§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
2.34 pm§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)The subject of whaling arouses great passion and anger both in the House and outside, and I am as prone to such feelings as anyone else. On this occasion, uniquely in all the times that I have spoken in the House, my anger is directed not at Her Majesty's Government but at the Japanese Government and, to a lesser extent, the Norwegian Government.
Whales are probably the most remarkable creatures living on earth. They evoke great awe and fascination among the vast majority of us. They belong to a unique class of marine mammals which have lived on earth much longer than we have—50 million years.
The blue whale is the largest creature ever to have lived on the planet—far greater than even the largest of the dinosaurs. The brain of the sperm whale is the largest of any creature on earth. Toothed whales use a form of sonar for echo location, which is up to 95 per cent. more accurate than the most sophisticated sonar developed by humans.
Despite its huge size of some of the 80 species of whale, dolphin and porpoise, whales appear to have gentle natures with little natural aggression and a tendency to enjoy play. They are intelligent creatures. In addition to having highly developed brains, there is clear evidence that they communicate through a complex system of sounds. Anyone who has listened to the song of the hump-back whale, with its weaving of those intricate and evolving patterns of music, knows just how wonderful and evocative it is.
Studies reveal complex social behaviour and gregariousness among whales. A school of whales will protect its young and wounded—a tendency which has been used by professional whalers in the past to increase their kill. They exploit the kindness of the whales and thus accentuate the barbarity of man against them. In some species, a calfless female will assist a mother in caring for her calf. In short, whales are beautiful, intelligent, social, caring, gentle and mysterious creatures.
What do we do with these wonderful creatures? We slaughter them. All whaling is unacceptable and barbaric. The slaughter of whales is an evil crime—as evil as genocide. Over recent years world opinion has, fortunately, vastly reduced the killing of whales, but not before many species approached extinction.
In 1982, the International Whaling Commission, the IWC, passed an indefinite ban on commercial whaling, effective from 1986. My reason for raising this issue now —apart from the fact that it is a matter of continuing concern for me and for colleagues on both sides of the House and throughout the country—is that this year, I believe in June, the IWC is to review its original decision and decide whether to lift the ban on certain stocks or leave it entirely in situ.
As I understand it—the Minister probably has more up-to-date information—Japan, Norway and possibly Iceland are expected to seek commercial quotas for Antarctic and North Atlantic minke whales at the IWC meeting in June. They must not be allowed to succeed.
The scientific committee of the IWC reported last year that to complete its testing of procedures for the harvesting of whales would take until at least 1991. I apologise for 564 using the word "harvesting" but that is the one that appears in the official documentation. I prefer the word "slaughter." The scientific committee has opposed any temporary measure for catch limits to be set in the interim. Nevertheless, Japan and Norway have made it clear that they intend to press for interim quotas. When the Minister replies I want him to tell us that the British Government will continue to resist such a request.
Further proposals for the slaughter of whales under scientific permit are expected again from Japan and Norway. Both countries have continued to kill minke whales throughout the moratorium, despite repeated requests by the IWC and the resolutions that have been passed and adopted against those programmes. The British Government have an excellent record of opposing spurious research, and I trust that that record will be maintained at the June meeting.
Scientific whaling is an abuse of language—it is a way of continuing restricted commercial whaling under the camouflage of science. Those are strong words, but in my view the Japanese are acting in a criminally irresponsible fashion by pursuing this so-called scientific whaling. At this very moment the Japanese are involved in a programme of whale slaughter in the Antarctic in which 300 minke whales will be killed as part of a so-called feasibility study arising from their original proposal, rejected by the IWC, for a programme which envisaged the slaughter of 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales each year for the next 10 years. A total of 10,000 whales would be killed.
That is not science; it is systematic butchering with a legal technicality woven into it. Given that it is called scientific whaling it is funny how almost all the meat from the slaughter seems to end up on dinner plates in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. I am not a marine biologist, but I can tell the Japanese scientific community what the result of the slaughter of 300 minke whales will be—there will be 300 fewer minke whales than when the Japanese started their programme.
At an IWC meeting, the Japanese whaling commissioner, Mr. Kuzno Shima, said that the anti-whaling movement of which I, like many other hon. Members, am an active member, was racist because it was an attempt by the meat-eating culture to dominate the fish-eating culture. I reject such absurd and offensive language out of hand. Despite all the scientific whaling over the years by the Japanese it appears, in any case, that Mr. Shima still has not discovered the basic fact that whales are not fish. They are mammals. So much for scientific whaling.
