Animal Health (European Law) (Hansard, 15 March 1995)

§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Animal Health Act 1981 to provide that European Community law shall not interfere with the validity or legal effectiveness under the laws of the United Kingdom of any prohibitions or restrictions on the export of animals which the designated Ministers shall certify to be justified. I am pleased to say that my Bill has cross-party support. It has Euro-sceptic support, Euro-enthusiast support, vegetarian support, meat-eating support and even meat exporting support.

Until recently, the small town of Brightlingsea was a little-known, peaceful corner of my constituency on the Essex coast. There is only one road into the town—three miles of twisting lane across a beautiful Essex valley. Brightlingsea is a close-knit community of small streets, friendly shops, good schools and a delicate economy, dependent as much on a fragile network of small indigenous employers as on employment in nearby Colchester and elsewhere on the Tendring peninsula.

The words "Brightlingsea port" give entirely the wrong impression. This is no Shoreham or Dover; Brightlingsea creek is a natural haven for small boats, dinghies and yachts. Only one small vessel can berth at the whnarf, which itself looks large and out of place. It can be reached only by driving through the heart of the town. The wharf did little trade until the export of live animals began in January this year.

I beg the House to understand the depth and strength of the reaction that the trade through Brightlingsea has provoked. Just as the convoys of 40-tonne trucks thundering down the crowded main street have shattered the peace of the town, so the issue of live exports has roused many ordinary people to anger, outrage and despair. There are some in the town who do not support the protesters, and also a large number who are sympathetic to their aims but increasingly resent the disruption and expense of the protests.

I would, however, fail in my duty as a Member of Parliament if I did not impress on the House the huge public feeling on the issue that exists in Brightlingsea. My right hon. and hon. Friends will know that, in fact, public concern extends far more widely than the places that are involved directly in the trade. All those concerned demand action from their representatives in Parliament.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hit exactly the right nomte when he met a group of Brightlingsea protesters on a recent visit to East Anglia. He said that he would "much prefer" to see animals transported in carcase form, and during Question Time on 10 January he expressed a preference for export on the hook rather than on the hoof. I agree.

I pay tribute to our Ministers who are dealing with the issue. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his doughty Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning)—whose presence I am pleased to note—have made progress in the European Council. But even if agreement is reached, and over-long journeys and veal crates are banned under EC law, it is unlikely that implementation by other states will meet the high animal welfare standards that we expect in the United Kingdom.

906 It is at this point that most people feel that the United Kingdom should at least be able to implement selective bans on live exports. The anger and frustration of Brightlingsea people are, however, turned to fury when Ministers explain their powerlessness under European Community law.

My legal advice is the same as that of Ministers: we cannot apply article 36 of the treaty on European union unilaterally. Subsequent EC directives have brought it into the occupied field of EC legal competence; but this issue has, perhaps as much as any other, brought home to the British public the huge extent of the powers that Governments have signed away in Europe. They rightly feel that the argument about live exports from the United Kingdom should be settled by the United Kingdom Parliament, not left hostage to the vested interests of foreign Governments.

This Bill does not directly ban live exports—I can reassure the Minister on that point. It restores the powers of Ministers under the Animal Health Act 1981—powers that most people believe that Ministers should never have given away. I must tell the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that, even if his Protection of Calves (Export) Bill became an Act of Parliament, its failure to tackle the issue of European law would leave United Kingdom Ministers powerless to implement it. But I am grateful for the fact that he is sponsoring this Bill.

The Bill has two main elements. Clause 1 first makes it clear that the Animal Health Act 1981 may be used to impose a general export ban, and that it is not restricted merely to regulating the means and mode of export. The power to impose a ban may be exercised on the grounds of cruelty to the animals in the country of destination, not just on the grounds of suffering during the journey.

Most people would agree that this is the sort of sanction that Ministers require, to demonstrate that they are serious about ensuring that EC animal welfare legislation is properly enforced. Ministers may certify that any such export ban is in their opinion justified for the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, notwithstanding that it may prohibit or restrict the exportation of animals to other member states and that such prohibition or restriction does not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or disguised restriction on trade between member states". This follows the wording of article 36 of the treaty on European union. So the Bill would simply allow Ministers to exercise powers that they thought were protected by article 36 when they signed the Single European Act in the first place.

The second main element of the Bill is designed to protect Ministers' actions from possible prosecution under Community law. Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that Community law shall be recognised and available in law in the United Kingdom. Section 2(4) of the Act provides that any future Act shall be construed and have effect subject to section 2(1). My Bill denies legal force under the law of the United Kingdom to any rule of Community law that would interfere with the export ban, so it becomes Parliament's express wish, if necessary, to override this part of the 1972 Act. 907 What is the effect of the Bill? If Ministers chose to apply an export ban on grounds of cruelty to animals in the country of destination, Parliament would have made it clear that the UK courts would be obliged to uphold UK law in the matter, against EC law if necessary. This would probably put the United Kingdom in breach of EC law. At a meeting with the Minister, her officials told me that this Act "would not work", implying that our courts would override the express wish of Parliament to exclude EC law.

If the courts fail Parliament in this regard, it will have been proved beyond dispute that parliamentary sovereignty is incompatible with continued membership of the European Community on the current basis. That in turn flies in the face of all the assurances given by Ministers about parliamentary sovereignty on the Floor of the House.

Although Parliament instructed our courts to enforce EC law in the 1972 Act, no Parliament can bind its successor. As a sovereign Parliament, we should never allow people to claim that we are powerless to enact and to enforce legislation just because it is contrary to European Union law. I doubt that any hon. Member would be happy to see Parliament being lectured by Ministry of Agriculture officials about that on which it can or cannot legislate.

The Bill restores the UK's choice to decide the live exports issue—a choice that most British people believe that this country should have. It would add authority to Government actions, because Ministers would be pursuing a policy that they could claim as their own, instead of one 908 forced on them. Nothing could be more corrosive to the idea of democratic accountability than to find ourselves saying that we have given away the power to decide matters for ourselves without consent or explanation, and without realising that we were doing that at the time.

Anyone who has argued in favour of a ban on live exports should feel obliged to support my Bill, as it is the only effective means of enacting a ban. I am more than a little scornful of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for sponsoring the Protection of Calves (Export) Bill, when his reluctance to sponsor my Bill suggests that he finds the truth about the position in the EU too difficult to handle.