§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9415/82 concerning measures for the control of foot and mouth disease and 9449/82 amending Directives 64/432 and 72/461 as regards certain measures relating to foot and mouth disease, Aujeszky's disease and swine vesicular disease and supports the Government's intention to seek agreement to arrangements which would strengthen controls in the Community as a whole while fully meeting the requirements of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
§ Mrs. FennerI am glad that these documents have been chosen for debate. They are of considerable importance both to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland. Their importance is matched by their complexity. I hope, therefore, that I can assist the House by providing some of the background and describing the current state of the discussions.
It will be recalled that the interest of the Select Committee was aroused by the Commission's proposals as set out in documents 9415 and 9449. It has had the benefit of a memorandum on those papers from the Ministry. It was made clear that the first Commission proposal was to establish control measures to be taken by member States when outbreaks of foot and mouth disease occurred in their territories. As might be expected with such a virulent disease, and with the varying conditions that are encountered throughout the Community, the arrangements are complex.
§ Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you request a little silence at the further end of the Chamber?
§ Mr. SpeakerI should like silence in every part of the Chamber. That makes me quite impartial.
§ Mrs. FennerI take it that you do not mean from me, Mr. Speaker.
On the other hand, the arrangements follow fairly familiar animal health lines and there is no reason why we should not support the proposals in principle. It was to be expected that in the discussions that took place in the Commission context and subsequently in the Council working party veterinarians had varied views on the fine print of the proposals. Our explanatory memorandum drew attention to some of the more important of those. I am afraid that their resolution will require further discussion.
In the broadest sense, we have not so much at stake in relation to the issues arising on the control directive which is principally of concern to those member States that have undertaken vaccination for foot and mouth disease, hut, as will become apparent when I deal with the intra-Community trade covered by document 9449, we are principally concerned with these arrangements and less with what countries do as part of their domestic policy. There is no question of our changing our "stamping-out" policy with regard to foot and mouth disease that has been well proven over the years. 941 I shall now deal with the second set of Commission proposals that are embodied in document 9449. It is clear that the document raises much more complicated issues than those associated with the control directive. The original Commission proposals concerned arrangements governing intra-Community trade in live cattle and pigs and meat. They were designed to provide rules relating to foot and mouth disease, swine vesicular disease and Aujesky's disease. It is not possible to understand the proposals without a knowledge of the existing intra-Community regime. A directive governing intra-Community trade in live cattle and pigs is currently in force. It is document 64/432. There is another directive, 72/461, that relates to such trade in meat including mutton and lamb.
Directive 64/432 provides that there shall be free trade in live cattle and pigs, subject to certain animal health rules—for example, when outbreaks of foot and mouth disease occur in a member State. It was agreed within the Community in 1976 that, notwithstanding the provision of document 64/432, Great Britain would be permitted, because of our special approach and status with regard to foot and mouth disease, to apply quarantine rules both in an exporting country and in Britain before admitting live cattle and pigs whether they are intended for breeding, production or slaughter. In addition, the animals will be tested for foot and mouth disease in the exporting country, which in practice precludes the export of vaccinated animals. Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic were allowed to go even further and to apply their own rules.
As to the meat directive, document No. 72/461, there are no special arrangements for Great Britain. We are fully satisfied with the arrangements set out in that directive, although in practice we have been able to insist on the more stringent rule that live cattle and pigs may not be used for meat export unless they come from more than 10 km away from outbreaks. Other member States have protection extending only to 2 km. Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, once again, are able to apply their own rules, which effectively means that they do not import meat from other member States.
The House should be aware that intra-Community trade rules for live pigs are also applied for swine vesicular disease, so testing for that disease is undertaken before export.
It has been necessary for the Commission to make new proposals in relation to the two directives because the special rules that I have described extend only until the end of 1982 and it is clearly essential to avoid a hiatus in the arrangements.
As the House will know, the Commission proposed that the rules that applied to Great Britain, together with the establishment of the control directive, should be extended for a further three years. That would have suited us admirably, as it would have afforded a reasonable time to take a view on the operation of the control directive, but several other member States favoured letting the arrangements lapse. Some of them have, none the less, shown an interest in the possibility of exporting animals to Great Britain for immediate slaughter, notwithstanding the fact that the animals might be vaccinated against foot and mouth disease.
