HC Deb 05 May 1976 vol 910 cc1392-417
Sir Bernard Braine

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

This is a simple amendment but one concerned with an important issue of principle. Moreover, it reflects the views of many people in this country who feel strongly that the export of food animals for slaughter abroad is both morally wrong and economically unnecessary and who remain unconvinced by the assurances Ministers are obliged, under pressure, to give from time to time that such animals are now exported under controlled, civilised and humane conditions.

This is not just the view of people who are emotional about poor dumb creatures. A leading article in the journal of the British Veterinary Association in October 1974—that is during the temporary ban on the export of live food animals—asserted that many veterinary surgeons, especially those with experience in this trade, fervently hoped that it would not be re-started. Indeed, our respected veterinary profession has always argued that food animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to the farm.

I recall that the authors of the European Convention for Protection of Animals during International Transport said in the preamble to their report in 1969 that the ideal arrangement would be to restrict international traffic in food animals to carcase meat so that slaughtering took place in the country of origin. Unfortunately, it was outside their terms of reference to recommend that, and they said so.

What is ironic is that the United Kingdom has sufficiently approved slaughterhouses and adequate modern refrigerated transport to ensure a viable carcase trade. It is also ironic that in 1973 the value of our carcase trade was four times that of our trade in live animals.

The assurances given by Ministers from time to time do not carry conviction. Let us consider the record. Assurances about the export of live cattle were freely given after the Balfour Committee of 1957, but the RSPCA assures me that it found 130 breaches of those assurances within a period of just four weeks. In 1964, evidence provided by British animal welfare organisations about the revolting treatment of British sheep exported across the Channel or in some cases across the Mediterranean led to the Balfour safe-guards being extended to sheep and pigs, though the French declined to give any such assurances.

It was no wonder then that in July 1973 the House compelled the Government to impose a partial ban on exports pending the report of the O'Brien Committee. Again we know only too well what happened. The O'Brien Report was published in March 1974. It had to admit that since the mid-1960s, despite the new controls, there had been increasing public disquiet. It stated: Incidents had been reported that the Balfour assurances had been circumvented or wholly ignored and the welfare of animals exported from the country was not being adequately safeguarded. That was an understatement, if ever there was one. The evidence of the continuing mistreatment of exported food animals was overwhelming and shameful.

8.30 p.m.

The essence of the O'Brien Report was that a permanent ban on the export of livestock for slaughter would not be justified on welfare or economic grounds, although exports ought not to re-start until the welfare of the animals could be safeguarded with greater certainty. The report, however, put its ultimate faith in future comprehensive international agreements.

Clearly, the O'Brien Committee could not carry out its inquiries incognito. It would have been seen coming many miles away. Some investigation was undertaken abroad, but at that time few animals were being exported and the export of sheep had stopped. Nevertheless, on 16th January 1975 the Minister told us that he accepted the findings of the O'Brien Report, and, in view of the progress which was being made in establishing international welfare safeguards across the board, he urged the House to agree to the lifting of the ban on exports to Community countries and any others which would satisfy us with regard to safeguards. Despite many misgivings on both sides of the House, he had his way. He secured a majority for his point of view.

There were, I think, three reasons for that. First, the Minister gave us explicit assurances about safeguards; secondly, he said that there would be close scrutiny of applications for licences; thirdly—and most telling of all was the fact that he uttered no word upon it—there was a letter from the President of the NFU in The Timespointing out that we had 14½million livestock in this country but only enough feed for 13 million. Better then to export the poor beasts for slaughter than to starve on British farms. What an argument that was!

Let us consider the quality of the assurances. The French animal welfare society, OABA, subsequently reported, after the assurances which had been given to the House and the votes of hon. Members had been secured, despite their misgivings, that the O'Brien Committee's investigations in France had been worthless. One of the two French slaughterhouses visited had been forced to toe the line following OABA's complaints supported by a French Press campaign. The other, at Fountainbleau, continued to disregard the French animal welfare regulations before and after the O'Brien Committee's visit. The OABA report said: Sheep and calves during ordinary non-ritual slaughter were being cut and bled without pre-stunning"— I hope that I have the Minister's attention. I am talking about assurances that he and his colleagues have given from time to time. The Minister is under test, and we shall expect a careful answer to this debate. The report said: Sheep and calves during ordinary non-ritual slaughter were being cut and bled without pre-stunning and full-grown cattle were being suspended upside down by a leg fully conscious. A pretty sight that must have been.

Even at the large Vauginand abattoir in Paris, where one would have expected proper supervision, the OABA found welfare regulations being broken. Remember that was after the decision to end the ban on exports from this country. It found at many other abattoirs that it was the habitual policy to ignore not only French welfare legislation but also the EEC's Humane Slaughter Directive.

