§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
2.32 pm§ Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover)I am pleased that my Bill to ban live animal exports lives to fight another day and to have a Second Reading, but in the meantime I should like to take the opportunity to rehearse the arguments for banning the export of live animals.
The election year of 1997 was not only a good year for the British people and the Labour party; it was a good year for British sheep. Fewer sheep were exported from our shores in that special year than in any other year in the decade. Even in 1997, however, more than 270,000 lambs and sheep were forced to endure the rigours of crossing the English channel and were exposed to further suffering on extended journeys across Europe—a suffering that often ends in slow, painful death at the hands of untrained and inept slaughtermen.
Since then, the number of exported sheep has risen dramatically, and figures from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food show that in 1999 the number of lambs and sheep exported for slaughter topped the 1 million mark, with more than 1.1 million being exported. That means that the inhumane trade has more than doubled in the past couple of years.
Before I came to the House, I was a merchant navy officer, and when I was sailing on deep sea vessels I regularly witnessed the live animal ships discharging their miserable cargoes in Middle East ports. I have seen the injured and dying animals being dragged off the vessels with hooks and whole holdfuls of dead sheep being winched ashore in cargo nets. More recently, when I sailed on the Irish sea and the Dover cross-channel ferries, I saw the awful image of broken limbs protruding from animal trucks. In bad weather, I heard the cries and even smelt the fear of those wretched animals close up.
Those are some of the reasons why I want the UK to prohibit the export of live farm animals. A trade that regularly inflicts great suffering on living creatures has no legitimate part to play in a civilised and caring society, and it certainly has no part to play in the new fairer Britain that the Labour Government have set about building.
Today's animal exports, typically, are first sent to Belgium and Holland and, 24 hours later, re-exported to southern Europe. Many are trucked on appallingly long journeys to Italy, Greece and Spain, where they are killed in abattoirs using cruel and illegal slaughter methods. The journey to Italy can take 40 hours or more, and up to 100 hours to Greece.
Compassion in World Farming investigators have seen the state of the animals once they reach southern Europe. Many are exhausted and dehydrated, some are injured, and others have collapsed on the floor of the truck, where they have been trampled on by their companions. Yet others stick their heads out through the truck's ventilation slats, desperately panting and gasping for air. Their plight is due to overcrowding, the extreme heat in summer, the lack of water and proper ventilation on many trucks, and the sheer length of the journey.
In the worst cases, large numbers of animals die. Last August British sheep were left in the port of Bari in southern Italy for 48 hours, waiting for a ship to Greece. 1337 They were kept in the trucks in blistering heat without any water. After repeated pleas from Compassion in World Farming, the Italian authorities at last relented and opened up the trucks, but by then many animals were already dead and many were gasping their last breaths. Those of us who have seen film of that will never forget it. Over the next few days, more animals perished. In all, 115 British lambs and 45 French sheep died in that disaster.
As long ago as 1993, a European Commission report concluded that
long distance transport in overstocked vehicles, combined with dehydration and starvation, results in very poor welfare and often in high mortality.All the evidence shows that that remains the case, and there are extensive documentation and numerous directives supporting that simple link.On this side of the channel, the exporters Farmers Ferry told me that they exercise the highest standards of animal welfare. That claim is derided by Kent Against Live Animal Exports, the local protest group, whose observers keep a close watch on port activities from the white cliffs of Dover.
The exporters' claims of high standards are hardly borne out by the Ministry's figures, which show that in the last seven months of last year, a massive figure of 12,558 sheep transported to Dover docks and destined for export were rejected by the local veterinary inspectors as unfit to travel. Some were already dead on arrival. It is a scandal that the exporters, who claim to have such high animal welfare standards, try to send so many unfit animals for export.
The problems are not confined to the long journeys. Equally disturbing are the slaughter conditions awaiting the animals at their journey's end. Last year Compassion in World Farming investigators visited three Greek sheep abattoirs. Two were making no attempt at all to stun the animals, which is not only cruel, but illegal under EU law. The third was stunning the animals, but so ineptly that they regained consciousness before having their throats cut.