These issues were discussed at a recent meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and it was clear that 942 agreement was unlikely on the proposals as they stood. Further discussions are now taking place with a view to preparing the ground for decisions at the Council of Ministers meeting on 13 and 14 December. At this stage, it is not possible to be precise about the main elements of the outcome. A further attempt will have to be made to obtain agreement on a revised control directive. As I have said, however, the control directive is not of prime importance to us and it is far from certain that the outstanding differences can be settled in the time available. Nevertheless, there are signs that other member States are sympathetic to the idea of a limited extension to the trade arrangements pending agreement on the more permanent arrangements.
We believe that we should reluctantly accept such a limited extension for, say, one year. Clearly we wish at all costs to avoid a hiatus in the intra-Community trade rules and it is clear that we shall not obtain agreement to the three-year period for which we had originally hoped.
We are reinforced in our view about what should be done on this by the possibility that a somewhat different approach may be proposed on the major point of intra-Community trade. As the House may know, agreement was reached at the end of 1980 on intra-Community trade, having regard to the precautions that should be taken in relation to swine fever. That agreement was on the basis that existing derogations, from which we benefited, should be relinquished. In return, however, member States were categorised in relation to their health status for that disease. In the broadest terms, trade could take place without hindrance or special rules between member States in the same category. That is a possible line of approach that we believe may be proposed in relation to foot and mouth disease. If so, we believe that it is worthy of detailed consideration.
The situation as regards Northern Ireland is also not wholly clear. It is, however, likely that the rules that become applicable to the Irish Republic will also be applied to Northern Ireland. A major factor would be the possible effects of any changed arrangements upon its trade in such important markets as the United States and Japan. The Commission has this problem very much in mind and proposes to seek the views of the authorities in those countries before 1 July 1983. One of the ideas under discussion at present—
§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)The hon. Lady referred to the views of the authorities "in those countries". It was not clear to which countries she was referring.
§ Mrs. FennerThe United States and Japan. The Commission proposes to seek the views of the authorities in those countries before 1 July 1983.
One of the ideas under discussion at present is that Northern Ireland will be able to continue to apply its own rules on imports of live cattle and pigs for a further year. In addition, it will be able to apply its own rules for meat imports for the first six months of next year pending the outcome of the inquiries that the Commission is making.
I have mentioned the interest of some member States in being able to export cattle and pigs for immediate slaughter to this country and the possibility that this might be an element in achieving agreement on the package of proposals. The suggestion is not new. However, we realise the sensitivity of the point for the home industry. We 943 would not be prepared to accept any such arrangement unless it was subject to conditions which fully protected our animal health status for cattle and for pigs and as part of an overall settlement that was satisfactory. It is not yet clear what will be the final formulation on this subject.
§ Mr. J. Enoch PowellThe hon. Lady has referred to our health status in the context that we would not be prepared to accept arrangements that did not fully protect it. Does she include in what she means by "our health status" the present health status of Northern Ireland as distinct from the health status of Great Britain?
§ Mrs. FennerI understand that they are the same. We are co-ordinating closely in this matter with Northern Ireland. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman. We would be prepared to discuss the issue in principle, if that is what is proposed, on the understanding that agreement on practical details, at a later stage, would be necessary.
The House will see that the proposals in relation to Aujeszky's disease were of a limited nature. In the discussions we have made it clear that we do not regard these as providing any worthwhile safeguards in relation to intra-Community trade. Apart from that, we think that it is unlikely to be productive to include proposals on such a different disease from foot and mouth disease in the same package—a package on which it will be difficult enough to obtain agreement. There now seems to be a good prospect, as a result of our arguments, that no actual proposals in relation to Aujeszky's disease will be included in the final package, although without question the subject will have to be explored in the context of these discussions or at a later stage.
I fear that the conclusion to be drawn is that everything is still very much in the melting pot. On the other hand, the recent discussions have served a useful purpose in identifying clearly, perhaps for the first time, where there are substantive points of disagreement. I am sorry that I am not in a position to give the House a clearer idea of the form that the final settlement will take. I wish to emphasise the determination to achieve a continuation of trade arrangements which will fully safeguard the livestock population in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.