Since the raising of the ban, we have reverted to our former annual average of about 400,000 live food animals sent abroad every year, excluding breeding stock, going mainly to France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Southern Ireland. Their final destinations are unknown in many cases.

Moreover, the Balfour assurances no longer apply. I invite the Minister to tell us whether we have any powers—I do not believe we have—to prevent the Community countries from re-exporting our animals to places outside the Community, where the safeguards which we are told are desirable do not apply, such as North Africa and the Middle East.

Within the Community itself, there is evidence that the situation in Italy is bad. Certainly a few years ago, a distinguished British veterinary surgeon, Dr. Carding, the Director of the World Federation for the Protection of Animals, summarised the position in that country by saying: one can say that at least a third of all animals officially slaughtered in Italy are not effectively stunned before being cut and bled. Many others are improperly slaughtered un-officially and illegally. It is true that that was perhaps two or three years ago. Last year, after the lifting of the ban, we exported more than 20,000 cattle to Italy, not for breeding purposes. Since then there has been a massive increase of cattle exports to Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who knows more about animal welfare matters than any other hon. Member of this House, is in command of the facts about slaughter practices in Italy and, I hope, will catch your eye shortly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We want to know whether the Italians have altered their practices since Doctor Carding's condemnation a few short years ago. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. I think that he knows in his heart, and I think that his advisers know, that the position in Italy and a great many other countries is still far from satisfactory. The paper assurances exist; the directives are there. But what actually happens on the ground is very different.

This amendment is not concerned with the resumption of the ban on exports. That is a subject that will have to be argued on some other occasion. Indeed, I believe that in the end common sense, true economic interest and compassion for the creatures which we raise for our own use and profit will combine and put an end to this dubious traffic.

It may be argued that, since last April, the Government have required exporters to declare in writing the exact final destination of each consignment of animals when applying for a veterinary inspector's certificate. How exporters can certify the exact final destination against the background that I have described is very difficult for the layman to grasp. No doubt the veil will be torn away by the Minister, the mystery will be resolved, and we shall be told that the Ministry is quite satisfied with these certificates as to the final destinations of animals exported and that the animals will be transported and slaughtered at a place where humane conditions obtain.

If, therefore, the system is effective, if the Minister claims that it is effective—it has been in operation since April last year—why is Parliament asked to approve the word "may"? Why "may" and not "shall"? "Shall" has been the practice since last April. May we take it that the Minister is completely satisfied with the assurances, that all is sweetness and light, and that these terrible abuses which only a short time ago were taking place are taking place no longer; that the final destinations of these animals are known? If the Minister is satisfied why not insert in the statute the word "shall" and make it mandatory? Why is not it mandatory? Is not the truth that the information which has been acquired since last April is nothing more than a farce in a good many cases?

Consider the realities. In Committee on 3rd February the Minister referred to certain happenings in France and told my hon. Friend, the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton): But the hon. Gentleman knows better than I that we are not responsible for what happens on French soil. We can only seek to influence the veterinary profession and the authorities in other countries."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C,3rd February 1976; c. 401.] Let us take that a little further. On 1st December the Parliamentary Secretary who is now concerned with the state of public opinion, said during the Second Reading of this Bill: We regarded it as imperative that when livestock are exported to Community or other countries with satisfactory arrangements we should know in advance the precise destination, so that we can communicate with the receiving country to ensure that the authorities will look out for the consignment of livestock and be able to monitor and minimise, if not eliminate completely, any hardship on the animals. I may say that the French authorities are co-operating extremely well with the Government on these matters."—[Official Report,1st December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1347.]

Mr. Burden

Why is there reluctance now to retain the obligatory "shall"? In future we shall just know the number of animals exported without knowing where they are going and with no possibility of knowing the manner in which they are treated in particular countries.

Sir B. Braine

My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has put his finger on the crux of the matter. We do not know. We have not been told. The purpose of this debate is to elicit the information, but the point I want to make is that the very day the hon. Gentleman was telling the House that they were going to monitor and minimise, if not eliminate completely, any hardship on the animals. and that the French authorities are co-operating extremely well with the Government on these matters. the Minister of Agriculture in a Written Answer, said in regard to a statement made on 11th April last year concerning the export of live sheep to France, I have now been informed by the French authorities that in a hearing before an examining magistrate it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to justify further proceeding in the case to which I referred on 11th April 1975."—[Official Report,1st December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 350.] Of course the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. Neither he nor the right hon. Gentleman has the slightest control over what happens in France or in other countries when animals are further transported on to Algeria, Greece or the Middle East. He does not know where they go. How can any trader, exporting genuinely to France or Holland or Belgium, certify that that is the final destination of the animals in question?