Recently we witnessed one of the worst aspects of this wretched trade. Each year thousands of British sheep are exported to France for outdoor ritual slaughter during the Eid El Kabir festival. The animals are slaughtered without stunning, in the open air. They are held down on the ground and their throats are crudely cut while they are fully conscious. They are often left to bleed to death in agony. It is clear from the filmed evidence that the slaughtermen are untrained. They are seen hacking away at the sheep's throat with blunt knives, and the animals are seen writhing in their death agonies for several minutes before they eventually succumb.
Under both EU and French law, ritual slaughter must be carried out in abattoirs. The activities in the killing fields of Paris are expressly prohibited. However, neither the European Commission nor the French authorities take any meaningful action against these illegal acts. I urge the Government to make further and stronger representations on these matters.
All the suffering and cruelty inherent in the live export trade is unnecessary. Transporting animals hundreds of miles to slaughter is not a necessary part of the process of feeding ourselves. Most of the animals exported from 1338 Britain will be slaughtered on arrival at their destination or shortly afterwards. It is senseless to subject animals to the misery of long journeys, only to slaughter them at journey's end. Animals should be sent to slaughterhouses as near as possible to the farm of rearing, and all our exports should be in meat form. Many respected organisations have echoed this approach.
With all the evidence clearly linking long journeys to bad animal welfare, it is disappointing that we still allow companies to ship live sheep from places such as the Gower peninsula to places such as the Greek islands. When will our Government begin to translate their warm words into concrete commitment and actively encourage the principle of slaughtering near to the farm of rearing, and transporting the product as meat?
A marvellous opportunity has arisen. The European Union transport directive was due for review at the end of last year. It must not lead to the EU simply tinkering at the margins of the problem, with some journeys becoming a little shorter and many becoming longer. That happened after the previous review in 1995. The EU must adopt a major change of policy whereby the long—distance transport of live farm animals is abandoned and replaced by a trade in carcases. I urge the Government to take a vigorous lead in persuading our EU partners to adopt that fundamental policy change, which will spare farm animals much suffering and will be so welcome to the public.
In the meantime, until this cruel trade is ended, EU transport directives must be much more rigorously enforced. Last year, the European Commission published five reports, which showed that EU laws that were designed to give animals at least some protection during transport are widely ignored in France, Greece, Italy, Belgium and Ireland. Compassion in World Farming has produced an excellent paper, which it has sent to the Minister. It shows how the enforcement of the directive could be improved. I urge the Government to take a lead in persuading our EU partners to adopt those practical and sensible suggestions.
I am disappointed that the Government have not succeeded in reducing the volume of live exports. I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary's often-repeated statement that he would prefer United Kingdom exports to be in meat form rather than live animals. None the less such statements have had little effect; live exports have more than doubled in the past two years, since our Government have been in office.
The time has come for new initiatives from the Government. First, they should urge farmers' leaders to join them in working out the details of a phased voluntary withdrawal from the live export trade. The Government should remind sheep farmers that they receive huge subsidies from the public purse and that in return for that financial aid, taxpayers are entitled to expect farmers to respond to public anxieties by pulling out of an inhumane trade.
Secondly, the Government should seek a derogation from EU rules to ban live animal exports, in the same way as the previous Government gained a derogation for horses and ponies. Thirdly, they should take the lead in persuading the EU to replace the long—distance transport of live animals with the meat trade.
Fourthly, the Government should urgently effect their warmly received 1997 decision to remove exporters' rights to select and pay for the services of local veterinary 1339 inspectors. That is essential to demonstrate the inspectors' independence. We have waited nearly three years for its introduction.
The Government have resisted my past calls on behalf of animal welfare groups for a ban on live animal exports on the grounds that it would breach EU rules on free movement of goods. However, last year, a legally binding EU protocol on animal welfare came into force which recognises animals as sentient beings. It can therefore be argued that animals are no longer subject to EU rules on the free movement of goods. Many people believe that the Government should use that argument to justify a ban on live exports. The case should at least be tested.
The protocol also requires the EU and member states when formulating policy on agriculture to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals. Allowing a trade that routinely inflicts great suffering to continue unchecked neither fulfils that legal duty nor responds to animals' status as sentient beings.