I wish now to refer to the Opposition amendment to the Government's motion. It will be clear that we see the arrangements now proposed as an interim solution to the problem of what should be done at the expiry of the existing derogations. In that sense, I do not think that the council, the member States or the Government are under any illusion that the proposals to be considered in the very near future and which I have described are more than a stop gap—which would, broadly speaking, apply for a year—during which we should expect more detailed and substantive arrangements to be devised in the light of the consultations that will be undertaken.
I assure the House that the Government's aim will be to achieve during the next year long-term arrangements that fully safeguard the animal health status both of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government's motion takes account of that and, in the circumstances, we can see no point in changing its drafting.
§ Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)I beg to move, to leave out after "swine vesicular disease" to end and add instead thereof: 944
'but believes that the present proposals fail to provide a long-term solution satisfactorily to the United Kingdom as a whole and Northern Ireland in particular.'I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on her stamina. It is now 12 hours since we discussed some rather recondite veterinary matters in Committee, and this afternoon she had to speak in the Chamber on disparate matters. I congratulate her on her stamina, if not on the content of her speech.
§ Mrs. FennerOh, sorry about that.
§ Mr. HughesHowever, it is clear that the Parliamentary Secretary did not reject our amendment because it is incorrect. Her speech made it clear that the current proposals are unacceptable and do not provide a permanent, satisfactory arrangement for the United Kingdom in general or Northern Ireland in particular.
The history of slaughter with compensation is interesting. I quote a letter written in January 1753.
I am sorry to hear the Distemper among the Cattle rages now at Witton on the Were … I hope Gateshead may still escape it. The newspapers lately gave an account of several being cured by Dr. James' fever powder being kept in the house and having warm water to drink.I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you live in Witton-le-Wear, although the letter was written slightly before your time. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that the slaughter with compensation policy has served animal health since 1714. It is one of the longest lasting protections. Long before we protected humans, we had a policy of slaughter compensation for the owner.A few years later, Dr. Layard, the Court physician, was ordered to correspond with Dr. Petrus Camper, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Groningen
'who makes the distemper among horned cattle his particular study. The French are still ignorant of the advantages of inoculation … in Denmark it is now authorized and its utility acknowledged, as well as in Holland.' Experience in England, however, continues to favour the policy of compulsory slaughter.That reminds us of what could happen if we relaxed for one moment, the terms of the traffic in live animals or meat. It would be wholly unacceptable to every section of the British farming and livestock industry if there was any hint of our being required to lower our standards to permit the importation of vaccinated animals without quarantine or that that would be acceptable either now or at any conceivable future date.What worries me about the proposals is that if we let them through we may be required at some future date to permit the importation of livestock without our own quarantine regulations because the animals have been vaccinated and come from a country with a history of non-disease. That is unacceptable because, alone with Ireland in the Community, we have the advantage of having no terrestrial boundaries, whereas continental countries risk land-borne disease. For them vaccination may be the proper and reasonable answer. We have a better answer which we should not contemplate giving up.
Even a two or three year derogation is unsatisfactory. It does not accept that Community countries that are islands should in perpetuity have different animal health regulations because their situation is fundamentally different and because we shall not allow, however minimal the risk, the importation of vaccinated animals. We must set our face against that and tell our partners that the 945 importation of vaccinated stock without quarantine is unavailable for ever and that a two to five-year derogation is insufficient.