It is clear, is it not, that the Government are not in control of this situation, although they have pretended for too long that they are in control of it? It is in the nature of things that they cannot be in control. They are unsure and uneasy about this situation. It is no use their telling us that they will introduce an Order within 12 months, as the hon. Gentleman told the Committee. It should be introduced now. The provision should be made in the Bill so that they should introduce an Order as soon as the Bill becomes law. The provision in Clause 8 should be mandatory. Logic, common sense and humanity combine to urge this course upon them.

Delay begs some questions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the the answers when he rises to reply. Are the Government sincere about the welfare of animals exported for slaughter? Are the Government genuinely sincere on this matter. No economic considerations are involved because it is more profitable to export carcase meat than to export meat on the hoof. Have the Government a genuine feeling of compassion for these living creatures? Do they understand the difficulties involved in regulating such traffic? Do they understand the difference between directives being issued at the top of the tree and being implemented by the people at the bottom—by people, that is, who for years have disregarded the laws of their own land? If the answers to those questions are an unequivocal "Yes", I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Burden

The Government must recognise that for many years a great deal of concern has been expressed over the methods employed in the slaughtering of animals as well as over their transportation abroad for purposes of slaughter. This matter cuts across party boundaries. Concern about conditions has been expressed by the public in general rather than merely by those who are actively engaged in animal welfare. If the Government relax controls in ensuring the reasonable transportation of animals for slaughter they will experience strong feelings of public revulsion. If the Government seek to claim that they are taking such steps to fit in with EEC requirements there will certainly be a reaction, on grounds of common humanity, against our membership of the Common Market.

Concern on this topic goes back over a period of 20 years to 1957, the year in which the Balfour Committee was set up. Following public disquiet, that committee was set up to examine the main reasons for concern. First, it investigated a situation in which animals were unfit to stand the journey abroad. Secondly, it investigated whether there was lack of adequate care and attention before embarkation. Thirdly, in those days the fact that animals had to undergo long train journeys—today, of course, most animals are carried by road—without food or water, after disembarkation on the Continent, caused the committee to express great dismay. Fourthly, the deprivation of the United Kingdom legislation governing the slaughtering of animals.

It is true to say that we have dealt reasonably successfully with the export of animals which are unfit to travel and have covered the situation of their being given adequate attention before embarkation. I shall not pursue many of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) because I hope that he has persuaded the Minister by the force of his eloquence. Following the report of the Balfour Committee, the House decided that animals for immediate slaughter should go only to those countries whose Governments had signed an agreement covering humane slaughter and transportation. I understand that that agreement has never been rescinded by the House.

We are told that because we are now members of the EEC the Balfour requirements no longer apply. We should like to know what will replace those requirements. Belgium, Holland, Italy and West Germany agreed to abide by Balfour for sheep, pigs and cattle, but France agreed only for cattle. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that, till there is an end to the export of live animals for slaughter, the countries to which they are sent comply with the Balfour Agreements.

Concern has been expressed by Labour Members about this traffic. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), a former Minister in the Scottish office responsible for agriculture, made an excellent and forceful speech on this subject.

We must ensure that animals which are sent abroad are humanely transported and are stunned before slaughter.

In 1972 the Government gave an assurance that no cattle or sheep would be exported to the Middle East countries, because they carry out ritual slaughter. In 1973 the Conservative Government banned the export of sheep to France. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was instrumental in bringing about the ban. On 16th January 1975 he stated that he did so not under pressure, but because there was evidence of cruelty that he knew to be true. Subsequently there was a ban imposed on the export of cattle. The ban was lifted after the present Minister of Agriculture gave solemn undertakings in the House.

There was a strong body of opinion in the House against the resumption of the trade, despite the Minister's undertakings. Events have shown that those under-takings were practically worthless, because shortly afterwards there was evidence that in France the transport and slaughter of sheep were carried out in the same manner that had revolted people and led to the ban imposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.

There is no less strong concern today. Hon. Members and the public want to know the destination of future shipments of store cattle and cattle for immediate slaughter sent abroad. Unless the destination of these animals is known, how can the conditions in which they are transported and slaughtered be questioned? Knowledge of the destination is a guide to hon. Members, animal welfare societies and individuals who wish to follow up the consignment, as they are entitled to do, to make sure that the regulations are carried out.

In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said: There are, of course, differing views as to whether we should export livestock for slaughter at all, but it is common ground that if we are to export livestock, we have a duty to ensure, as far as is possible, that they are properly treated."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3rd February 1976; c. 391.] The Government cannot wriggle out of their responsibility if anything goes wrong by saying "We did what we could as far as possible". The Government are ultimately responsible for what happens to the animals because they allow them to go to places abroad where they may be transported and slaughtered in an inhumane way.

The hon. Gentleman went on: We do not allowed the export of animals for slaughter to any countries where humane slaughter is not practised."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C,3rd February 1976; c. 392.] I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will now say that we shall not allow the export of animals for slaughter to any country where humane slaughter is not obligatory. We need to know the destination of these animals.