More than 80 per cent. of British people want an end to the trade. The established ferry companies have stopped taking it and the ports do not want to handle it. Ministers have expressed a clear preference for meat to be transported on the hook rather than on the hoof. I therefore strongly urge the Government vigorously to promote the welfare of animals in transit immediately and bring about a total ban on the cruel and unnecessary trade in the longer term.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on obtaining the debate. I hope that it is a small consolation for his not yet having had an opportunity to discuss his private Member's Bill. I recognise the sincerity of his comments on live exports. He has been a strong campaigner and has reflected the views not only of many his constituents but of a great many people in this country generally, including livestock farmers who are concerned about live exports for slaughter.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government have made their position clear on a number of occasions. Our preference is for meat exports, not live animal exports, which is right not only for the welfare of the animals, but for the added value to meat exports, for jobs in our country, for the economy and for our meat and slaughter industry. Exporting live animals also means exporting jobs and that should not be forgotten in terms of the rural economy and the issues that the Government are trying to address. It is also worth pointing out that live exports represent only about 5 per cent. of lamb exports. The vast majority are meat, so the argument about the overall economic impact of live exports is strong and it would surely be preferable to maximise meat exports. Much more attention should be paid to them rather than to live exports.
The Government welcome farmers coming together in marketing groups and support their co-operative ventures. Farmers have come together to establish their own ferry service for exporting lamb to the continent, which is a good principle, and I am encouraged that, according to recent reports, the Farmers Ferry board is investigating the use of the ferry for meat as well as live exports. It 1340 should be just as easy for a facility that can handle livestock transporters and all the problems that go with them to take refrigerated vehicles carrying meat for export and we hope that the investigation will develop.
Many people in the livestock sector accept that there is a strong reaction to live exports. They are looking for the best return for their business and their products and we understand that, which is why we want to explain certain issues relating to meat exports. I have had talks with the National Sheep Association about the potential for meat export opportunities and we also know that companies are considering the establishment of ethical veal production in this country and the export of meat to the continent. The calf export trade has been halted and there is no prospect of it being restarted in the immediate future.
We accept that there are problems with long-distance live exports. There is also abuse on some occasions, particularly on the continent when animals exported from this country go to their legal destinations in France, Belgium or Holland and are sold on, loaded on to other vehicles and transported again. They are completely outside United Kingdom control. Monitoring depends very much on the member states responsible, and the Commission is responsible for enforcement. We have been scrupulous in our inspections and have tightened the procedures. We have also tried to be open and transparent. For example, the Departments website gives information about the number of animals going through Dover and the number rejected by our inspectors there. We must bear in mind that the primary inspection is carried out by the local veterinary inspector when the animals set off. There is a second inspection at Dover, which the Ministry established to make sure that there was no obvious problem with animals going through.
We take firm action within the law in relation to live animal exports and I understand my hon. Friend's case for changing the law to stop them completely, but we cannot do that at present. The European Court has established that live exports are part of the single market. Therefore, they are legal. We do not have the power to stop them, but we do have power to regulate and inspect them. We can ensure that journey plans are enforced, and that the animals are in good condition and are inspected properly—and we do that. We refuse to authorise long-distance journey plans in the summer when the ambient temperatures of the countries that the animals will pass through present a risk to their well-being. We also refuse to approve journey plans if we are not satisfied that there are proper facilities to cater and to care for the animals at their destination.
§ Sir Richard Body (Boston and Skegness)The United Kingdom Government have not yet invoked article 36 of the treaty of Rome.
§ Mr. MorleyI was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman has a good record on animal welfare issues. Article 36 is now article 30, and has been changed slightly. We have considered using article 36, but our legal advice is that we cannot do so on live exports. One of the cases taken to the European Court by Compassion in World Farming was based on article 36. It argued that we could stop the export of calves, which were going into systems that were illegal in this country. The European Court ruled that we could not, so we have a clear court ruling on that.
1341 It is interesting that some Conservative Members who are arguing that we should use article 36 to stop pig imports argued against using article 36 to stop calf exports. That is an inconsistent position.
