WHALE PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS) (Hansard, 16 May 1972)

§ Sir John Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the import of whale products into the United Kingdom. The arguments for the proposed Bill have been put in the House at various times and in various ways. The last occasion was as recently as 1st May when my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) had an Adjournment debate, and I commend to any hon. Members interested in the pros and cons of the argument the speeches of my hon. Friend and the Minister.

I envisage that there will be little or no opposition to the proposals in the Bill except that which may come from the Government. The Government's position briefly is this. Control of the excessive killing of whales—and here I quote from a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals— is most effectively to be had by the exercise of restrictive measures by the International Whaling Commission. In these circumstances, the Commission merits our attention. It was set up by the whaling industry because its staple product, which was the blue whale, was declining at the end of the war so seriously as to make the whaling industry begin to think that it was uneconomic. Decline in other whales—the finback, the sei whale and the sperm whale—has followed.

In 1963–11 years ago—the International Whaling Commission approved something which I should have thought was absolutely vital in a matter like this, and that was an observer system. It has not come into effect, although many years have elapsed, because, to put it bluntly, one country will not allow observers from another country to be on board its whaling ships or factory ships to see that the regulations of the Commission are carried out. We understand from the Government, however, that they are pressing for the introduction of an observer system.

The regulations of the International Whaling Commission are being ignored 244 either in whole or in part. At the 17th annual meeting of the Commission, which would be about five years ago, a ban was put on factory ships catching whales between the latitude 40 degrees south and 40 degrees north. That on the face of it seemed a good idea. The problem was that it was objected to by three countries. Three countries in an international agreement raising objection is apparently not many, but in this case the three countries are the only countries which kill whales in the area between 40 degrees south and 40 degrees north, so the objection became a great deal more important. But that is the sort of control which the Government believe is the most effective means of preventing the over-killing of whales.

We are told that the blue whale today is totally protected by the international Whaling Commission, but the fact remains that in 40 years—during 23 of which the Commission has been in existence—the population of blue whales has dropped from about 150,000 to near extinction. Not only has this evasion of the Commission's rules and regulations been conducted in an overt manner but it has been done rather more stealthily. Japan, perhaps the biggest killer of whales in the world, has an interest in a whaling company in Brazil. The Japanese interest is only 45 per cent., so it is, in fact, a Brazilian company. But Brazil is not a member of the Commission, so the activities of the company, in which Japan is such a large shareholder, do not come under the regulations of the Commission.

The opinion of the Food and Agriculture Organisation is that it looks as though things are improving. All I can say to that is that most of the evidence is to the contrary. I know of no other authority in this country or abroad which takes that view—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for instance—and the International Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Dr. Cummings, who works for the United States Navy in San Diego, says: The blue whale population is at an all-time low—as is the population of all species of whales. Why at this time should I introduce this Bill? The decline in population of whales has been steady, and the only 245 evidence called to suggest that the situation is satisfactory is that of the FAO. Her Majesty's Government say that the importation of whales into the United Kingdom is relatively small. That means presumably that it is not an industry or trade vital to our wellbeing. But it is vital for the survival of whales. The United States has taken a remarkable step and has certainly given a lead by abolishing completely the importation of whale products. Yet the United States had probably about 30 per cent. of the industry. We have about another 10 per cent., and it is my contention at least that the imposition here of a similar ban on imports would have a decisive effect on the trade as a whole.

Everything of a whale is used, down to its teeth. Cat and dog lovers—indeed, all animal lovers—might like to know that cats and dogs eat 7 per cent. of whale imports in a year. From whales comes the manufacture of such things as lipsticks, margarine, shoe polish, candles, soap, and, oddly enough, bicycle saddles. In my view, the only opposition in the House that one could expect to the Bill would be from the Government. Otherwise the Bill could get through easily and quickly.

There are moments when a lead is decisive for those of us who wait and a credit to those who give it. I believe that this is such a moment.