In our debate on 16th January 1975 I referred to the O'Brien Report, which was then only a year old. It was a dis- quieting report and I shall quote from it again. O'Brien said: In Italy enervation is permitted provided that it is carried out by trained personnel acting under the authority of the director of the abattoir. That is slaughter by means of a very sharp, short, three-edged dagger, which is thrust into the base of the animal's skull. It severs the vertebra and destroys the rapport between the nervous system and the legs so that the animal becomes absolutely immobilised but remains fully conscious. Its throat is then cut and it is bled to death. That method of slaughter was being carried out in Italy a year prior to the debate, and the O'Brien Report confirmed that. Is that still the practice in Italy? The Minister has a responsibility to say whether it is. Does he maintain that that is humane slaughter?

9.0 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman said that no animals are exported to countries where there is not humane slaughter consistent with our views, but only yesterday I was told in a Written Reply to my Question how many store cattle and cattle for slaughter, respectively, have been exported to Italy in each of the years 1971 to 1976 "[Official Report,4th May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 353.] that in 1972 there was none and in 1973 and 1974 very few. But in 1975, 20,108 store cattle were exported to Italy, all of them for subsequent slaughter. In the period January-March this year 15,362 store cattle were exported to Italy and 14 for immediate slaughter.

We know where they are going. That is a very good reason for "shall" being inserted in the Bill, so that the destination shall be known. Today we can describe the conditions in which we know animals were being slaughtered in Italy until 1974. If the Minister means what he says, he must tell us today that unless he has a firm undertaking from the Italian Government that enervation is not practised, that animals are pre-stunned and there is humane slaughter, the export of cattle to Italy must, on his own undertaking to the Committee, be stopped forthwith.

This is a serious matter, and we are having a serious debate. We are told that the Government intend to introduce within a year new regulations and orders to give further protection to animals for slaughter. The fact that in the meantime there is a continued insistence upon the destination of the animals being shown on all licences will in no way impede any legislation that the Government may introduce to protect animals exported for slaughter.

I welcome the statement that there is a better understanding between the Ministry of Agriculture and the French Government about the way in which animals shall be treated in France, but things are still far from satisfactory.

It is no good the Minister coming here with pious words and smooth hopes. We want to know tonight that the Government are prepared to accept this small, simple amendment. If they will not, I am sure that they will reap a wind of change towards them from animal lovers who now support them, a wind which, I hope, will cause them a considerable fright.

It is not a satisfactory situation. The Minister made certain observations in Committee and gave undertakings. He must now say that he will reinforce the Bill immediately by inserting the one word "shall", or he will be condemned by the House and the people of this country as someone who does not really care for animals but is more concerned with expediency and what happens in the EEC.

Mr. Buchan

I shall be very brief, despite what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said. I thank him for his words.

I have no intention of following the overall arguments already advanced on this amendment, nor of trying to emulate the passion with which both hon. Members have spoken. I want to deal with the practical problem of trying to get the best from this Report stage of the Bill. I know from sad experience that we are not likely to get the best necessarily by voting against what is in the Bill. Nor do I accept that the attitudes of hon. Members would be as they have been described if the Minister rejected the views expressed.

However, I am surprised on two counts. There are two instances of the word "may"—in page 9, line 12, as well as in page 9, line 20. In Committee I argued that the Minister should change the first "may" and that the consequence would be to change the second. I was told that "shall" was not necessary in the first place because the Government intended to bring in regulations. In that case there is no reason for not having "shall". I cannot see any Government who wish to bring in regulations objecting to the House of Commons telling them to do so. That change might have been made by the Government in view of the discussion in Committee, and I hope that it can still be considered in another place. The argument for changing the second "may" is that, if we say that it "shall" be done, we should also say that that provision "shall" be included.

The only possible objection would be based on a consideration of whether an exporter could specify the exact destination. It is a genuine difficulty. For agriculture as well as humanitarian reasons, I prefer the carcase trade to the live trade. However, we all annually fill in forms in which we testify that the facts in the forms, to the best of our knowledge, are accurate. It would be no more difficult for an exporter to say that, to the best of his knowledge, what he stated was true.

So if the Government's problem is that they cannot see how the exporter can specify the exact destination because someone might make a switch of trade in Italy or France, they should allow the regulations to provide that this should be stated merely to the best of the exporter's knowledge—or some such form of words. What we are seeking is the maximum information. It is no argument to say that if we cannot get complete and absolutely certain information, we should not bother to seek the maximum we can. We should move forward as far as we can, which is all that human beings can do.

So I hope that the Minister will consider changing the word to "shall" in both places—the first because it is in line with what they propose, and the second because it connotes that the information is the best available to the exporter. I know that this will not satisfy the hon. Members for Gillingham and for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), but they will have to carry their crusade into many other countries before they achieve their goal.

