HC Deb 08 March 1973 vol 852 cc727-38

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse (Oxford)

The Minister will be well aware already of the acute anxiety which is felt by many people in this country about the export of food animals for slaughter overseas. There have been many parliamentary Questions on the subject in recent months, and probably my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has had almost as many Questions to answer on this subject as on food prices during her time at the Ministry.

I am also aware, on the other side, of the anxiety of British farmers on this subject, and I am glad to note that the National Farmers' Union supports the Balfour assurances and has explicitly come out in favour of the ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Livestock during International Transport. But the farmers, naturally, have an anxiety that they may lose export trade to less scrupulous continental competitors. It is my view that there need not be such a risk, and this I hope to show.

What is needed is clarification of British policy, especially since our entry into the Common Market on 1st January. The situation is confused. After reading many answers to Questions on the subject, I am in some doubt—I am sure that the public are, too—about what the Government's policy is. That is why I have asked for this debate to seek clarification.

One source of confusion is that two Government Departments are responsible in this matter. To illustrate what I mean by divided responsibility, I will refer to a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) on 9th March 1971. He asked the Minister whether he would introduce legislation to prohibit the export of live animals, and the Minister of State replied: No. Adequate powers exist under the Import Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, to prohibit the export of livestock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 72.] This seemed clearly to lay the responsibility on the then Board of Trade, now the Department of Trade and Industry.

I therefore put down a Question on 21st November last year asking the Secretary of State whether he would use his powers under the 1939 Act to ban the export of live animals. The Minister replied: No. Policy on the export of live animals for slaughter is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 360.] The implication of that was that one Department has the power but not the will to deal with the matter, and the other Department has the will but not the power.

It is clear—I say this to the credit of the hon. Lady and her colleagues, that the Minister of Agriculture at least has the wish to end the export of live animals. There is plenty of evidence of that in replies to parliamentary Questions, one by the Minister of Agriculture as long ago as 1964, in which he said: Undoubtedly the best way, from all points of view, of exporting meat is in carcase form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 14.] A later Minister of Agriculture admitted on the radio on 5th September last year that in his view a carcase-only trade would be better. With that I think we would all agree. He also admitted in discussion with the RSPCA on 24th November that the Government would welcome a carcase-only trade. The Parliamentary Secretary herself has said the same thing in replies to parliamentary Questions and in more than one letter to myself.

Given all this evidence of good will, given the mounting evidence of scandalous treatment of animals exported for slaughter once they get across the Channel, and given the inadequacy, indeed the non-existence, of any sanctions to enforce the Balfour Assurances, which Ministers have repeatedly admitted in public—I need not weary the House with quotations—why are the Government unable to do anything?

The latest line of argument derives from the Treaty of Rome and especially from Articles 34 and 36 of the treaty. But, before I come to examine this argument, I should like to put one point in parenthesis which I hope the Minister will either confirm or clarify.

Towards the end of last year there was a great deal of anxiety among persons concerned with animal welfare organisations over the supposed consequences of our entry into the EEC on 1st January this year. We were then strongly urged to legislate with the utmost urgency to ban exports of live food animals before the end of 1972 on the ground that if we did not we should never be able to do so once our adherence to the Treaty of Rome became complete on 1st January 1973.

Many of my constituents wrote to me in great anguish in that sense. I replied —and I hope I was right—that it was a fallacy to believe that 1st January 1973 was a final deadline in that sense, because, in the first place, even if we passed legislation contrary to the treaty before that date, the treaty would override it after 1st January; and, on the other hand, if we wanted to pass legislation after 1st January 1973 which was not contrary to the Treaty of Rome, there would be nothing in the treaty to prevent our doing so. I hope I am right about that, because, if I am right, it follows that everything depends on the meaning of the treaty and not on the date of our own legislation.