My hon. Friend gave two appalling examples of the abuse that occurs with long-distance transport. In the Bari case animals were being transported to Greece but were held up in Italy waiting for the ferry in the summer heat. The suffering of those animals must have been intense, and many of them died. Although they may have included some British sheep, the journey plan had not been authorised in the United Kingdom, and it would not have been authorised at that time of year. The sheep were sold legally and the company abided by the law, but they were sold on to another company who transported them to Ban and did not comply with EU law. We certainly need to address that problem.
There is also the issue of the appalling slaughter of animals for Eid El Kabir. If I were a French Minister, I would be ashamed to be associated with what has been going on. We have made representations to the French authorities. Although they have said that they recognise the problem and are taking steps to deal with it, I am sorry that, to say that it does not appear from the video evidence I have seen recently that much has been done to improve the situation.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently written to Commissioner Byrne to say that the regulation of standards is a European issue and should be properly enforced. Many hundreds of people from this country have written to the Commission and to the French authorities expressing their concern.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, we have a Muslim population. I am glad to say that we have sat round the table with Muslim organisations to talk about such problems. Through discussion and with the support and co-operation of Muslim organisations in the UK, we have made it illegal to carry out any religious slaughter that does not involve a proper slaughterhouse and a licensed slaughterman. I am sorry that the French have not done the same. I hope that they do so.
My hon. Friend talked about translating warm words into action. I understand his frustration, because he has campaigned on this issue for so long and with such sincerity on behalf of the many people concerned about the export of live animals. It is not easy for the Government, because we must abide by the law and work within the legal system. We are doing what we can to translate our preferences into action. For example, a brand-new slaughterhouse is being built in Wales. That will be important to the sheep market, and to Welsh sheep producers. The Government are supporting it with structural grants.
We are reviewing the transport regulations. I agree with my hon. Friend that the current European Union-wide review of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 gives us an opportunity to address ourselves to some of 1342 the problems and abuses. It is perfectly legitimate for us to consider, for instance, why it is necessary to transport live animals over such long distances, whether the system can be properly enforced, and whether the enforcement is being properly applied or needs to be tightened in certain respects. Incidentally, we are conducting our own national review of the order.
I can give my hon. Friend a clear undertaking that we will look carefully at the Compassion in World Farming paper, which proposes ways in which the situation can be improved. Compassion in World Farming has made a number of suggestions to the Government on a range of issues. Its proposals for improvements in animal welfare are often sensible, reasonable and well argued, and we shall take its current proposals seriously. It should be borne in mind that we start from the premise that meat exports are far preferable to live exports, from the point of view of the livestock sector as well as the welfare point of view.
My hon. Friend mentioned local veterinary inspectors, who are currently appointed by the exporters. We propose that they should be appointed by MAFF. It is part of a two-stage change, stage one of which has been implemented. Stage one involved our establishing minimum benchmark standards for all local veterinary inspectors involving, for instance, the time that they spend on inspections that they conduct on the Ministry's behalf. We have consulted on the appointment of inspectors by MAFF; we have received a response, and are now involved in the final stage of the process, which consists of consulting the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Following devolution, we must obtain their opinions. We await their response, and I hope that we can make a decision as quickly as possible.
There is no controversy about standards. Those on all sides of the argument—exporters, the livestock sector, welfare organisations and the public—want the best standards to operate and to be enforced, not only in the United Kingdom but internationally. There are international questions about, for example, the import of horses to the EU from eastern European states: many people are concerned about that, and have written to us. There are also failings in our system that should be addressed in the EU.
I am not complacent, but I think that the Government have taken the issue of live exports very seriously. We have made many improvements. It is true, however, that we need to do more, not only in the United Kingdom but in the EU, to bring about the enforcement that has been lacking in Europe. I know that many Members, not least my hon. Friend, will carefully scrutinise what the Government do, and will press the Ministry to ensure that we introduce changes that will be important not just to animal welfare and the people whom we represent, but to the livestock industry and its reputation. I am sure that the industry will wish to join us in our attempts to improve the position.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.