The Japanese have no right to pursue their preferred eating habits at the price of the destruction of the world's whale population. Because they have been partially frustrated by the various whaling bans, the Japanese have been slaughtering the small cetaceans which are not covered by the IWC. Last year, about 40,000 Dall's porpoises were slaughtered. Baird's beaked whales and pilot whales have been slaughtered in the 200-mile fishing zone around Japan. The Japanese have said that this slaughter is being undertaken because they have not been allowed their quota of the larger whales. That gives the lie to the nonsense that their slaughter of minke whales is somehow in the name of or interests of science.
The Japanese have informed all commissioners that if they are not given the quota that they require, the Japanese Government will be unable to find any reason to stop their 565 fishermen killing minke whales. That is straightforward blackmail and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the British Government will resist it.
I want the Government to consider imposing appropriate sanctions, in consultation with other EEC nations, against Japan until it respects world opinion about the whales. The Japanese and Norwegians do not own the whales. The whales belong to the planet, to all of us, and to slaughter them is a crime against the planet which should not be tolerated by civilised people.
It appears that the present stock of whales is much smaller than recent estimates suggest. The Minister may have more up-to-date information than I have about this. We must end the slaughter of all whales large and small, before we remove from the planet one of the most wondrous and beautiful creatures ever to have lived upon it.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission to speak from the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) and from the Minister?
§ Mr. GreenwayYes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on his splendid initiative and his eloquent speech on this important matter. The Japanese attitude to whales is all that the hon. Gentleman says it is —barbaric and disgraceful. That same attitude extends to other animals. Beautiful horses are left to die in dereliction. I say humbly to the Japanese that they need to rethink their whole attitude and find some compassion for all animals, especially the whale.
As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has said, whales have almost human levels of communication, but they also have human levels of suffering. They know when they are about to be slaughtered and they suffer as any human being faced with murder must suffer. They are aware of what is going on. Nobody can say that the Japanese need the money that they get from the acquisition of 300 minke whales. Even if they did, that would not justify their embarking upon the slaughter of animals that suffer in the way that whales do. It is totally wrong and barbaric and the Japanese should desist from it.
Our Government must oppose any lifting of the moratorium. The Norwegians and the Japanese can find elsewhere the food and other resources that they obtain from whales. The world does not need food from slaughtered whales, nor does it need anything else that can be obtained from the carcases of whales. I call upon the Government to support the eloquent case advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for a world ban on the slaughter of whales.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission to speak from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and from the Minister?
§ Mr. CorbynYes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I, too, shall be brief.
566 I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for his eloquent speech and I congratulate him on his determination and persistence on behalf of the whale and other endangered species.
I believe honestly and deeply that the treatment of whales is an example of the evil intelligence of humankind in relation to the rest of the natural world. We have seen greed of the most impossible kind descending on the Arctic and the Antarctic to destroy the most intelligent and beautiful creatures that the planet can produce.
History records the way in which whales dominated the oceans, and it documents the intelligence of these animals. At one time whales were fairly common in the north Atlantic and even in the North sea. The diaries of John Evelyn written in the 17th century record the fascination of thousands of Londoners who rushed to Deptford creek when, tragically, a whale was washed up there and died. People stared in awe at this wonderful and beautiful creature. The whale does not have a killer instinct and is not an evil animal. It does not live, as John Evelyn said, on slime—it lives on plankton.
We are in the process of destroying much of the planet through destruction of the ozone layer, leading to the greenhouse effect, and the destruction of life. The whale is an example of how such destruction happens. As the ozone layer is destroyed the plankton in the Southern ocean will die and the whales will lose much of their food. Last year we opposed the Antarctic Minerals Bill because we feared that it would lead to pollution of the Southern ocean and damage the whales' food supply.
The Government must oppose any extension of whaling of any type, scientific or otherwise, and I hope and trust that they will do so. But we must go further. Countries which engage in the barbarity of so-called scientific whaling, which in reality is crude commercialism of the nastiest kind, deserve retribution from us all and we must bring every possible sanction to bear against them. If we do not take care of our planet and our environment, and of animals such as the whale, mankind will suffer and our planet will die because we have not cared for the natural environment that we all share.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry)I welcome the tone of the debate insofar as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that it does not concern a political matter. My remarks will support that point of view.