Now, what is the meaning of the treaty as applied to our problem? The most authoritative statement of the Government view on the matter seems to appear in a reply by the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) on 7th November last year, when he said: Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty of Rome affect the powers of member Governments in respect of the export of live animals. Broadly speaking, Article 34 inhibits member Governments from unilaterally restricting their exports to fellow members of EEC, but Article 36 allows member States to take measures to protect the life and health of their animals. Hence member States can restrict exports of live animals when their health and lives would be at risk, but not otherwise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November 1972; Vol. 845, c. 143.] With respect, this does not seem to me to be wholly accurate because the Minister's reply did not make it clear that Article 34 is concerned not with restrictions in general but with quantitative restrictions or "measures with equivalent effect"—that is, restrictions ostensibly not quantitative but in fact having the effect of reducing the scale of exports.

This point is brought out more clearly in a letter to myself from the Parliamentary Secretary on 28th December last year, in which she wrote: Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome states that there should be no quantitative restrictions on exports by members of EEC to other members. It would, however, be extremely difficult to justify a complete ban on the export of live food animals whether or not their welfare was at risk, as this would be contrary to the spirit of Article 34. This interpretation of the spirit of Article 34 puzzled me, so I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary again on 4th January this year. I asked Why would a ban on the export of live food animals be regarded as a quantitative restriction under Article 34? All that is being proposed is that they should be slaughtered before export. To that, the Parliamentary Secretary replied in slightly more forthcoming terms: I think the view put forward in your second paragraph is interesting and, indeed, as I have said before, I would much prefer to see carcases exported in place of live animals. Nevertheless, there is still a limited demand for our live animals at the present time and our EEC partners might well argue that carcase meat is quite a different commodity from live animals, which yield other products beside meat, and hence our willingness to export carcase meat would not justify a ban on the export of live animals. That seems a slightly dubious argument, but, assuming that it is put forward in good faith, it appears to me that in the present state of the debate there is only one way to settle the matter, and that is to obtain an authoritative judgment from the European Court. The way to get that is by means of a test case. The way to get a test case is by introducing a ban, on our own initiative, which the Minister has already done on a temporary basis in the case of sheep. The Minister has the opportunity to extend that ban by adopting the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell), whom I am glad to see in the Chamber. Perhaps, in any case, legislation is not needed. But I hope that the Minister will, in any case, consider whatever action is appropriate.

There is one additional reason for some such initiative which goes to the root of our adherence to the Treaty of Rome. Many supporters of the welfare of animals who are also anti-European have argued to me that the fact that in many European countries animals are notoriously less humanely treated than they are here is itself a reason why we should not have joined the EEC. I think that that is a negative and defeatist argument, because it implies either or both of two deplorable propositions. The first is that our standards will inevitably become debased by our European neighbours. The second is that we need not care how other Europeans treat their animals so long as they do not get their hands on ours.

I have consistently pointed out to those who argue thus that the provisions in the Treaty of Rome for the harmonisation of standards invariably presuppose that the process of assimilation will be upwards, and that it would be a very feeble British Government who allowed the opposite to happen; that it is impossible for other countries to force us to debase our standards even if they wanted to.

Finally, and on the contrary, our entry into the EEC gives us an opportunity, for the first time, to exercise an educative influence on others in the matter of animal welfare. That is why, although I was originally a signatory of Motion 13 of 9th November 1972, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), on the prevention of suffering of animals exported for slaughter, I subsequently transferred my signature to the amendment to that motion, tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), which urges Her Majesty's Government, now that we are joining with the main importing countries in the European Economic Community, to have a common policy of humane slaughter, transport regulations, and all other safeguards implied in the Balfour Assurances, and which should include a policy of slaughter as near the point of production as possible. This seems to be generally on the right lines.

I would suggest that the way to begin an educative process would be to set a definitive example on our own account by banning the export of all live food animals from this country without qualification or delay, and to shame other countries into similar action.

I very much hope to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight that something on those lines is the policy which Her Majesty's Government will pursue within the enlarged Community.

10.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)

Much has been said both within and outside the House about the treatment of farm animals exported from this country, and I sincerely share the public concern for the welfare of our exported animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) is right when he estimates that I probably receive as many letters on this subject as I do about food prices.

Obviously it is necessary to consider very carefully the effect of the Treaty of Rome upon the restrictions which we place on the export of live animals, and I think it will be helpful if I remind the House of the extent of our present welfare safeguards and of recent developments in this matter.

