§ 2.36 p.m.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy 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 whether in view of a Report in The Times of July 14 that 174 beef cattle died on an air flight to the Canary Islands, they will reconsider the present policy which permits the export of live cattle for slaughter.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, these calves were being sent to the Canary Islands for further rearing and not for slaughter. It is understood that the deaths were due to inadequate ventilation, although the underlying cause is not yet known. While the accident is most regrettable, Her Majesty's Govern- 1352 ment do not consider that it calls for alteration in their present policy which allows the export of live cattle to other countries.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, may I suspend my thanks to the noble Earl for his Answer until I have put four supplementary questions which arise out of a report of this case in the Guardian, since I based my Question on a much shorter report in The Times? According to the Guardian, it is alleged that complicated livestock regulations would have been invoked if the plane had returned with the animals to Great Britain after it was found that the air conditioning was not working. May I ask what were those complicated regulations? I take it that they would not have involved quarantine, because the livestock had not landed elsewhere before returning to Great Britain. The second of my questions arises out of a statement made by an executive of the exporting company, in which it is said that his company have sent 3,000 young bulls to the Canaries during the past year. I am told that that does not accord with the figures recorded by the Customs and Excise, which are much less than 3,000. My third question—
§ BARONESS STOCKSI beg your Lordships' pardon.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Baroness, who is held in very great affection in your Lordships' House. But I think she was tending to transgress a rule of your Lordships' House, that one should not read supplementary questions.
§ BARONESS STOCKSI was reading numbers which are rather difficult to carry in one's head.
EARL JELLICOEI appreciate that, my Lords, but I think that if the noble Baroness could put her remaining supple-mentaries in a very brief form, it would be generally appreciated.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, my third question involves the statement that these bull calves were below the age at which such export is allowed. Am I not right in thinking that there is no age 1353 limit and that there is instead a weight limit, about which nothing was said in the report by the company? My fourth question involves the Ministry. According to the report in the Guardian, the Ministry asserted that all the regulations governing the safe export of livestock apply to air transport as well as to road and sea transport. May I ask whether that is the case?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, in reply to the first of the noble Baroness's questions, that the aeroplane would have contravened regulations if it had returned to this country, I should tell her that I understand that the exporters who were on board the aircraft wished to return to this country, but in fact they had gone beyond the point of no return and could not do so. Even if they had done so, my information is that they would not have contravened any regulations. The noble Baroness said that she thought 3,000 animals had been sent abroad by this firm. My information is that they have sent about 6,000 animals in nearly 40 flights, none of which has come to disaster until this one. I understand that any weight and age limits which might have been applicable were in fact complied with on this occasion and that there was nothing wrong in that respect. I should point out to the noble Baroness that the regulations which cover this type of export are the Exported Animals Protection Order 1964, under which certain regulations are made for the veterinary inspection of animals for fitness to travel before they are shipped, and for feeding, watering and resting. But there are no regulations with regard to the actual transit in the aeroplane.
§ LORD ROYLEMy Lords, has the noble Earl any information as to which of the contradictory reports is correct? Was the incident due to a failure of air conditioning, or was it due to the fact that the plane was overloaded, and therefore the heat generated from the calves was responsible for what happened? May I ask him whether he does not think that in view of this incident the House was mistaken when it rejected Lord Somers's Bill on this subject?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the aeroplane was in fact not overloaded. This company have used a Boeing 707 before and have transported the same number 1354 of animals. This particular aeroplane was a C.L.44, which I think is a Canadian modified Britannia, which has a larger floor space and contained therefore the same number of animals. The incident was due to inadequate ventilation, but it has not yet been discovered whether it was due to any fault on the part of the air conditioning system of the aircraft. With regard to the noble Lord's last supplementary about Lord Somers's Bill, it is perfectly true that had this Bill been in operation this incident would not have occurred, because it would have prevented all exports of all animals, and it is that which Her Majesty's Government believe is not justified.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, may I be allowed to declare an interest in this matter? I joined the operating company as a director some three or four months ago and I have looked into this matter personally. I am assured that the air conditioning did not fail, and that the operations manager of the company was anxious not to carry more than 180 cattle, but the gentleman chartering the aircraft asked that 230 be carried. This gentleman is a member—
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I hesitate to interrupt a noble Lord, but he is not putting a supplementary question.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, I am asking whether the Minister is aware of these facts. I do not think that he is. Is he aware that the operations manager advised that not more than 180 should be carried? Is he further aware that the gentleman chartering the aircraft was on the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture on the carriage of livestock, and asked for 230 to be carried and took the responsibility? I think the company would welcome a full investigation into this matter.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for putting all those questions. I was not aware of them in complete detail. All I would say to him is that the company concerned, the exporters, are as anxious as everyone else that a full investigation should be carried out. In fact, the Department of Trade and Industry have been invited to make inquiries. They have also asked 1355 the International Air Transport Association to direct their attention to this question, because it is only the manual of IATA which provides the general regime under which animals are transported. There are no regulations.
§ LORD SOMERSMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would confirm that the Balfour Assurances do not in fact cover air transport? Would he also say whether it is not the fact that a mere two days after landing before slaughter would legally constitute further fattening?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the Balfour Assurances do not apply in this case, because they apply only to animals which go abroad for slaughter. In fact, the country to which they were going is not a signatory to the Balfour Assurances, and these animals were not going for slaughter.
§ LORD ARCHIBALDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he would consider putting a periscope on his Dispatch Box, so that he might know when his noble friends behind him are reading supplementary questions and not only when people on this side of the House are reading them?