International Whaling Commission (Hansard, 2 July 1992)

§ 6. Mr. Morgan
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the International Whaling Commission's meeting in Glasgow.

§ Mr. Gummer
The meeting has yet to conclude. There is encouraging progress on a number of key points, although there are also the very grave difficulties of the attitudes of the Norwegians and Icelanders.

§ Mr. Morgan
The moral persuasion at the Minister's command to try to persuade the otherwise very civilised country of Norway away from recidivism and the barbarities of whale hunting would be redoubled, if only he would join Opposition Members in asking for a statutory ban on fox hunting, as the Norwegian Government have already pointed out. Does the Minister therefore agree that if he is to return to Glasgow and make greater efforts to dissuade the Norwegians, there might be some chance that he could stop the very civilised whale hunting ban coming to an end with more of a wimp than a banger?

§ Mr. Gummer
The hon. Gentleman does his case no good. We are talking about an international stock dealt with under an international commission. The Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, who is responsible for a report on this subject, stated in her introduction: Perhaps our most urgent task today is to persuade nations of the need to return to multi-lateralism … These challenges cut across the divides of national sovereignty, of limited strategies for economic gain and of separated disciplines of science. I believe that Mrs. Brundtland has become the only environmentalist with a pen in one hand and an explosive harpoon in the other.

§ Mr. Nigel Evans
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received more letters from my constituents on that issue than about any other? They are deeply concerned about what is happening in Glasgow at the moment, particularly with the announcement that two other countries may end the moratorium on whale hunting. I pass on the good wishes of my constituents to my right hon. Friend as he tries to persuade those countries at the conference not to end the moratorium. If those two countries decide to try to go it alone, what action can my right hon. Friend take?

§ Mr. Gummer
It is necessary to bring home to people that this is not an issue which can be decided unilaterally. There is an International Whaling Commission, and that commission regulates the way in which we deal with whales and cetaceans generally. Opposition Members do not do much good to their cause by trying to make the issue a means of promoting some other matter about which they happen to feel strongly. The issue is based on an international agreement which was solemnly signed by the Norwegians and to which they should keep. If they 952 wish to lecture other people about how to run their lives, they should remember to keep their international obligations as well.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth
Is my right hon. Friend aware of lobbying by the Japanese Government and others behind the scenes to try to ensure that the French proposal for a sanctuary for whales was not accepted at the conference? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do everything that he can and that the British Government will join the French Government in trying to ensure that all the necessary background work is done to make sure that that sanctuary proposal is accepted?

§ Mr. Gummer
I hope very much that, towards the end of this afternoon, with very considerable support and pressure from the British Government, there will be a majority vote in favour of work being done on that sanctuary proposal, on the scientific background material being produced and on a proposal that could be brought back at the next IWC conference, which is what we intended in the first place. The French said that the proposal is not yet ready for decision, although we have said that we arc looking at it in the most favourable way and will do our best to promote it.

§ Mr. Ian Taylor
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the majority of whales are not in British waters and that therefore there must be an international agreement. Will he explain what the French announced yesterday, because their point of view within the International Whaling Commission was not clear?

§ Mr. Gummer
I do not think that it was unclear; it had been reported in a curious manner. The French said that they accepted that the details of the proposal were not yet ready. Indeed, I said in my answer on the press comments that the proposal was not yet ready in detail for presentation and for voting this year and that, if we were to set up the scientific apparatus and the rest of the things with which we in Britain have promised to help, it might be—I very much hope that it will be—ready for agreement next year.
Of course, in the meantime, the moratorium must continue. There must be no question of allowing whaling to restart. Countries that believe that they have a divine right to decide their own whaling must remember their international obligations, particularly those which tell other people how to run their lives. They should remember that they should take the international case on their own doorstep.

§ Dr. David Clark
Does the Minister appreciate that he would take the good will of the whole House with him if he would see the Prime Minister and urge upon him the importance of his impressing upon the Japanese Prime Minister, when he meets him on Saturday, that the British people and Parliament would take a very dim view if the Japanese broke the moratorium on whaling?

§ Mr. Gummer
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will bring very clearly to the Japanese Prime Minister the feelings of people in this country. The whale is an extremely advanced animal. It cannot be taken except in circumstances in which we are assured of the three pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions have not begun to be met. Therefore, there can be no question of raising that moratorium. The Japanese should 953 be in no doubt whatsoever that civilised countries do not break international agreements, particularly when they are very keen on reminding other people that they should not break them.