Northern Ireland has a particular problem. The explanatory memorandum states:
Under the existing provisions Northern Ireland is permitted, because of her special foot-and-mouth disease status, to apply her own rules, which in effect prevent the importation of live animals from Member States. In addition, Northern Ireland does not import fresh meat from countries which vaccinate against foot-and-mouth disease or from Great Britain, which whilst not vaccinating, imports fresh meat from vaccinated animals. Under these proposals Northern Ireland would be enabled to apply the rules which govern imports of live animals into Great Britain until the end of 1985. Northern Ireland would, however, be required to accept fresh meat from Member States which have been free of the disease for a least twelve months and which adopt a slaughter destruction policy for controlling any outbreaks of the disease.The damage that that could do to the export trade in pedigree stock not only from Northern Ireland but from the Republic would be tremendous. Given the land boundary between the North and the South, one cannot have one regulation for Ulster and another for Eire, because if Northern Ireland is allowed to import fresh meat it will destroy the status of the export of quality stock from the Republic. The qualifications are based upon the integrity, in animal health terms, of both parts of Ireland. That is why our amendment draws attention to the effect of the proposals on Northern Ireland.I suspect that some hon. Members may wish to speak more specifically about the Northern Ireland problem, both at constitutional and at agricultural level. If the current proposals are accepted, it would damage the export of high-class pedigree pigs and cattle from the whole of Ireland. It is a curious constitutional point that if the House accepts the proposals we shall destroy the export trade in those products of the Republic and of Ulster. The Commission requires decisions from the Dail and fron Westminster that will drive a wedge between the countries. Parliament is denied the opportunity to do its best for Northern Ireland and cannot have formal consultations with the Republic. It would be intolerable for the Commission to force upon a Westminster Government a set of rules that apply to Northern Ireland but which no element in the Province accepts.
I deeply regret the fact that the Minister chose to reject our amendment, because it reflects the opinions of the majority of hon. Members that any relaxation of the regulations along the lines proposed in the two draft proposals is wholly unacceptable. We shall not allow either a constitutional monstrosity or a veterinary abnormality to be foisted upon the House.
§ Mr. William Ross (Londonderry)I welcome the amendment. Indeed, my name is appended to the list of those right hon. and hon. Members who support it.
As has already been said by the two Front-Bench spokesmen, these two documents are of great importance to agriculture in Northern Ireland. The proposals that the documents contain are completely opposed by the farming community, both the farmers union and individual farmers in the Province, because, if the country were thrown open to import and export at will, they know perfectly well what the result would be. We should be ravaged by the diseases 946 that we have managed to keep out for a long time, and against which our stock has no in-built resistance. Valuable markets would disappear, and the long-term effects on the livestock farmers in Northern Ireland would be horrific. Document No. 9415 tries to harmonise measures to deal with foot and mouth disease, and document No. 9449 deals with foot and mouth disease, Aujeszky's disease and swine vesicular disease. I understand that the drafts have already been modified to some extent, but the Government tell us in them that they agree with harmonisation in dealing with foot and mouth disease, as set out in document No. 9415.
The United Kingdom has a slaughter programme to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease. Most other countries have a vaccination programme against this distressing condition in cattle and other livestock. How does one harmonise between a slaughter policy and a vaccination policy? I do not believe that it is possible. One can harmonise only by adopting one or the other; one cannot have half of each. The Government and their officials are well aware of that. Thus, if there is ever to be harmony, and if the majority voice is to prevail in the European Community, the United Kingdom must be prepared at some point to accept the standards that prevail in the majority of those countries. That means that we have a vaccination policy, and such a policy destroys our livestock industry in this country as surely as accepting the proposals that are to be thrust on us when the time arises.
I support the slaughter programme. It is costly and it causes great hardship to livestock owners, but the economic loss that would result if we allowed foot and mouth disease in this country would far outweigh the short-term loss and difficulty that farmers have experienced during the major outbreaks that have occurred in recent years.
The second document is somewhat different. To some extent, it represents the maintenance of the status quo in respect of Great Britain. However, as the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) said, that is not the case in Northern Ireland. It is clear from the documents that a massive change of policy is proposed, and that means a massive change in the health standards in Northern Ireland. Those standards have permitted us over the years to apply our own rules. They have meant that we have been able to export to countries that do not accept livestock from any other source. Therefore, we have acted as a transit camp for high quality stock from Europe to North America and further afield.
The farmers in Northern Ireland and Ireland have taken full advantage of their privileged position. It has been worth a lot of money to the farming community in the Province. We wish to protect that favoured position.
The other problem that seems to have been skated over lightly is the importance of agriculture in the whole Northern Ireland economy. It is a valuable industry. It is also our biggest single industry. Sometimes one begins to wonder whether it will soon be our only industry. It provides employment to a large section of the community in Northern Ireland. For that reason alone, it is worth the extra protection that it has enjoyed over the years. If any serious inroads were made into the size and nature of the industry, that would cost the Province dear. It could not be replaced easily in any other way.