The first point I should make is that our legislation already covers the transport, feeding, watering and resting of animals and their veterinary inspection for fitness to travel before being exported. There are also regulations governing the conditions under which animals are conveyed by ship from British ports. The export of small calves weighing less than 110 lb. is prohibited. I do not believe that any of these measures conflicts with the Treaty of Rome.

The welfare of animals exported to the Continent for immediate slaughter is provided for by the Balfour Assurances. As there seems to be some misunderstanding over these, perhaps I might first explain that in 1957 a committee headed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh examined the possibility of banning the export of cattle for slaughter, but concluded that it was impracticable. However, the committee recommended that assurances should be sought from the importing countries as to the humane treatment and slaughter of these animals. The Balfour Assurances, as they came to be called, were duly given by Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and West Germany, but initially they applied only to cattle. In 1964 the countries concerned were invited to give similar assurances in respect of sheep and pigs, and they all did so with the exception of France.

The policy of successive United Kingdom Governments since that time has been constant. The export of cattle, sheep and pigs for immediate slaughter has been allowed only to the Irish Republic, whose animal welfare laws are similar to our own, and to those countries which have given the Balfour Assurances.

It has been argued that the Balfour Assurances do not cover all live animals, and are often ignored in practice. Let me therefore deal with these two points in some detail. It is true that the Balfour Assurances do not apply to animals exported for further fattening. This would be impracticable. Such animals may well change ownership during rearing on the Continent, and will necessarily become intermixed with animals born on the Continent.

It would be unrealistic to expect any Government to keep track of imported animals throughout their lives, and to apply special conditions to them. I should point out, too, that the welfare of animals exported for breeding for further fattening is protected to some extent by the need to give them adequate care and attention if they are to gain weight and produce satisfactory progeny.

On the point that the Balfour Assurances are ignored in practice, I was concerned to hear from the animal welfare societies that sheep exported to Belgium have been re-exported to France contrary to the terms of the Balfour Assurances. Investigation revealed that these infringements were possible because of a loophole in the documentary procedures which enabled the trade to avoid the control measures operated by the Belgian Government to enforce the Balfour conditions.

Once this was discovered, the Belgian authorities co-operated very willingly in arrangements for new procedures designed to prevent these infringements from continuing. The Government at the time also took the opportunity of reminding all the Governments concerned of the weight of public opinion in this country as to the humane treatment and slaughter of animals and of the importance that we attach to the careful observance of the Balfour Assurances.

My hon. Friend has referred to the responsibilities, as it were, of two Departments in this matter. I should explain that in order to export live animals one needs a licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1970. These licences are issued to individual exporters, on the recommendation of my Department. Usually they cover several thousand animals and are valid for some months.

When the infringements of the Balfour Assurances concerning sheep were brought to the notice of my Ministry, the Department of Trade and Industry was asked not to issue any more licences for the export of sheep to Belgium until new arrangements could be finalised. From 1st November last, licences were issued to all exporters on application subject to two new conditions. These were that the exporter should notify the Department within 14 days of any consignments of sheep exported under his licence and produce upon request a certificate of slaughter countersigned by a Belgian Government official to prove that the animals were sent to an approved slaughterhouse within 100 kilometres of the port of disembarkation—one of the Balfour Assurances.

Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

I understood that the export of sheep to all countries was prohibited at present, and not only to Belgium. If it is only Belgium, what is happening to any sheep going to France?

Mrs. Fenner

The prohibition at present applies to all countries. I was going to enlarge upon that.

I had hoped that these new requirements would immediately deter exporters from sending sheep to Belgium without first ensuring that they would be treated in accordance with the assurances, since the detection of infringements would become inevitable. Indeed, several individual licences were revoked.

Unfortunately, it became apparent during January 1973 that none of the exporters concerned could comply fully with the new conditions, and that sheep were still being re-exported to France. In consequence, it was decided to suspend the issue of licences to export sheep other than those for breeding or for exhibition. Because of the possibility of exports to France via countries other than Belgium, the suspension applies to licences to all destinations.

It is often asked why we should rely on assurances as to the welfare of exported animals which are not always observed when it would seem simpler to ban the export of live food animals completely. But there are several objections to this.