It may be helpful to the House if I outline the present situation. Three countries undertake whaling on a significant commercial scale. They are Japan, Norway and Iceland. There is also a certain amount of what one might describe as aboriginal whaling. That is covered by Alaska. The latest figures show that 41 bowhead whales were taken in 1989–90. In the Soviet Union, there is an agreement for catching 179 grey whales, which are caught commercially and then used in an artisanal manner.
In Greenland, the take of fin and minke whales is limited to 190 for the two years 1990 and 1991. Three whales will be taken in St. Vincent. Norway has announced that its scientific whaling will be reduced to a maximum of five minke this year. I have no doubt that that reflected certain pressures on Norway, but we none the less 567 welcome the fact that its take has fallen to an extremely low level. Iceland, which has completed a four-year programme that last year saw a take of 68 fin whales and no sei whales, has announced that it will undertake no research whaling in 1990. It is certainly not our intention that it should be replaced by commercial whaling.
§ Mr. Harry GreenwayWhat is the significance of Norway's announcement that it will take only five minke this year? Why cannot Norway take none at all?
§ Mr. CurryI am unable to interpret the Norwegian Government's intentions, but I know that Norway was under significant pressure from its traditional whaling population. It may have made the judgment that to go for zero whaling would have been unacceptable in political terms and reached a compromise that will in practical terms, I suspect, amount to the same thing as zero whaling. Norway has said that it will take a maximum of five minke whales. When I met the Norwegian Fisheries Minister, I suggested to her that the correct number would be zero.
Japan did not observe the moratorium until 1988, and in 1987 it announced a programme for the following year of 825 whales for a so-called "research" programme. I qualify the word "research" quite deliberately. That was modified to a "pilot" programme in which about 500 whales were taken. Japan announced a programme for 1988 of 300 catches, and I understand that the final take was 241. Early last year, this country circulated a resolution calling for that programme to be halted. A postal ballot took place among all International Whaling Commission members, as opposed to just those attending the conference. We fell one vote short of the necessary majority to pass that resolution.
In June last year, Japan announced a programme of 400 catches. We again sponsored a resolution hostile to that programme, which led to the programme being modified to a catch of 300 whales, plus or minus 10 per cent. In the International Whaling Commission, we have sought to clarify what is meant by the word "research", which in my view is now being used in a rather too permissive manner. The scientists will submit evidence to the meeting that is to be held at the end of June and at the beginning of July in The Netherlands, when they will seek to clarify what is meant.
Altogether, three ballots have been organised at meetings of the International Whaling Commission. Two were launched between meetings, and the United Kingdom sponsored or co-sponsored every one of them. I am happy to join the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in saying that the matter goes right across the Chamber and that there is no political division between us.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I describe the line that we shall take at the forthcoming meeting of the IWC. The moratorium will continue unless there is a three quarter majority to lift it. It is a certainty, as much as anything can be a certainty, that the moratorium will continue. It is certainly our intention that that will be the case. The scientists are producing comprehensive assessments of the three main whale stocks—the Pacific gray, Antarctic minke, and Atlantic minke.
In a gradual programme of tightening up, we are looking for sensible management procedures to safeguard whales. We want a proper impact assessment of the actions 568 that others are demanding. We have an interest in ensuring that we keep all the whaling nations within the International Whaling Commission, for we do not want member countries to leave it and to resume whaling activity as freelancers, when as members of the IWC they are subject to certain constraints. We are quite clear that our purpose in the commission is to ensure that that activity continues on its current downward curve.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned small-boat whaling. The Japanese stopped that as part of the moratorium, but last year they sought to exploit minke off their coast. The International Whaling Commission declined permission for that, but as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West clearly and correctly stated, the Japanese have gone for the Baird's beaked whale and Dall's porpoises. They reported a take of 40,000 porpoises in 1988, but we understand that the figure was lower in 1989. We firmly believe that the IWC should regulate all cetacea of that nature, including dolphins and porpoises.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI am a member of the Council of Europe. I moved several amendments to a report from one of its committees to extend the jurisdiction of the IWC to all cetacea. I hope that the Government will support that proposal in the Council of Ministers.