As I have already said, the Ulster Fanners Union is wholly opposed to the proposed changes, for the reasons that one would expect. It is clear to it that the changes 947 proposed would increase to an unacceptable level the danger of importing disease. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned another aspect of the export trade. She said that the EC was going to talk to other countries. She made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that those other countries were North America and Japan.
On the face of it, if we reached agreement with those countries now, that might be temporarily acceptable. However, we have seen the attitude of the United States over its butter mountain. One must understand that the import of livestock from Northern Ireland would weigh lightly in the scales of American agricultural policy if it suited their purpose. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that American policy would remain at the level of the agreement that is reached with the EC. The future of the industry's livestock exports would no longer lie in our hands. The control would be elsewhere—in Washington or Toyko. At the stroke of a pen the Americans could change the regulations and say that the agreement was not being fulfilled. Once such a decision was taken, the advantage that we enjoy would be immediately wiped out.
With the American decision would come further pressure from the EC, which could then say to us "You have no need of the special status that you enjoy. Therefore, we shall wipe it out completely." Therefore, not only could the Americans take such a decision, but we may never recover from it.
The Government should not be satisfied with seeing the EC trotting off to discuss our future with other people. Once an agreement has been made, there is no way in which we can ensure that it will be kept in the long term and that our position will be protected. I doubt whether that is tolerable or acceptable to this House. It is certainly not acceptable to the farmers in Northern Ireland.
This is of vital importance, not only to the Northern Ireland farming industry but to the whole of Northern Ireland. The farming industry must be protected. There is no room for compromise or manoeuvre.
The object of the document is to eliminate trade barriers. That is all very well, but if we do so at the expense of importing the disease problems of others, the knocking down of that barrier will cost too much and we cannot afford it. This health barrier exists because other countries have failed to control the disease. They have learnt to live with it and ask why we do not do the same. I do not accept that argument. Those other countries should improve their standards. If they do their stuff, as we have done ours, perhaps we can start to talk in another 20 or 30 years.
The idea of a one-year derogation is no compromise. If accepted, it will be a defeat. The European Community says that it will use the intervening period to investigate the position. We all know what that means—that it can take months and years to do so, and whenever it thinks that the United Kingdom is in a weak position and ready to submit, the derogation will be withdrawn. Heaven only knows what else will be taking place in the intervening period to undermine our position.
The Government are not completely without allies. To some extent the Danes are our allies, because they have raised their standards. Although the Danes would like trade between countries of comparable status within the European Community, they have problems that we do not. The Danes should be held up to other Community 948 countries as an example, because, although they have a land frontier, they have managed to protect the larger part of their stock. They have managed to improve their health status to the extent that in broad general terms they are comparable with Great Britain, if not Northern Ireland.
Our other ally is the Irish Republic, which has just had an election. Unlike here, a new Irish Government do not automatically take office the next day. Indeed, during the last 18 months, Irish Governments have not stayed in office that long. The parties are still discussing coalition and we still do not know who the new Minister will be. The probability is that a new coalition will come to power. In the meantime, the person representing the Irish Republic is the Minister from the old Government. He is broken-backed, and therefore has no leverage whatever in the eyes of those with whom he is negotiating.
Everyone here and in the Irish Republic may understand that all the parties in the Republic are fully committed to maintaining the disease-free status and that, therefore, any Minister from the Republic would have to take the same view. But our opponents who want the borders thrown open—who want to bring livestock and dead meat into the United Kingdom and Ireland—will ignore the arguments of that broken-backed politician.
The Minister talked about those who want to export to us. It is reasonable for right hon. and hon. Members to assume that such parties have a disease status worse than ours. That is why they want the barriers knocked down. People with disease-ridden stock and disease-ridden countries want to get their stock into our abattoirs and fields. I hope that the Minister and other Government negotiators understand that, because if they do not I believe that our position is weak.
The EC and the Government have not always applied to Northern Ireland the standards on which the EC insists. There have been occasions in the past when standards that suited the EC and the Government were or were not imposed depending upon expediency. There are examples of that. First, the law relating to homosexuals was imposed as a result of a European Court decision. Secondly, under the Northern Ireland sheepmeat regime the Province was deliberately set apart from the remainder of the United Kingdom to save the EC money. If exceptions can be made in one case and for one reason, they can be made this time.
