§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what investigations they have made into the accident, during the night of the 25th/26th November, 1969, in which 26 out of 128 calves died between Southampton and Havre in m.v. "Dragon" belonging to Normandy Ferries, while being carried in a two-tier receptacle that overturned; and whether they can now state:
- (1) why the animals were then being transported by sea notwithstanding the gale warning at 17.57 hours and the provisions of the Exported Animals Protection Order, 1964;
- (2) whether the Minister of Agriculture had granted any exemption from the provisions of Article 2(3) of the Animals (Sea-Transport) Order of 1930, which prohibits the carriage of animals in tiers; and, if so, when, why, to whom and on what terms he had granted such exemption;
- (3) why the receptacle was not properly secured; and
- (4) what action they have taken in the matter.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I apologise for the length of this Answer, but there are really five questions in one. Enquiries into this accident have been made by my right honourable friend and by the local authority. Contact has been made with the shipping company, the ship's master, members of the ship's crew, the exporter and the vehicle driver. Responsibility for assessing anticipated weather conditions against the possibility of serious injury or suffering to, or loss of life among, animals carried rests with the master of the vessel. A certificate to permit the carriage of calves on two-tiers in the vehicle in question was issued on November 11, 1969, following an official inspection which confirmed that the vehicle met the standards considered necessary to safeguard the welfare of the animals carried. The certificate was applied for by Messrs. Heseltine and Rolls, Andover, Hants., and issued to them. Conditions attached to the exemption covered such matters as space allowances, maximum length of pens, the provision for sick or ailing animals, and the use of the Port of Southampton only, for embarkation. According to the crew members responsible for securing vehicles to the deck of the vessel, eight chains were used—two front, two rear and two on each side. The Maritime Superintendent and members of the Ministry's veterinary staff have been travelling with a number of two-tier consignments to observe conditions, and they will continue to do so. It is proposed also to meet representatives of ferry companies to discuss matters affecting the welfare of livestock carried by sea in road vehicles.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer, and I agree that it had to be long in view of what I had asked. His Answer will 694 be carefully studied. Meanwhile, may I ask these further questions? If animals can be put to sea in spite of gale warnings of Force 8 winds, does not the 1964 Order need strengthening? I think his Answer may have given me some hope in respect of my second question: has the Minister of Agriculture, in order to avoid a repetition of this disaster, modified in any way his practice in granting exemption from the 1930 Order?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, to the best of my knowledge the answer to the second part of the question is "No", excepting, I imagine, that everyone will be extra careful, although there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any lack of care in this particular case. With regard to the responsibility for making the decision in view of the prevailing weather circumstances, so far as I can see there was a combination of quite unnatural circumstances here which led to this accident. There is no reason to believe that one could legislate or regulate in any way to avoid that kind of difficulty.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, as a supplementary question may I ask whether it is in fact true, as is complained, that inspectors employed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals arc not entitled to investigate an accident of this particular kind until the Ministry themselves have looked into the matter? They complain that this procedure involves considerable delay and that they cannot then obtain the first-hand evidence which is necessary if they want, for instance, to consider prosecution.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, may I ask a question following upon that of the noble Baroness—
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I think it would probably be better if I were simply to say that I do not know the answer to that question.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, when the noble Lord opposite, in reply to my noble friend Lord Conesford, spoke a few moments ago about inspection, I thought he implied that the safety of the vehicle was left to the crew. May I ask whether there is no provision that this should be 695 taken care of by representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture or by some public body, and not the crew?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, there are a good many things to look at. The health of the animals prior to embarkation is the responsibility of the Ministry's officials. That was looked after. There is the responsibility for ensuring that the particular vehicle being a two-tier vehicle, qualifies for exemption. That is the responsibility of the Ministry, and it was done. But as to the actual lashing down of the vehicle to the deck, that is the responsibility of the ship's master.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, as it appears from the records of these accidents that there are not enough competent officials to ensure the welfare of the livestock at lairages and docks, and even at sea, will Her Majesty's Government consider whether the time has come for the suspension of this particular export traffic in live animals?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I have not the figures, but I will send them to my noble friend. The number of accidents that have taken place so far is so small that I should not have thought that there was any ground at all for suspension. What is clearly required is great care in carrying out the regulations that are laid down. Referring to my noble friend's earlier question, I may say that the difficulty I was in in answering was that I am not sure upon which country the responsibility for investigation or pro-secution would lie. But I will make inquiries about that and let her know.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, is the Minister satisfied that sufficient inspections are made, both on land and at sea. to ensure that the requirements of the Statutory Orders are observed?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, my answer to that is, Yes. But if the noble Lord has any reason to believe the contrary and lets me have such knowledge as he has, I will have it investigated.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Conesford, for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House?
§ LORD SOMERSMy Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, 696 Lord Ailwyn, has just said. May I ask, as a supplementary question, whether it is possible to have access to the upper tier of this receptacle for the purpose of feeding and watering? And are the facilities for feeding and watering exactly the same as they would be under normal conditions?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I will send the noble Lord a list of all the requirements that a vehicle must have before exemption is granted. It is quite exhaustive.
§ VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEYMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that many of us who are farmers look for our profit in the export of young calves; and provided they are well looked after, four-day old calves do not require watering or feeding during the journey?