§ 3.23 p.m.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy 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 they will give orders to the appropriate authorities to destroy all livestock which is brought into this country illegally.
§ Lord STRABOLGINo, my Lords.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, while deploring that Answer, may 814 I ask whether the Minister is aware that there is great and widespread worry about the animals which are continually coming into this country illegally? Would he not agree that it is high time that the Government took a stand and decided one way or the other on this very important issue? Would he also agree that. the people in the ports have not the authority at this time without a Government order to destroy any animals; that it is left to each individual magistrate or immigration officer; and that people up and down this country think that that is quite wrong?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, in the case of rabies-susceptible animals such as cats and dogs, the Government consider that the discretionary powers vested in local authorities to order the destruction of illegally-landed animals are sufficient.
§ Lord AMULREEMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree with me that it is a far greater punishment upon the person bringing the animal into this country illegally that he or she is fully aware that the animal will be destroyed rather than facing a fine of £400?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, not necessarily. There is evidence that some owners are not deterred by the possible destruction of their animals. Some have chosen destruction rather than meet quarantine costs. There were 12 such cases last year.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, in view of the rather abrupt nature of the original Answer, would I be right in understanding the situation as follows: first, that there is discretionary power to destroy illegally-imported animals and that it is habitually resorted to; and, secondly, that the purpose of that is a precaution and not a punishment of the owner of the animal? Is it not important that these discretionary powers should be used for the purposes for which they were intended and not simply as a means of deterring owners? Furthermore, is it not the case, for instance, that a mouse was reprieved only last week and proved to be totally innocent?
§ Lord STRABOLGIYes, my Lords. We fully agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said about the discretionary powers. We also believe that public 815 support and co-operation is far more important to our defence against rabies than the questionable, marginal advantage of mandatory destruction.
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there is widespread anxiety as to the existence of a back-door route from the Continent through Eire to this country without proper supervision: and will Her Majesty's Government make a statement either to confirm or dispel this publicly-held belief in due course?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, under the Rabies Act 1974 and the two orders which flowed from it, we have very wide powers, first, to order the destruction of animals where appropriate. We have powers to fine up to £400 on summary conviction and on indictment to award a year's imprisonment or an unlimited fine which could run to thousands of pounds if necessary, or both.
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my supplementary question. Is there a backstage route from Eire to this country which does not contravene any powers currently exercised by Her Majesty's Government?
§ Lord STRABOLGINo, my Lords, because Eire has the same powers as we have and the same precautions.
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, with the greatest respect, that is still not an answer to my supplementary question. Is there a route from Eire to this country not controlled by Her Majesty's Government at this moment?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, not that I am aware of. The Government keep in close contact with the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to ensure compatibility of legislation and regulations and to co-ordinate defences with the collective aim of keeping rabies out of these islands.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, have not the Government read the reports which say not that the legislation is incompatible—which, I believe, it is not—but 816 that, in fact, in ports such as Cork and in other Southern Irish ports, the legislation is not adequately policed or enforced and that there is a traffic of animals from the Continent to the Southern Irish ports and thence to the United Kingdom, which is not adequately policed?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, we shall certainly look into that; but it is a different question.
§ Lord GISBOROUGHMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is a great difference between some of the ports which are walled and the majority which are not walled? Would he further agree that the local authorities should be encouraged now to review their procedures for meeting animals coming off ships? I am particularly thinking of places like Middlesbrough.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, that is being done. There is a document in the Library which sets out very fully what the Government are doing. We are very aware of this and there are very strict and wide-sweeping powers.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, is not the real problem the matter of detecting those animals that do come in? Is the noble Lord satisfied that there are adequate numbers policing the animals that do come in, finding them and dealing with them?
§ Lord STRABOLGICertainly, my Lords. The ports and docks authorities have been looking into this. We have increased very much our publicity campaign. We shall be returning to that next Tuesday on another Question. I am glad to say that public opinion now has resulted in quite a number of prosecutions.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that if it was widely known on the Continent and in Ireland that pets or any livestock would be destroyed, that would, in itself, act as a deterrent and that that is what is needed?
§ Lord STRABOLGINot necessarily, my Lords. For example, if an owner has honestly made a mistake which he or she discovers in transit, he or she is much 817 more likely to declare the animal if there is a chance that it would be put into quarantine than if it would be destroyed.