If Northern Ireland has to harmonise with the law of Great Britain regarding homosexual relationships and harmonise with the standards of a foreign country—the Irish Republic—in respect of the sheepmeat regime, there is no valid reason to demand common standards throughout the United Kingdom on the issue we are discussing tonight.
We are being used by those who want to send their disease-ridden stock into this country. Problems that do not now exist will be caused for farmers, because those who want to export to us think that there is money in it.
The Minister said that the Government were trying to safeguard the health standards of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I do not understand precisely what that means. Did the Minister mean a common standard throughout the United Kingdom, or two different standards—one for Northern Ireland comparable to the standards of the Irish Republic and another comparable to the standards of Great Britain? If she meant that the Government were going to insist on two different health 949 standards and statuses within the United Kingdom, why can the Government not insist also on maintaining the present position within the United Kingdom?
I have no desire to see British farmers suffer the problems of disease that exist on the Continent. Indeed, efforts should be made to raise standards to those of Northern Ireland. Our breeders would then find it easier to have the cross-fertilisation that is necessary for the welfare and development of our pedigree breeds. It would also open new doors for exporting our fine quality stock.
The Council is to meet before Christmas. I hope that the hon. Lady will take with her what has been said in this all too short debate. Our disease-free status is far too valuable to Northern Ireland agriculture to be sacrificed on the altar of harmonisation. Harmonisation can be achieved only by accepting much lower standards. That would open the door to a disaster in Northern Ireland agriculture that we should long and bitterly regret.
A special derogation is of no interest if it is only for a year. We need a permanent derogation or until the time when the health standards on the Continent compare with ours. The Danes have come close to it. They are three-quarters surrounded by water and most of the other European countries have long land frontiers. They could do the same, however, if they got on with the job of improving their disease-free status. In Northern Ireland we sometimes regret the second stretch of water, but on this occasion we are glad to have the double buffer.
When Europe has improved its disease-free status, if we are still in the EC, the Minister could then come to the House and tell us that we were in a position to open the doors. Until then, doors should be barred, bolted and triple locked.
§ 11.7 pm
§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)This is an important debate. I hope that the Government recognise the importance of the safeguards on the importation of live pigs and cattle. We have not built up our historic position by accident. We have adopted a stringent slaughter policy, in particular for foot and mouth disease. We have creamed off immense benefits in livestock exports. I hope that in replying my hon. Friend will lay a little more emphasis on that aspect.
We are being asked to approve the fact that the proposed directive will enable us to apply the new arrangements or rules for a further three years after the expiry of the provision at the end of this year.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make it clear that there is no question of three years being a terminal period. It has taken us hundreds of years to build up our special position. Foot and mouth disease in particular is endemic and hereditary on the Continent and will not disappear within three years. Whether the EC says that the extension should be for three years or 33 years, we must still maintain the existing barriers that have been of such benefit to British agriculture in general.
I recognise the concern of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and appreciate that Northern Ireland enjoys a special role because, with the Republic, it forms a unique unit in the world that is absolutely free from animal disease. The proposal will enable a free flow of cattle to take place both ways across the border between the Republic of Ireland and Ulster, which may or may not 950 be to the advantage of Northern Ireland. However, the hon. Gentleman should draw some comfort from the fact that the new concession which Northern Ireland will be required to make will apply only to those few member countries that employ a slaughter policy. Therefore the threat to Northern Ireland's historic position would not be as great as he envisages.
With those few words, and the hope that my hon. Friend will reassure the House about recognising the precious position that has been built up in Great Britain in animal husbandry and animal health, I give a muted welcome to the proposals.
§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)I wish briefly to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said in his admirable speech. When I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary and particularly to the assurance—I thought it was a specific assurance relating separately and particularly to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland—with which she concluded her speech, I was astonished at her declaration that she did not advise the House to accept the amendment. I hope she may have second thoughts about that—indeed, in her own interest.
What is said in the debate and the terms of the motion passed by the House tonight should be of assistance to the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the difficult negotiation that they must undertake. I should have thought that there was every advantage in her writing into the motion, as it were, the specific assurance—I note that the hon. Lady has just kindly confirmed it by assent—that she gave to the House. I hope she will feel that that can be done before the end of the debate.