The first is the difficulty in drafting and enforcing wide-ranging legislation which would permit the export of animals for breeding or exhibition but prohibit the export of food animals for other purposes. Some animals would be equally suitable for breeding or for further rearing or for slaughter and, under general legislation, it would be impossible to avoid the risk of misrepresentation as to the purpose of the export. There have been attempts to deal with this by way of minimum values in particular instances, but we do not regard this as generally practicable.

The second objection concerns overland trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I should make it clear that, as my hon. Friends have probably heard me say in the House several times, more than half of all the live animals exports go to Ireland. This is a two-way local trade which is important to farmers both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and as the welfare safeguards in the Republic are generally in line with our own it would be unreasonable to ban this trade. Indeed, such a ban would be impossible to enforce in practice. Any ban on the export of animals from Great Britain to the Continent would be likely to transfer the demand elsewhere, including the Irish Republic. Therefore, more animals probably would go from Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic to the Continent, thereby involving a much longer sea journey and without the protection of Balfour Assurances. Hence, a ban would—to say the least—hardly advance the cause of animal welfare generally. For these reasons the Government believe it is right to allow food animals to be exported subject to satisfactory welfare safeguards; and to take all necessary steps to deal with the situation when there are infringements.

I would now like to turn to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend—the application of Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty of Rome to animal welfare provisions.

Article 34 of the treaty prohibits quantitative restrictions on exports between member States and all measures having equivalent effect. This is qualified by Article 36, which allows restrictions on grounds of public policy or morality or to protect the life and health of animals. We believe that the Balfour Assurances can—and should—be justified under Article 36. On the other hand, a complete ban on the export of live animals would be a quantitative restriction that we could not expect to justify under Article 36 of the treaty. It would not make any difference whether such a ban were imposed before or after 1st January 1973.

It has been suggested that to impose a total ban on the export of live animals while permitting the export of carcases would not infringe the spirit of Article 34 of the Rome Treaty. This is an interesting proposition, but, having examined it. I am afraid it is one that I cannot accept. Live animals and carcase meat in the terms of this export are quite separate. Of course the Government would like to see increased exports of carcase meat instead of live animals. There has been a trend in this direction in recent years. and I hope that this will continue.

In view of what I have said the House will no doubt appreciate that existing treaty provisions ought not to prevent us from applying the welfare safeguards for exported animals to which we all attach such great importance. This applies, of course, not only to the Balfour Assurances and measures that might be taken to ensure that they are effective, but also to the weight restriction on calves for export which we operate at this time.

It has been suggested that because of changes since the Balfour Committee reported there should be another independent committee of inquiry to look into the whole question of livestock exports. My right hon. Friend would be reluctant to appoint such a committee at the present time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford that our entry into the Community offers new opportunities for discussion with other member States on animal welfare. We have already suggested that the Community should discuss this subject, and we are ready to play our full part. We believe that the discussion should take account of the slaughtering arrangements in the Community.

The Community is already considering the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Animals During International Transport which we intend to ratify as soon as possible. It is likely to be most effective if all the countries ratify this together. This is being discussed in September. We shall certainly be ready with our ratification.

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will make full use of every opportunity to advance the standard of animal welfare in Europe generally. It is my intention to see that we advance standards and certainly maintain those that we have. I consider that this can be best achieved by active involvement rather than by opting out. It is only by an honest and reasonable approach that we can hope to secure the co-operation of all concerned to improve standards of welfare in the Community at large. I hope my hon. Friend will understand why we feel that our suspension of the licences for the export of sheep is an indication of our intention to do all that we can in the Community to ensure adherence to the Balfour Assurances and to discuss in the Community the welfare of animals generally as well as the slaughtering arrangements.

10.29 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

May I ask my hon. Friend one or two questions? I am grateful for what she has said. Can she say whether the ban on the export of sheep, which has been in force since 1st February, has produced any complaints from continental countries, because this is a non-discriminatory ban which applies to Ireland, too? Can she say what has been the reaction from farmers and auctioneers in this country?

Mrs. Fenner

On the first question the answer is that there has been none that I know of to date. The view of the farmers—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.