What I suggest would give a great deal of comfort, in two ways. First, none of us can say how the Government could act to refuse a licence unless they have the necessary information. We should compel that information on which the Government make their decision to be given. Secondly, there are many people in this country who want the assurance, not merely as statement of intention, but legislative assurances that what they desire is being understood and fulfilled by this House.

Mr. Burden

Although the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) does not go the whole way with us, surely he would agree that the Government should carry out the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary? Where they know that animals are being treated in a manner which is not acceptable, they should not allow the export of animals to any country where humane slaughter is not practised. That undertaking was given in Committee by the Minister. Surely the hon. Member will go that far with us—that it should be carried out.

Mr. Buchan

I am sure that the Minister will repeat that assurance. We must ensure that the intention of the Government is carried out in legislative terms here. I hope that the Government will look at these points rather than force Conservatives to push the amendment to a vote. I must warn them that if one cannot win a battle before a vote one will not win it in a vote.

Mr. Body

I declare an interest in that over the years I have exported a number of livestock, happily for breeding purposes. I have also been in the carcase trade through a farming co-operative.

I rebut the assertion often made that the farming industry is in favour of this trade. There is a great deal of disquiet among almost all livestock producers about the trade. Those who are trying to breed good quality cattle, sheep and pigs are concerned about this matter.

In my constituency many thousands of cattle pass through the port—perhaps more than through any other port. I repeat the assertion that no cruelty takes place in the port, or on the journey across to Rotterdam. Great efforts are made to rest the cattle and sheep before they travel and conditions on the ship are as satisfactory as they can be. The question is, what happens beyond Rotterdam? We may pass regulations and change the law, but the policing of these regulations beyond Rotterdam is well-nigh impossible. I hope the whole House has been persuaded by the appalling facts given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) about the terrible way in which many thousands of our cattle have been slaughtered in Italy in the past few months. The picture he painted was a horrible picture.

What we are proposing in this amendment is a modest matter—a question of priorities. When the Parliamentary Secretary replied to a similar debate in Committee he said that the existing arrangements were working satisfactorily. He is not a complacent man but he did seem rather complacent in making that assertion in view of all the evidence we have seen. I do not think anyone could say that the export of these cattle and sheep is satisfactory now. Up to Rotterdam it is all right, but beyond there it gets worse and worse as the journey progresses across France to Italy and perhaps on to North Africa. Therefore, the time has come to pass the most stringent regulations to govern this trade. Nobody would support that more than those who are trying in their way to improve livestock standards in this country. 9.15 p.m.

Therefore all we ask of the Minister is that he should accept the need to insert the word "shall", which means that he must get on immediately with the task of consulting the interests affected. He has undertaken to do that, and he must do so before the regulations are passed. That requires immediate action. I appreciate that he gave an undertaking in the Standing Committee that these regulations would be passed in 12 months. If that is to happen he will have to get on with holding the consultations and drafting the regulations without further delay. In other words, the subject must be at the top of his tray. If he accepts that, as he must, being a humane man, he will, I am sure, accept the amendment.

Mr. Strang

Not surprisingly hon. Members have used this opportunity to go somewhat wider than the amendment and, quite rightly, to draw attention to their deep concern about these matters and their continued objection in principle to the export of live animals, with the possible exception of breeding animals. If accepted, the amendment would oblige Ministers to include in any Order a provision requiring exporters to furnish information about the transportation arrangements for, and the final destination of, all animals for export without exception, and irrespective of whether this information was considered necessary in order to safeguard the welfare of the animals concerned.

I have every sympathy with the intention of this amendment and the objective that hon. Members believe they will achieve by it. However, substituting "shall" for "may" in subsection (2) of the proposed Section 36B would have the result that, whatever its particular purpose or however limited that purpose might be, every Order made under the section, even an amending Order. would have to contain a provision requiring the furnishing by persons exporting animals of information as to their final destination.

I am not sure what the sponsors of the amendment wish to achieve. The Government included this clause in the Bill primarily to give Ministers specific legal powers to require exporters to disclose the final destination of exported food animals. Let me repeat the assurance I gave in Committee. We shall not allow the export of live food animals unless we can be fully assured that they will be well treated in transit and at their final destination. It follows, therefore, that any Order made under this clause will require exporters of live food animals to declare their final destination. I gave an assurance to this effect in Committee, and I can repeat it now. The clause allows Orders to be made related to any species of animals or birds exported for any purpose. Hon. Members have addressed themselves specifically to live food animals. Although the Government accept the need for very strict controls on exports of live food animals, it is not necessary on welfare grounds to be so restrictive in the case of high-value animals. I have in mind here racehorses and high-value animals intended for breeding or exhibition purposes. The very fact that these animals are so valuable helps to ensure that they are well treated. A specific example of what I have in mind is the private owner who is taking a horse overseas to jump in various international competitions possibly in several different countries. The effect of the proposed amendment would make it illegal to do that unless the owner could say in advance to which country the animal was finally going.