I should like to make one semi-procedural point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Lady's speech proceeded—this involves no criticism of the Parliamentary Secretary—it was obvious to those of us who had done our best to study the documents that what was being put before us was something considerably more modern than we had in the documents. Indeed, we learnt that the Agriculture Council later this month would have before it probably a temporary measure which was not even mentioned—perhaps it was not possible to mention it—in the material before us. I thought that I detected in several respects that the Government's position had stiffened even since she signed the explanatory memorandum on 12 October. We have noticed this defect before in these debates, that we are not up to date with the position that the Government put forward at the Dispatch Box, when we come to debate the take note motion or whatever it happens to be.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) drew attention to constitutional aspects of the debate in that inevitably what we do and what we agree to prejudices or decides, because of the land frontier between the United Kingdom and the Republic, what will be the fate of the highly disease-free herds in the Irish Republic.
There is another constitutional aspect which should not be overlooked. Hitherto we have had different legislation and different law in this respect in different parts of the United Kingdom. It has been part of the exercise of our parliamentary sovereignty that Parliament has frequently enacted different law for different parts of the United Kingdom. Parliament has accepted the case for a different and stricter regime, and for a restriction upon trade, 951 between two parts of the United Kingdom to preserve the advantage which accrued to Ulster on account of its insular position.
The EC's overriding powers are being used to obliterate our right to legislate differently for different parts of our country. It will occur to hon. Members that this has overtaken us in the context of milk and that it is likely to do so in the context of poultry. This is another of the aspects of the transfer of legislative sovereignty from the House to the Community's institutions. We thereby lose the power from our own hands to treat differently according to their respective needs the different parts of the United Kingdom.
There was an ominous reference in the explanatory memorandum of 12 October, which I hope has now gone by the board, to full harmonised control measures being effected. The context of that, which was in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum, was that Northern Ireland's position might be safeguarded if there were trade agreements with third countries; and then came the words
if implemented before harmonisation control measures were effected.The hon. Member for Durham made a convincing case to show that full harmonisation of animal health measures between the Continental parts of the European Economic Community and the insular parts is a long way off, even if it is ever to occur. It seems unrealistic that the Government at one time—I hope that they have now given it up—were envisaging a temporary regime until there could be negotiation with third countries and until there was full harmonisation of a high standard of control and protection measures throughout the Community. That would be an unrealistic stance to take and it would give the appearance of protection and not the reality to Northern Ireland's livestock industry.It is not surprising that a good deal has been said in this debate about Northern Ireland's special position. Perhaps a Northern Ireland Member might be permitted to remind the House that what benefits Northern Ireland also benefits the United Kingdom. A disease-free status in plant as well as in animal health, which Northern Ireland has been able to maintain because of its insular position and because of the control measures which can be maintained between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been an asset to the United Kingdom as a whole. It has made the United Kingdom one of the major exporting countries where export success depends upon the disease-free status of the plants or the animals that are being exported.
So we from Northern Ireland, in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, as well as of our Province, ask the Government that if they must—and it looks as though they must—under duress proceed by way of an interim, temporary extension of the present situation, they should use that interim, and make it quite clear that they will use that interim, to implement the assurance that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to the assurance that I hope that the hon. Lady will advise the House to write into the motion tonight.
§ Mrs. FennerThis has been a valuable short debate on important matters.
The hon. Members for Durham (Mr. Hughes) and for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made the important point that there should be no question of our lowering our standards. 952 I can only repeat that there is no question of our doing that. The Commission and the Community completely accept the status of Northern Ireland and the Republic and accept that they must be treated together because of their special relationship in this respect.
Nor is there any question of a Great Britain solution being imposed on Northern Ireland. I trust that that takes care of the right hon. Gentleman's point that we should be able to retain special status for Northern Ireland. The Commission recognises that. The discussions with Japan and the United States exist because the Commission recognises the importance of the problem and it also wants the trade to continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) rightly pointed out the great value, importance and benefits or our animal health status with regard to foot and mouth disease. In my limited way, I have also been responsible for that. We do everything that we can in that respect. The European Court knows that we have emphasised our perfect right to maintain our health standards. That is legitimate behaviour by a member State.