§ Mr. CurryThe Government agree that the IWC must extend its competence. We simply do not accept the argument that, because we put pressure on the Japanese to reduce their take of minke and other whales, they have a legitimate right to take different species. We do not think that there is a relationship between those two. We believe that they should take fewer of all species.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the meat of whales ending up in high-class restaurants in Tokyo. I understand that it is claimed that it ends up in a school meals programme, but, wherever it ends up, the exploitation of these mammals is condemned by all public opinion with which we are in touch. The competence of the IWC in this sector is not as defined as in the whaling sector. We are therefore seeking to emphasise and to improve that competence.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who I know is interested in these matters, might be interested if I address myself specifically to the subject of Pacific drift netting. I know that that is not an IWC issue, but it falls within the category of over-extravagant forms of exploitation of resources. Drift nets are designed to catch tuna. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are the main perpetrators. The nets can be 30 miles long and 15m deep. That deadly laced curtain catches species in an unregulated manner.
The number of Japanese vessels using drift nets has increased significantly. However, there is movement that is worth recording. About seven or eight months ago, there was a conference in Tarawa. At the subsequent Commonwealth conference, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorsed its statement, which sought to control this exploitation. There was a resolution in the United Nations sponsored by the United States, in November, against drift net fishing. Last year, the UN agreed two important measures to cut fishing and to ban the drift net technique by June 1991 unless better management was in place in the south Pacific region and to call for a moratorium on all large-scale drift net fishing 569 on the high seas by June 1992, subject to the same condition of effective conservation management techniques.
There is a slight problem, because although Taiwan is one of the offenders, it is not recognised in the United Nations and is therefore excluded from discussions. We have supported the UN resolution because that large form of indiscriminate fishing falls in the same category as the wilful over-exploitation of whales.
§ Mr. CorbynDoes the Minister agree that international decisions must be taken on fishing policy and that the basic decision should be sustainability of the species being fished? Drift netting makes it impossible to monitor that because one does not know what will be killed, even if one is looking for a sustainable species of fish to catch.
§ Mr. CurryThat is certainly the case. One of the ways forward on drift netting is to find out more about the tuna stock and how it behaves, and to develop far more selective gear to take tuna without having an effect on other creatures. In that sense, the approach does not differ at all from the attempts to improve conservation techniques for haddock and cod in the North sea. It is a question of trying to be more selective, and having a more scientific and accepted basis for the stocks and the level of exploitation that they will suffer. That seems to be the way forward.
In those three areas we have been able to record progress and we should all have liked to see it go faster. It is important to ensure that all the nations are brought within the scope of the IWC on whales and cetaceans, so that they are at least subject to the pressure that can be exercised there.
The figures show that there has been an improvement and, of course, that improvement must continue. We estimate that between 1985 and 1987, Japan took just under 2,300 whales of all species—that is, whales proper, not the smaller mammals. Between 1986 and 1989, the average of minke, which is the principal species fished, was down to 258. The decline was perceptible. Iceland, between 1983 and 1985, took 411, and with last year, which was the last year in which there was a scientific take, 570 the average figure was down to 90 animals. Iceland has said that it will not be taking any more this year. There has been continual pressure.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked me whether the British Government would continue to take the lead in this matter. I affirm that it is our intention to do so. We recognise that when we approach these matters, we must respect two critieria. The first is the emotional impact that this issue has on our own public opinion. It is an issue on which it is perfectly legitimate to express an emotional as well as a scientific reaction. In the IWC, we must argue the case, persuade people and win a majority. We have to be able to translate that emotional feeling into a scientific and political thrust to win allies and to gain the argument. We have to be able to argue by persuasion. If we do not, countries may simply renounce their participation in the organisation. It is important that we should say that being successful ultimately in continuing the decline in exploitation is important to us. If that means that there is a time scale longer than some of us would like, it is still important to have a persistent, consistent attitude through which we try to build a greater, effective scientific resource of information.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for initiating the debate. We agree across the House on this subject. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon.. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We can say that the House speaks for the British public on the issue. It certainly speaks for the junior members of the British public. Few of us will have had schools in our constituencies which do not take a particular interest in the fate of this unique resource of our planet. I subscribe to everything that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has said about the unique beauty and mystery of a beast that was here a long time before we inhabited the planet. I hope that we can continue to coexist with it and respect it for its particular qualities for as long as the human race has the advantage and privilege of inhabiting this planet.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.