It is for such reasons that we wish to have the flexibility that "may" instead of "shall" will give to enable us to provide welfare safeguards on the basis of all the relevant considerations relating to the type, standard, condition, and purpose for which animals are to be exported.

Mr. Buchan

I do not know whether this answers the point made by Conservative Members. Surely the owner of the racehorse would be required to provide full details and the Government would then come to a decision. There is no problem about that. The owner would say what he considered to be the animal's ultimate destination, and the Government, or the appropriate authorities, would decide whether they had sufficient information to allow the grant of a licence.

Mr. Strang

I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not want to make too much of the racehorse point, but I do not think it would add one whit to the welfare of a racehorse for us to introduce new bureaucracy. We are giving the categorical assurance that we shall require to know the final destinations of all food animals that are exported. That is what I understand hon. Members are concerned about. I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

This may not be an overwhelming argument, but if the Opposition force us to introduce further red tape and bureaucracy as regards racehorses, birds and other animals, we shall be doing nothing further to safeguard the welfare of those animals.

It is natural that Conservative Members should say that they want the Government to be sincere, but if at the end of the day they are suggesting that the Government are not prepared to stand by their assurances, that they do not want to improve animal welfare safeguards, they are flying in the face of all the available evidence.

Sir Bernard Braine

The Minister understands the purpose behind the amendment perfectly well It has nothing to do with racehorses. It is concerned with the fulfilment under the law of an assurance given by Ministers not once but many times that food animals exported from this country for slaughter abroad will be treated humanely in transit and humanely in the slaughterhouse.

If the amendment that I and my hon. Friends have tabled is technically defective because it will somehow catch racehorses or goldfish, we expect the Minister to say" I accept wholeheartedly the spirit in which the amendment has been moved, and I undertake on behalf of the Government that in another place an amendment will be moved to cover the point that has been made." That is what the House wants to hear.

Mr. Strang

I think that the hon. Gentleman is forgetting that this is a measure to give us power to require that exporters of live animals state the final destination of their exports. Bearing in mind what some Conservative Members have said, it might well be thought that we are seeking to open up a loophole. On the contrary, the Government want to have all the legal means that they need to fulfil their assurances. That is why we are seeking to obtain the passage of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman says that this matter has nothing to do with racehorses. I accept that, but surely it is right and proper that I should explain why we cannot accept the amendment. We should get credit for the categorical assurances that we have given. I do not want to embarrass Opposition Front Bench spokesman, but we had a full debate in Committee.

What advantage would there be to the Government by being insincere? The word "sincere" has been repeated many times. Why should the Government want to facilitate the export of live food animals in a way which would subject them to cruelty? I think that hon. Gentlemen will accept, although they have not made the point, that in all the international councils of the world the British Government are a force for increasing standards —for example, in the EEC directive on humane slaughter, to which I shall come later.

Sir Bernard Braine

I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said about it being the Government's intention to require that the final destination of the animal should be stated. Will he address himself to the question which I put to him? Italy is a member State of the EEC. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) showed that the exports of live food animals to Italy this year will be treble what they were last year. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that within that Community country methods of slaughter are such that he can lay his hand on his heart and say "We shall permit the export of such animals to Italy where that is stated to be the final country of destination"? Can he assure the House categorically that this huge increase in exports does not mean that British cattle are going on from Italy to other destinations? We want to know the facts.

Mr. Strang

I shall address myself specifically to Italy later in my remarks. Perhaps I may complete my remarks on the amendment and then deal with the wider issues.

I understand and appreciate the motives for the amendment. I assure hon. Members that, although in our opinion there is a genuine need for flexibility in the making of Orders relating to the obtaining of information, that will in no way weaken our resolve to ensure that the welfare of all exported animals is adequately safeguarded. We shall not allow animals to go if we are not satisfied that their welfare will be protected. In order to establish that their welfare is protected, we shall insist on all the information necessary for that purpose. That will definitely include the final destination of all live food animals.

I turn now to the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) regarding Italy. There has been an increase in the export of cattle to Italy. That increase is almost totally accounted for by calves which are being exported to Italy to be reared for slaughter.

Turning to the important point made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), which was repeated by the hon.

Members for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and Essex, South-East, since 1st July stunning by humane slaughter methods has been obligatory in all EEC countries. The Italian Government have confirmed that enervation is no longer used. Almost all the animals sent to Italy in recent months have been calves for further fattening.

Mr. Burden

The Minister said that the vast majority of animals sent to Italy were calves. Will he tell the House how many were calves and how many were store cattle? The figures which I obtained from the Ministry showed that for the period January to March 1976 there were 15,362 designated as store cattle and calves and 14 as cattle for slaughter. The Minister should know how many were calves and how many were cattle.

Mr. Strang

If the hon. Gentleman wants the precise statistics on the age at which an animal ceases to be a calf, I shall be happy to provide them—[Interruption.]—but I cannot, off the cuff, give the number of calves and store cattle exported to Italy.

I want to come to some of the more general points, because there is no argument between us. We want to increase animal welfare. We want to reduce the possibility that any animals whatsoever will suffer in transit.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of White)

I have a great interest in the debate. I declare that as a former agricultural auctioneer, and I think that I know a little about the trade. Is the Minister satisfied with the fact that we are sending 15,000 calves all the way to Italy? That is an alarming figure. I should have thought that it was a matter of great concern to the industry as to what happens when they get there, because it is a long distance and we have even been worried about the journeys from Scotland to England. To send calves to Italy seems frightening, and I am wondering whether the Minister is absolutely satisfied about it.

Mr. Strang

I think that the best way to address myself to this question is to say that our policy is based on the O'Brien Report. Everyone knows the details and the undertakings that we have given. All store and slaughter animals go to countries whose welfare standards are generaly similar to ours. The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Animals in International Transport and the EEC Directive on Humane Slaughter are both there to help safeguard animals in transit and at slaughter-houses. We could go over the old argument and use this debate as a means of rehearsing the precise arguments on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stephen Ross

It is a new trade.

Mr. Strang

The hon. Gentleman says "It is a new trade", but the undertaking we gave was that animals would go only to countries which pursued humane slaughtering standards. Countries within the EEC come into that category.

Hon. Members can exaggerate the danger of re-export. We check up on these things. We are getting good cooperation from the international authorities on these matters. I suspect that one of the reasons for this is that the people in the countries concerned—who, after all, make money out of this trade ; it is a commerce—recognise that if these abuses are not stamped out, the trade will cease. I think that most hon. Members recognise that there are only very isolated instances of real cruelty affecting these animals.

Mr. Pym

The Parliamentary Secretary is being very generous in giving way and is being helpful to the House. I want to put two points to him. In starting his reply, he referred to the red tape that might apply to the export of certain horses. He referred to the requirements and details of destination, and so on, applying to food animals. As he knows, mention of food animals does not appear in the clause, and I wonder whether he would clarify that point, because in referring to racehorses he seemed to imply that the clause would apply to all animals, yet he seemed also to imply that we wanted the clause to apply to food animals only.

Secondly, we are discussing an amendment to leave out the word "may" and to insert "shall". The Parliamentary Secretary argued in favour of leaving the Bill as it is on the grounds of flexibility.

Can he identify accurately the circumstances in which he would use that flexibility and would apply the provisions of this clause, and in which circumstances he would not apply them, because obviously, if the amendment were carried, he would have to do it in every single case? He does not want to do it in every case because he has argued that in some cases that is not necessary or desirable. It would help the House if he could answer on those two aspects.

Mr. Strang

I shall try to answer those points. The point we make is that the clause applies right across the board to animals which can be exported and it is not confined merely to food animals. It also applies to breeding animals. I think that hon. Members have always accepted—certainly the Front Benches have accepted it—that there is no danger of cruelty or adverse treatment of high-valued breeding stock. I see hon. Members nodding their heads in assent. I am grateful to them. All that we are saying is that we think that it is undesirable and unnecessary that we should be required, as we would be if the amendments were accepted, to write in this requirement in every future Order we made under the clause, whether it applied to racehorses—that is only one example I have given—or to breeding animals.

Mr. Burden

Can the Minister give an undertaking that in all cases where food animals for export are involved, the Government will require the destination to be stated?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

He has said so.

Mr. Strang

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). As he has commented from his sedentary position, I said so in Committee and have said so again twice on the Floor of the House. My undertaking applies to all food animals for export.

This has been a useful debate and there is no more pleasing note on which to finish it than with the agreement of the hon. Member for Gillingham who feels very deeply on these matters, and who has mounted a sustained and effective campaign on an issue in which he believes very strongly.

I am pleased that we now agree that it is right and proper that the Govern- ment should make this requirement in respect of all food animals which are to be exported. I have given the House the assurance yet again. I hope hon. Members will not find it necessary to press the amendment to Division.

Mr. Pym

This has been an important debate on a subject about which many hon. Members are extremely concerned. It went much wider than the amendment might have justified, but that was no surprise. Nor was it unreasonable in view of the concern on this matter.

My hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Gillingham (Mr. Burden) rehearsed the history of this matter, the debates we have had in the House, and some of the incidents which have caused anxiety in all parts of the House. The desire of my hon. Friends to ensure the maximum degree of protection and care for animals while this trade continues is shared on both sides of the House.

The Minister is to be congratulated because Clause 8 is designed to improve the welfare of animals. We must be fair, and I do not think my hon. Friends were altogether fair. If it was not for the desire to improve the welfare of animals the clause would not have been included in the Bill.

However, I wish it had been drafted in a different way. It would have been a help if the clause had said that in all cases where food animals are to be exported the undertaking requirement would be obligatory. We accept that this is what the Government will do, but it might have saved the time of the House and satisfied hon. Members if we had known that the undertaking would be given in respect of all cases.

The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was right when he said there is no certainty in every case that the destination will be what the exporter thinks it will be. The clause refers to "the intended ultimate destination". Clearly this is an undertaking given by business men with good will on both sides, and in the vast majority of cases, though presumably not in 100 per cent. of cases, what is thought to be the ultimate destination will, in fact, be the ultimate destination, and arrangements for transport will be supervised as carefully as possible.

The House will have taken some comfort from the fact that proper slaughtering arrangements in the EEC are now obligatory, which was not the case when we debated this matter more than a year ago. One of the anxieties was that the new regulations should apply throughout the Community, and the fact is that they do so apply. The House will take some comfort from that.

I believe that the Government are genuine in bringing forward, of their own volition, a positive new method, and should be given credit for it in view of the great difficulties, but I wish that this provision could have been phrased differently so that its true meaning, and the way it is to be interpreted and handled, was plain for all to see. Everyone would have been happier then. It would be helpful if the Government decided to adjust the provision in that sense when the Bill goes to another place. I do not see why that should not be possible, because the Parliamentary Secretary has said what many hon. Members wish to hear. On that basis, and in the knowledge that the Government are no less anxious than others to help the welfare of animals, I hope that they will consider adjusting the clause in another place. But I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance can be accepted now.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that our veterinary officers have an important part to play in the export trade, and are in attendance at virtually every stage of the journey, including the ultimate call—the abattoir on the other side of the North Sea or the English Channel—and are hardly likely to allow ill-treatment to occur? Is that not a further guarantee of the treatment and welfare of animals being exported?

Mr. Pym

Yes, I think my hon. Friend is right. It is a further guarantee, but I hazard the opinion that unless and until we have had a run of several years, when everything from the point of view of animal welfare has worked as we want it to, there will still be anxiety. If these regulations and controls can be demonstrated over a period to be work- ing as we want them to, we can say "Yes, the vets have played their part, the system is working and we are satisfied with it." I think that Clause 8 is intended to be a further strengthening of the structure to protect the welfare of animals.

Sir Bernard Braine

With the permission of the House, I would like to say that I have listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary, and in large measure he has disappointed me.

I did not understand the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It has always been my understanding that the honourable veterinary profession of this country disliked very much the export of live food animals for slaughter abroad. I still persist in my view that common sense, logic and humanity, as well as economic advanage, will require in the end that this traffic cease altogether and that we export carcase meat only.

I understand the technical difficulty which the Parliamentary Secretary put to us. I have been a Minister. We all know that often an amendment is put down that would be technically difficult to implement. The hon. Gentleman explained that, but I was astonished that, having made the point, he did not go on to say that the Government fully understood the motives behind the amendment and that these were in line with their own feelings. It is not our fault that the Bill is drafted as it is and, therefore, does not permit our intentions to be assimilated into it easily. We have advanced our anxieties and concern, which the Minister says he shares, but the hon. Gentleman did not say a word about the possibility, at a later stage in the Bill—we are not at the end of proceedings on the Bill, after all—

Mr. Burden

Wring it out of him.

9.45 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine

We have to do that. If we want any assurance about the welfare of animals in this traffic, it has to be wrung out of Ministers. That is why I speak with such feeling.

My amendment is clearly seen by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House as logical and sensible. We have a situation already where exporters are required to provide certain information about ultimate destinations. Why not write that requirement into the statute?

We were expecting the Minister to say, "This amendment makes for technical difficulties, but we give the House the undertaking that the assurances that we ourselves have been giving all along will be implemented in statutory form when the Bill reaches another place." That is all that we were asking from the Minister. I still hope that he will say that "The Government share the anxieties of hon. Members on both sides, and we therefore undertake to look at the possibility in another place of amending the clause to ensure that there shall be no misunderstanding about the Government's intention to see to it that licences for the export of British food animals for slaughter abroad will be given only in circumstances where we are completely satisfied that the conditions of transport and slaughter will be humane and civilised." Even at this eleventh hour, I beg the Minister to give the House that assurance.

Mr. Strang

I made it clear that it was the Government's intention that licensing the export of food animals should be carried out on the basis of their destinations having been conveyed in advance to the Ministry, but I am happy to undertake to see whether it is possible to alter the wording of the Bill to make that mandatory upon the Government. I cannot give any undertaking about the outcome, but I give that assurance.

Sir Bernard Braine

The Minister has been very reasonable. I accept what he says—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to address the House or to withdraw his amendment?

Sir Bernard Braine

I was seeking, Mr. Speaker, to ask you whether, in view of the assurance now given, I might withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to