The hon. Member for Londonderry referred to the status of Denmark. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that we should maintain our status in the Community. I remind him that the motion mentions
arrangements which would strengthen controls in the Community as a whole while fully meeting the requirements of the United Kingdom.That is why we cannot accept the opposition amendment—it leaves those words out. Surely it is important to strengthen controls in the Community as a whole because they are a defence for the United Kingdom as well.I remind Northern Ireland Members that the Isle of Wight outbreak was airborne from France and that the outbreak in Denmark recently was carried from East Germany. It is important, if we are to defend our own standards, to strengthen controls in the Community.
I can only repeat what I said at the beginning. We regard this as an important year. It is not a year of derogation but a year pending satisfactory long-term arrangements. I trust that the opposition will understand why, although I agree with much of what they have said, we cannot accept their amendment. It leaves out a valid sentence.
§ Mr. J. Enoch PowellWhen the hon. Lady used the term "long-term" then, I took it that she was referring not to three years as opposed to one year or six months but to a very much longer if not unlimited duration of the new arrangements.
§ Mrs. FennerI assure the right hon. Gentleman that our objective is a permanent arrangement.
§ Mr. Mark HughesI ask my hon. Friends to vote on the amendment in view of the simple statement in paragraph 9 of the Minister's explanatory memorandum:
The proposals for Northern Ireland would represent a major change of import policy and could significantly affect its high disease-free status particularly in relation to trade with third countries such as the United States and Japan, if implemented before full harmonised control measures were effected.Nothing in the hon. Lady's introductory statement or in her reply to the debate satisfies us that that has been achieved. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to divide the House.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 114.
954| Division No. 27] | [11.26 pm |
| Ayes | |
| Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N) | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Home Robertson, John |
| Buchan, Norman | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) | Janner, Hon Greville |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McWilliam, John |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Cook, Robin F. | Martin, M (G'gow S'burn) |
| Cowans, Harry | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Cryer, Bob | Parry, Robert |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Davidson, Arthur | Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) |
| Deakins, Eric | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Dixon, Donald | Spellar, John Francis (B'ham) |
| Dormand, Jack | Strang, Gavin |
| Dubs, Alfred | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Eadie, Alex | Welsh, Michael |
| Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) | White, Frank R. |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Ewing, Harry | |
| Forrester, John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| George, Bruce | Mr. George Morton and |
| Hardy, Peter | Mr. Allen McKay |
| NOES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Buck, Antony |
| Alton, David | Budgen, Nick |
| Ancram, Michael | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Carlisle, John (Luton West) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston N) | Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Chapman, Sydney |
| Beith, A.J. | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Cope, John |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Blackburn, John | Dover, Denshore |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dunn, Robert (Dartford) |
| Brinton, Tim | Elliott, Sir William |
| Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon | Fairgrieve, Sir Russell |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Faith, Mrs Sheila |
| Brotherton, Michael | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. | Fox, Marcus |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Gorst, John | Pollock, Alexander |
| Greenway, Harry | Renton, Tim |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Rossi, Hugh |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. |
| Lamont, Norman | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Lang, Ian | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Luce, Richard | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Speller, Tony |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| MacGregor, John | Stainton, Keith |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Major, John | Stevens, Martin |
| Marland, Paul | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Marlow, Antony | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Mather, Carol | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Thompson, Donald |
| Mellor, David | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Moate, Roger | Waddington, David |
| Mudd, David | Waller, Gary |
| Murphy, Christopher | Warren, Kenneth |
| Myles, David | Wells, Bowen |
| Neale, Gerrard | Wheeler, John |
| Neubert, Michael | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Normanton, Tom | |
| Page, John (Harrow, West) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Page, Richard (SW Herts) | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and |
| Parris, Matthew | Mr. David Hunt. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Main Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9415/82 concerning measures for the control of foot and mouth disease and 9449/82 amending Directives 64/432 and 72/461 as regards certain measures relating to foot and mouth disease. Aujeszky's disease and swine vesicular disease and supports the Government's intention to seek agreement to arrangements which would strengthen controls in the Community as a whole while fully meeting the requirements of the United Kingdom.