HC Deb 20 July 1978 vol 954 cc762-5
1. Mr. Corbett

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce a ban on the export of live food animals for slaughter following publication of the departmental review of this trade on 23rd March.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin)

I am considering representations on the report by officials of the Agriculture Departments and, pending a decision, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told the Council of EEC Ministers of our concern and asked if it proposes to take any action. The Commission confirmed that new proposals concerning intra-Community trade in live food animals will be put forward shortly.

Mr. Corbett

I acknowledge the Minister's personal concern in this matter, as reflected in his vote against the resumption of this trade in January 1975, but does he understand that a majority of Members of this House and of the public outside these walls can have no confidence at all in either the willingness or the ability of those responsible in the countries where these animals are sent to enforce even existing regulations? If the Minister cannot announce a total ban on this vile trade, may I invite him at least to suspend the issue of further licences until the Government have made up their minds what to do on the basis of the biased departmental report published in March?

Mr. Silkin

I know of my hon. Friend's deep concern about this matter and I take the opportunity to acknowledge his devotion and his ability in this cause. I think that the truth of the matter is that when, as in my case, one's emotions and instincts lead one to a certain conclusion, it demands a greater objectivity when one becomes the Minister. For that reason, when I come to make my decision it will, I hope, be the right decision and it will be made without fear and without favour.

One conclusion that I have come to in the meantime is that the committee of experts of the Council of Europe, which recommended the abolition of the live trade and the substitution for it of a carcase trade throughout Europe—not only in the Community—probably had the right answer. I was therefore rather encouraged by the report from the Commissioner who said that the live trade is declining throughout Europe and the carcase trade is expanding.

Mr. Geraint Howells

Has the Minister any proof or evidence that any British livestock exporters have broken the welfare code during the past five years?

Mr. Silkin

I do not think that I have any evidence. That is not the problem with which we are dealing. The problem is not in these islands. Our regulations are extremely good and we have tightened them up very well indeed. The problem arises in areas over which we have no control, and there are those who say that, because we have no control, the whole trade should be banned. There are others who say that perhaps we can try to get some control.

Several Hon. Members rose

—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side on this Question. We shall move faster afterwards.

Mr. John Ellis

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that some of us are very troubled, because we listened to the comments of his colleagues on the Front Bench—although my right hon. Friend was not there at the time—on the reassurances that we had been given about the EEC and the existing legislation, and we have come to the conclusion that we were conned in the sense that those regulations could not be enforced? We are very troubled when the Minister talks about hearing more proposals from the Common Market. Those that we have now do not stick. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have made up our minds that we must ban this offensive trade forthwith?

Mr. Silkin

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. In my turn, I need to see what the Commission is proposing. I do not know what that is at the moment. It matters a great deal, because the proposals might, for example, lead us along a line which gets to the carcase trade. I believe that to be the right approach. The question is whether it is moving fast enough. If it does not move fast enough for our purposes, it will be my duty to try to alter those proposals so that it does.

I wish to add that I sense that this is becoming an issue in which the public are becoming more and more interested. That will have its effect not only here but throughout Europe.

Mr. Peter Mills

May I ask the Minister not to dismiss the economic arguments while temporary employment subsidies are being paid to many slaughterhouses throughout this country? Will he, therefore, seek to phase out the export of old ewes and old cows while still allowing the export of calves of rearing stock? Surely this is the way forward.

Mr. Silkin

This is very much one of the aspects that need to be looked at. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we need to achieve something on an interim basis until an eventual solution is arrived at.

I was interested, when I was at the Great Yorkshire Show last week, to find that it was not just a case of the slaughterhouses working under capacity. There were farmers who were themselves opposed to the trade for other than economic reasons.

Mr. Ron Thomas

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government supporters certainly look at this matter objectively, unlike the National Farmers' Union, which simply adopts the balance sheet approach and considers the economics of it? May I remind my right hon. Friend that 162 Government supporters have signed a motion demanding that this trade should cease and that a further 245 Members of the House have asked for a debate on the subject? Can we not have a debate so that we can express in the Division Lobbies our opposition to this indefensible trade?

Mr. Silkin

The question of a debate is not one for me. I suggest that the objectivity or lack of objectivity of the NFU is perhaps a greater reason why I should be objective.

Sir Bernard Braine

Why wait for the Commission? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the distaste in this country springs from the knowledge that it is impossible to ensure that animals will be slaughtered humanely at the final point of destination. If that is so, why does he not take unilateral action by carrying out the pledge of his predecessor, which was to lay an order making it mandatory for the final point of destination to be stated by exporters? The action is in his own hands.

Mr. Silkin

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the trade is bad in the sense that it is not being carried out humanely in other parts of Europe—I think we all agree that it is well carried out in our own country—does it really matter whether the cruelty, if cruelty there is, is inflicted on a British calf, a French calf or an Italian calf? Is not our job to see that the whole trade changes?

Forward to