the Korean War, Suez, the Falklands, the Balkans, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq and Special Force operations have all been different. Often, the nature of the conflict has quickly and dramatically changed, and the rules and objectives of our forces have had to be amended. What I think is certain is that historically it has not been easy to predict armed conflicts far in advance of hostilities, and I do not think it will become easier in the future. New threats can emerge very quickly.
The services want to know that the country is behind them before they are committed, that they are supported by Parliament and that what they are being asked to do is legal. Parliament’s stamp of approval is important but Parliament must not run the risk of hazarding the lives of service men and women. Secrecy, security and surprise are critical to many operations and if, for instance, one day it became necessary militarily to pre-empt an enemy attack—and that is not inconceivable—how would Parliament debate the actions in advance? Parliament is unlikely to have all the necessary intelligence to have a fully informed debate. This, of course, may not always be essential and this problem may well be solved by the existing or a new parliamentary committee or committees.
Should Parliament rely on a member of the Government—the Attorney-General’s legal advice? Should there be other, more independent advice to Parliament, which may be contrary? I hope that noble and learned Lords will address this but it would be unsettling for those deploying to hear of lawyers expressing contrary views and introducing uncertainty. The prosecution of members of the Armed Forces who take action in good faith would be wrong.
31 Jan 2008 : Column 748
The deployment of a military force for armed conflict is complex and takes—as it did for Iraq or Afghanistan—considerable time. Of course, the very deployment before hostilities can be a deterrent in itself but our current arrangements allow quick decisions to be made and we have been able to act quickly, often before the situation on the ground has deteriorated. The armies of other countries, notably Germany and the Netherlands, are envious of our current procedures. We are likely to work in a coalition or alliance. When I was Chief of the Defence Staff in the Kosovo crisis in 2005, it was very noticeable how the United Kingdom forces could be assembled and deployed quickly in circumstances in which other countries’ forces could not respond because of their parliamentary procedures, which had to be observed.
As a member of NATO we are committed to aid other members who are attacked, and the United Nations charter mandates countries to undertake operations should the Security Council require them. As a signatory of NATO and UN treaties we are expected to commit troops quickly when called upon to do so. We also have to recognise the difficulties that arise once a force is deployed. Circumstances change. Humanitarian and peacekeeping operations can suddenly become peace enforcement and develop into armed conflict. All four of these states can take place in a theatre at the same time. Deployments lead to unforeseen consequences and mission creep. I well remember visiting troops delivering cups of tea and medical assistance to elderly ladies at one end of a village when suddenly their comrades at the other end were attacked with great ferocity. Afghanistan is an interesting example. Many failed to predict the intensity of operations there and I suspect that some would not have been so keen on deployment if they had realised what that commitment was going to be.
Formal declaration of war has been described by some as an historical anachronism and it is difficult to see occasions when it would happen. I understand why many think that the royal prerogative being the legal basis for the Government’s war powers is an outdated state of affairs in a modern democracy. Having said that, it has not served the country all that badly over the years.
I do not believe that one should legislate and have a statutory solution. Deployments vary so much and are accompanied by much uncertainty. One template would rarely work for all situations. I see the best solution being a formal but non-statutory convention. It would be necessary, whenever it was possible and sensible, to seek parliamentary approval for deployment before service men and women were committed, but there is a need for some flexibility and it would not always be wise or practical to debate prior to deployment, even though parliamentary debate and approval would be highly desirable. It would also be reassuring for the Armed Forces. I do not see it as particularly helpful for us in the House voting but it would be of immense value if we were to debate, preferably before the House of Commons had their debate, and were able to inform them and the Government of our views. There is much experience in this House which should be used.
31 Jan 2008 : Column 749
If for some reason armed conflict or substantial deployments occur without Parliament’s approval, it would be important for Parliament to meet at an early opportunity to endorse the decisions which had been made. I also see a necessity for Parliament to watch and discuss the progress of a campaign from time to time, always bearing in mind the effect such a debate would have on our troops in the field. It is almost inconceivable for the Prime Minister and Government to commit troops without thinking they had the backing of Parliament. We should be concerned that parliamentary oversight could, unless we are careful, lead to pressure to debate how operations should be conducted. Parliamentarians are not qualified to do this and they must avoid micromanaging and taking tactical decisions. These are the province of the commanders on the ground. What Parliament should debate are the objectives, the legality of what our forces are being asked to do, and in very general terms the size of a deployment and likely direction. These last two are notoriously difficult to predict, depending very greatly on the actions of the ill-intentioned that are causing the problem in the first place. We are not in control of what their reaction to us will be.
This is a difficult and complex but very important subject which needs debating. We must avoid an overly prescriptive solution and maintain flexibility. Slavishly following a parliamentary statutory procedure on every occasion, whatever the circumstances, could endanger the very people we are trying to help. I beg to move for Papers.
11.48 am
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the worthy aim of the consultation document is to increase the say of Parliament in the areas of treaty ratification and declarations of war, thereby rebalancing the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. The Prime Minister’s Statement last July begged many questions, some of which were raised in the consultation document, and others were in the valuable response from your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution with its emphasis on flexibility rather than the rigid statutory framework. Those questions were also emphasised in the excellent opening speech by the noble and gallant Lord, who spoke from experience, stressing caution, the diverse nature of conflicts and the problems of legal advice, in that the Attorney-General would have drawn on a very wide range of legal opinion before giving his own view.
The question of ratification of treaties is of course much less controversial. From my experience in chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place, I cannot recall an example of where we debated the ratification of a treaty. It is clear that by far the greatest number of treaties are highly technical, and those which are not so technical but controversial will be scrutinised in detail on the Floors of both Houses, as is happening now regarding the Lisbon treaty, for example.
The question is put as to whether the 21-day Ponsonby rule should be extended. The Government have already said that they would respond positively, and much depends on the mutual respect of the
31 Jan 2008 : Column 750
The issue of war powers is the difficult sector, as the noble and gallant Lord stated. The starting point is the need to rebalance the great accretion of power to the Executive and the extension of prerogative power, partly as a result of two world wars. This is felt in the domestic sphere but very much in the field of international affairs. It is properly said that during the Iraq conflict the Cabinet became virtually a dignified part of the constitution and many of the decisions were made by the Prime Minister and his entourage. The specific problems in international affairs include the information revolution and the need for increasing specialisation at a time when Parliament, alas—certainly the other place—is becoming more parochial and where the pathway to Parliament is so often through local government, which is very proper, or through being a research assistant to another Member. Yet this House is where there are people with direct military experience. Indeed, as one saw in the US during the Iraq war, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell at the head of the State Department were far less bellicose than the non-military men at the head of the Department of Defense—the management experts Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Another factor is the speed of change, where, as the noble and gallant Lord said, there can be a sudden worsening of the situation, an internal coup or whatever. Also, one is dealing with allies and, in any event, there are international obligations under the NATO treaty, as there will be under the Lisbon treaty, and there is Article 51 of the UN charter. Perhaps the most fundamental problem is that of intelligence, which I shall come to later. Whatever the formal positions, as one saw in the United States on Vietnam, the role of the legislature may be quite limited. There is the problem of definition. For example, would the very successful intervention in Sierra Leone have required parliamentary endorsement?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |