Animals: Protection during Transport

HL Deb 08 March 1993 vol 543 cc885-912

7.30 p.m.

Lord Harvington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made to complete the Council Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport and what representations are the Government making to ensure proper and uniform enforcement of transport regulations throughout the Community.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the problems of the live transport of farm animals throughout Europe. I thought that noble Lords would not think it superfluous on my part if I gave a brief account of why I felt called upon to ask this Question.

I took up farming in the Cotswolds just after the war. Part of the ingoing was to take on a herd of pedigree Southdown sheep. It was rather a nice flock. I became very fond of the sheep and sought every possible way to improve them. During that time I had the honour to be four times elected president of the Southdown Sheep Society and also president of the National Sheep Breeders of Great Britain. I was also president of the Royal Smithfield Club. I was proud to take the supreme champion award for the Southdown breed on six occasions at the Royal Show. I supplied the enthusiasm and paid the bills, but it was my two shepherds, providing the genius and the artistry, who turned the sheep out to perfection on the day and brought me the success which I had.

Thanks to our dear friend and colleague, the late Lord Winterbottom, whom many noble, Lords will remember, a reciprocal scheme was set up between New Zealand and this country to send every year two MPs from here to New Zealand, while two came from New Zealand to this country. I was fortunate enough to be chosen by him, when I was president of the National Sheep Breeders, to go to New Zealand and visit various flocks there. By chance, I came across one of my own pedigree rams which I had exported a long time before to New Zealand. I am delighted to tell your Lordships that he was dedicated to his work even then and was earning as vigorous a livelihood as on the day he left these shores nine years earlier—a splendid example of the potency of the Southdown breed!

When I exported such valuable breeding stock it invariably travelled first class. My concern today is not with those prima donnas of the show ring. It is motivated by the enormous increase that we have seen in the export of lamb—live animals on the whole—to Europe. I intend to deal principally with the export of sheep. Other Members of your Lordships' House may want to mention other important linked matters which we have to take into account. Quite by accident this debate achieved perfect timing. Within a few weeks the European Commission will issue its new rules and regulations which cover this matter in particular. It is an excellent time for my right honourable friend to have some ammunition with which to ensure that he gets a good result from the Commission.

While a thriving demand for quality British lamb is a welcome reflection on the success of British farming, it is my great concern that the enormous rise in the live export trade is neither in the best long-term interests of the British meat and livestock industry nor, indeed, in the best interests of animal welfare.

To illustrate exactly what is happening we must look at the figures. They speak for themselves. In 1986 Britain exported 187,000 live sheep to the Continent. Last year that figure reached record levels, having risen to almost 1.4 million—a sevenfold increase in six years. The vast majority of the exports go to France, with most of the lambs caught up in this trade being slaughtered within a few days of arrival.

The economics of the trade are far from simple. The contraction of the French sheep industry has resulted in increasing demand by French abattoirs. But what saddens me most is to see our quality Scottish, English and Welsh lamb labelled "home killed" when it has been there for just a few days. The whole idea is that there is a premium on home killed lamb when it is so described in France. I believe that that is quite wrong. The trade is also growing with Italy and Spain. Do not noble Lords agree with me that we should slaughter British livestock in British abattoirs and promote British lamb for what it is—the finest in the world?

Last summer, at the sheep industry's premier trade event, the senior agricultural manager of the National Westminster Bank, Mr. Montgomery, said that he could see no economic, welfare or promotional benefit from the export of live animals. He said that the volume of live exports threatened the closure of British abattoirs and warned that their loss could put Britain's aim of being the prime producer of lamb in Europe at risk. He challenged the sheep industry to produce an improved marketing structure to ensure that carcass meat replaced live exports.

I note with interest that last year the expanding live sheep export trade resulted in a fall in the supply of lamb to the British markets for consumption here, with an increase in imported lamb carcasses from New Zealand to compensate. I say with a degree of guilt, since I fear it is boasting, that the strength and virility of my own rams taken to New Zealand many years ago may have helped to produce that country's export success.

What causes me gravest concern, however, are the conditions under which many of the animals travel. Journeys of up to 50 hours without food, rest or water are quite common. Animals leave our country in prime condition and arrive at slaughterhouses in Europe—in countries such as Italy and Spain—bruised, battered, exhausted and, I am sorry to say, not always alive.

The RSPCA has for many years monitored that trade. I have met their inspectors who told me of the utter frustration they feel as they trail consignments of animals for days on end across Europe—consignments which may cross the Alps at sub-zero temperatures and descend into Italy to the searing heat of that plain below the Alps, probably unshorn. While the driver has a few hours' rest they are left absolutely untended.

Last October the British public saw a Channel 4 documentary entitled "RSPCA Animal Squad Undercover", which recorded such journeys. A consignment of 700 sheep crammed on a three-deck transporter was followed from Dover to an abattoir in Italy—4l hours in the heat without food, rest or water. I saw the programme on video and was told about it by the man who was travelling behind the sheep.

While not all journeys are as bad as that, they are all too common. I am sure that all noble Lords who saw the film will have thought it appalling. How can we sit here and not protest in the strongest possible terms about such abuses of animal welfare? I believe as a matter of faith that what we call farm animals were put on this earth by Almighty God for the service of mankind. But that privilege brings with it the responsibility to treat those animals with proper respect.

On numerous occasions the RSPCA has has submitted detailed evidence of such journeys to the Ministry and the European Commission to demonstrate that even existing laws on the welfare of animals are routinely ignored throughout much of Europe. There is an urgent need for proper safeguards to ensure that when the animals are transported it is done with care and respect and that the welfare standards are properly and uniformly policed throughout the European Community. That is one of the difficulties that will arise in whatever the Commission decides to do. I hope my right honourable friend will be extremely strict with the Commission in that respect.

In saying that, I am aware that, the British Government and many of your Lordships support high standards of animal welfare. Many laws have passed through this House in this century that have set British standards among the best in the world. Our laws cover every aspect of livestock transportation, from vehicle construction to the manner in which the animals are cared for. Not only has the legislation stood the test of time, but it is effectively enforced by local authorities and the state veterinary service—that is, of course, in England; we cannot do it anywhere else.

Unfortunately, that level of concern for the protection of livestock during transport is not shared by a number of our European Community partners. Other member states have neither a comparable body of law nor the same desire to enforce properly those laws which exist. My fear, therefore, is that harmonisation of transport regulations may well result in a considerable lowering of our own high standards. It is now all the more imperative that the new European Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, which is about to be completed and will replace virtually all our domestic legislation, embodies the principle that adequate standards of animal welfare are an integral part of the rules governing the movement of live animals. I hope that we will not settle for standards that will not work as well as our own. Above all, I hope that we shall not be penalised for carrying out our own good standards.

For the UK, the prospect of EC regulations must not pose a threat to our own tried and tested body of welfare law; and the requirement for free trade without frontiers within Europe demands uniform enforcement of those standards.

Finally, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I thank all those who are to take part and am grateful to my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer for his encouragement in raising the Question. Perhaps I may take the opportunity also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who helped me at the beginning of my studies by putting me on what I hope is the right road.

I feel most strongly that we have a responsibility not to turn our backs on the suffering endured by animals caught up in this trade. It is our duty to speak out for the highest standards of animal welfare and to ensure that the horrendous scenes recorded in recent months are brought to an end.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Mallalieu

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has my personal gratitude for raising this Question. He has provided the House with an urgently needed opportunity to debate live animal transport to Europe. For me his Question taps a personal well of strong feelings on the subject which I sometimes find hard to control. I hope that he and other noble Lords will forgive me if the criticisms I make are in some respects sterner and perhaps more strident than his.

The current position in relation to those animals on occasions is appalling. Whenever I see one of those large transporters heading down the motorways of Britain towards our Channel ports, as a small farmer I confess to a feeling of shame. I wonder whether the invariably anxious eyes that look out of the side slats belong to animals which will have to travel for 47 hours without food, water or rest, like the sheep which left Calais on 24th September 1991 for Pianella in Italy; or for 47 hours without food or water like the calves from Holland which left for Treviso in Italy from Calais on 23rd June 1992; or for 45 hours without food, water or rest like the pigs from Holland which travelled to Sardinia on 24th June 1992. Some of those journeys were made under Britain's presidency of the EC.

Those were journeys which the dedicated inspectorate of the RSPCA managed to trace. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, said, over 1½ million animals make that journey to the Continent each year —a five-fold increase in five years. It goes on day in and day out, yet it is only when the RSPCA, the Observer newspaper or an investigative television journalist manages to uncover what is taking place that we learn anything about the abuses of that trade. Those who are involved in the trade have made great efforts to put their house in order. But I for one am not reassured. As the trade is growing, so it seems to me are the abuses.

Experience over the past year has shown that we seem to have a government whose capacity for lip-service to a desire to improve standards of animal welfare here and in the Community is matched only by their inaction in reality. When that is combined, as I am afraid it is, with a powerful and vociferous farming lobby which too often is apparently too ready to put agricultural incomes before animal welfare, it is a recipe for deteriorating conditions in the trade, which I believe we are now seeing.

I hope that the Minister can reassure me that I have got it wrong. On the evidence of what the Government have done as opposed to what they said that they would do in this field, I have no confidence in their commitment to improve standards. I speak from personal involvement. As I have already said, I am a small farmer. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that I am a smallholder, not with the rolling acres that are controlled by my noble friend Lord Carter or with the vast experience of livestock of the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. But when I left the House at night last October and November I went home to the lambing shed where I spent a good part of far too many nights trying to bring Poll Dorset sheep into this world.

Those lambs are now ready for slaughter, but I cannot and will not bring myself to sell them through any livestock market in this country. The Government have not satisfied me that their welfare will be safeguarded adequately thereafter. If I sold them in the open market, there would be a danger that they may find their way on to one of the transporters travelling to who knows where and to who knows what unsatisfactory end. So they will go, at some financial loss, direct from the farm to the nearest good abattoir that remains open where I live.

I had hoped that the British presidency of the EC would see this directive completed and ratified by 1st January 1993 when the single market came into being. Instead, it is a matter of shame to the presidency that by 1st January the final details of the directives had not even been published, despite the publication as far back as May 1992 of the EC scientific veterinary committee's report recommending maximum journey times. Worse, the export trade was reopened to Spain, a country where investigation has shown slaughter methods in some abattoirs to be a disgrace to humanity. They involve animals being slaughtered in front of one another, often with no, or wholly inadequate, pre-stunning, and in dreadful conditions. What safeguards, if any, were obtained before the Government allowed that to happen? I wonder.

The 1975 order in relation to the transit of animals has been repealod and replaced with one which actually increases, not decreases, the time limits for feeding and watering during journeys. The period is now up to 15 hours, and this despite the British Veterinary Association's recommendation that it should be reduced to eight hours, a recommendation which had the support of the RSPCA and even of the European Parliament. I know that one should be wary of attributing human feelings to animals, but it must be an experience which is in some ways on a par with standing on the Underground during the rush hour, where 15 minutes is bad enough, let alone 15 hours.

No steps appear to have been taken during our presidency—I hope that I shall be corrected by the Minister on these matters—to set up an EC inspectorate in order to monitor the live transport of animals between states which will be needed when the directive is completed. If and when it is introduced, without enforcement, it will be useless. Despite what the Government have said about wanting to see higher standards of welfare spread across Europe, when this animal loving nation had the presidency of the EC little or nothing appears to have been done, and I am ashamed to say that the position appears to have markedly worsened under our lead.

Whenever this subject is raised I am aware of a vast body of ordinary members of the public who want to see both their Government and the major farming organisations working towards an end to live transport instead of apparently promoting it. People constantly ask, "What can we do about this traffic?" Livestock are surely not mere commodities to be moved over great distances as market prices dictate without regard for their inevitable stress.

It makes sense both commercially and in common humanity for farm animals to be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm on which they are reared, and ideally on the farm itself. Yet in my own area of Buckinghamshire, not far from where the Minister lives, the abattoirs at Long Crendon, Marlow and Thame have all closed and the abattoir at Reading is about to close. Animals have to travel further and further for slaughter. Up to a half of Britain's abattoirs face closure. I find it outrageous that Marlow, which was a small family abattoir where animals were well handled, with minimum stress, should have to close yet sheep be permitted to travel to Spain with all that is entailed there. That is not progress in my book or, I suspect, in the eyes of the British public.

Is it true, can the Minister tell us, as was recently alleged in the press, that because of these closures animals are now being exported to France for slaughter and the carcasses then reimported to this country? If so, what is being done to ensure the continuation of an adequate network of abattoirs nationwide to cope with demand? The Humane Slaughter Society has recently obtained approval for a prototype mobile abattoir. I would use it and so, I know, would many small livestock farmers if one existed in my area. What plans do the Government have to encourage such facilities? And if there are none, why not? What plans also do the Government have to promote the export of frozen carcasses to the Continent so that our abattoirs can stay open, jobs can remain here and animals do not suffer by unnecessary travel? And if there are none, why not?

I understand—I hope not incorrectly—that the National Farmers' Union considers the proposals in the draft directive to be too restrictive, too expensive and too complicated and says that continued live exports are vital. Many of its members make money from this trade and they are a powerful lobby. Farmers have often had a bad press recently. So long as farming organisations continue to misjudge and fail to respond to the mood of the public, who are their customers and whose attitudes towards animal welfare have changed, especially that towards farm animals which provide our meat, and so long as they fail to accord a higher priority to raising the conditions in which our meat animals live and die, they deserve a bad press and they deserve to create a nation of vegetarians. Our politicians who allow these things to happen and to continue to happen deserve a bad press too.

Aspects of this trade shame us all. I hope that the Minister can tell us that the completion of the implementation of the Council directive is seen by this Government only as a first step towards the ultimate phasing out of this form of export and its replacement with a carcass trade. Until it is, I am afraid that every time I see one of those lorries trundling through the night I shall remember the words of Robert Frost's poem: I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep". Too many of our animals have far too many miles to go, and we look to the Government to tell us what they are doing to keep their promises about their welfare.

7.57 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harvington for raising this Question. I cannot compete with his expert knowledge or with the knowledge of other noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, as a Scottish farmer, I am concerned with some of the issues that the Question raises, especially in regard to the enforcement of EC law, the future of the UK livestock and meat processing industries and the importance of the latter to our rural economy.

In a different context, namely environmental practice, I do have expert knowledge of the difficulties of ensuring proper and uniform enforcement of Community-wide regulations. I have seen at first hand the extent to which such enforcement can become hopelessly erratic and prone to abuse on a regional basis. The optimism of Directive 91/628 is therefore familiar, though perhaps misplaced, when it states that, the rules proposed must ensure more effective protection of animals during transport". If their implementation and enforcement are not complete, such rules cannot ensure anything except perhaps inequality.

A debate in the House in January on the implementation and enforcement of EC environmental legislation established a number of conclusions that would apply to today's Question. They were, first, that legislation and regulations, however well intentioned and well drafted, are a waste of time and paper unless they can be properly enforced; secondly, that even where they are correctly implemented, actually enforcing compliance remains the most serious problem; and thirdly, that with uneven patterns of enforcement and compliance between different EC countries and regions, a very bumpy playing field develops. This can disadvantage those countries, such as the UK, which are more law abiding and unfairly indulge those which have a long and often proud tradition of ignoring officialdom where vested interests are at stake.

Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 91/628 suggest that member states will ensure compliance and institute the appropriate specific penalties for non-compliance. Britain and Germany will probably take the commitments seriously, but others, notably some to whom we send live exports, will not. Non-compliance with this and similar directives can lead to appalling suffering for animals. But in southern Europe, many accept a mortality rate of 15 per cent. in consignments of live British lambs as a norm. Such an acceptance, and the philosophy that goes with it, mocks Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/628, not to mention the general provisions outlined in chapter one of the annex. These include such requirements as, animals that fall ill or are injured during transport shall receive first aid treatment as soon as possible", and those transporting animals for profit do not do so, in a way which may cause injury or unnecessary suffering". The spirit of Directive 91/628 and its hopes of uniform and effective enforcement also strike an incongruous note with the often well-publicised inaction of the French authorities. We have all read of them standing by and watching, but not intervening, as British lambs are harassed or burned alive, or as other agricultural or fish produce from this country is destroyed in transit.

Article 10 states that Commission experts may carry out on-the-spot checks in order to gain uniform application of the directive. That is certainly the only hope for uniform compliance: how effective it will be remains to be seen. However, I would ask my noble friend the Minister whether an EC Commission inspectorate has been established and, if so, whether it has any track record to reassure those who doubt effective and uniform enforcement being possible, and whether it ought not to pay especial attention to those exports of British lambs where 15 per cent. mortality during the journey is seen as normal and acceptable by the importer.

Given the history and prevalence of malpractice in this field, the suffering that is caused, and the difficulties faced by some EC national authorities in enforcing compliance at the expense of vested interests, the most significant assertion in Directive 91/628—it appears on the first page—must be that, for reasons of animal welfare the transport over long distances of animals, including animals for slaughter, should be reduced as far as possible". Reducing, or at the very least strictly controlling, the live export of animals for slaughter could benefit more than just animal welfare. It could also be of benefit to the rural economies of such areas as Scotland and Wales and, ultimately, to the interests of our livestock farmers. My noble friend explored that point.

Malpractice and low standards in the live export for slaughter trade, and the difficulties of enforcing directives, help to generate inequitable advantage and profits for the importer abroad who is avoiding costs through non-compliance. In doing so, receipts are diverted away from British carcass exporters who have invested in the necessary plant and procedures that a successful and legal pursuit of the meat export trade demands.

I would add that profiting through non-compliance is not confined to transport. Abattoirs in southern Europe, for instance—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness—often employ cheaper and less humane methods and have not invested to comply with EC standards to the extent that British abattoirs have.

A consignment of Scottish or Welsh lambs, for instance, which might otherwise be processed by the British meat industry and exported as carcasses, can bypass our own facilities and instead travel live to Spain in conditions that the importer knows to produce a mortality rate of up to 15 per cent. The lambs are then slaughtered by the Spanish abattoir industry in what may be sub-standard conditions; and some are then likely to be sold, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, as "home grown" Spanish lambs to fetch a market premium. The added value element that our own industry could have provided to such exports, and the jobs that go with it, are being transferred through questionable practice and noncompliance to the end-user's country, which in this case is Spain.

Such a trade, with its attendant illegal practices, is therefore threatening the British abattoir and processing industry, with all its jobs and associated services and its heavy investment in quality and compliance. Exports of British farmed meat, moreover, amounted to £850 million during 1992 of which carcass exports contributed some £650 million. That is over 76 per cent. of the whole and has been a valuable contribution.

Some of the Welsh and Scottish enterprises, as well as investing in good practice, have made a considerable commitment to the logistics involved in moving British carcass exports at speed to their foreign markets. A significant part of that £650 million of exports, for instance, consists of lamb carcasses taking just 36 hours between Welsh abattoirs and the market in northern Spain, the total journey from the Welsh hill to the Spanish oven therefore being just three days.

It is, however, increasingly difficult for those abattoirs which have geared themselves for such an enterprise if their export market is being undermined by the illegal cost-cutting practices that arise from flouting transport, slaughter and trades descriptions regulations. Quite simply, too few authorities en route and at the destination properly enforce regulations and the penalty is paid at the law-abiding end in terms of lost business.

According to the Meat and Livestock Commission the number employed in the slaughtering and processing sector is estimated to have been about 250,000 in the past year, many of them in rural areas. A threat to the livelihood of that sector is therefore more than just a threat to their turnover and the final value of our exports. Jobs within that industry and within the supporting services are placed in jeopardy.

Rural, non-agricultural employment is a precious and often fragile feature of our countryside. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, initiated an interesting debate on the social and economic needs of rural areas. He drew attention to the 100,000 farming jobs that have disappeared over the past 10 years and the further 100,000 farming jobs that may disappear over the next 10 years. The noble Lord and others also pointed out that crucial local services such as shops, schools, hospitals and transport are threatened where the rural job base declines.

It is therefore in the wider interest that the 250,000 employed in the abattoir and processing industry, all those in their support services, and the investment and expenditure they generate in rural areas, are not unjustly threatened by the sharp practices of middle-men and end-users when exporting live animals for slaughter.

On a similarly broad perspective, I believe that it is also in the farmer's longer term interest that this trade is effectively controlled and is kept in balance with the needs of our own local industries. Low-cost transport systems for live animal exports may sporadically help to lift auction prices and this can tempt some of us to ignore the subsequent welfare of the animals we are selling and the extent to which directives and good slaughter practices abroad are being honoured. I suggest that where it undermines our own abattoir and processing industry, we ignore this at our peril. For livestock producers, the industry constitutes an important buyer, especially where guaranteed prices are offered for certain quantities at a pre-agreed quality. Such a service is a vital and complementary alternative to selling at auctions with their fluctuating prices.

If the commercial viability of this industry is eroded, farmers risk losing a major component of the purchasing market to whom they sell, and any reduction in the choice available will mean our having to rely more heavily on fewer options.

None of us wants to pass up export opportunities. But none of us, if we think it through, should want our export trade to become reliant on those artful dodgers whose sympathies are fickle and whose profits derive from poor practice. Their success will too easily be at the expense of a longer established and more integral sector of our own markets; a sector moreover which has a firm vested interest in the health and success of future livestock production in this country.

In conclusion, ensuring that directives such as Directive 91/628 are properly implemented and are uniformly and rigorously enforced, is of over-riding importance, but not just for the animals. The ease with which compliance, and therefore costs, can be ignored in the export of animals for foreign slaughter is creating unfair and dangerous competition for a heavily invested, large-payrolled, rurally based, export-oriented and law-abiding industry of our own. I do not want an unscrupulous trade to deprive our animals of welfare, our rural industries of jobs, and ultimately our farmers of choice.

Whether compliance can ever be enforced with sufficient effect by some of our EC partners I have to doubt from my own experience of compliance within environmental practice on the Continent. Hence, I once again stress to my noble friend the Minister the assertion in Directive 91/628 which appears in the preamble and which states that, the transport over long distances of animals, including animals for slaughter, should be reduced as far as possible". I would ask the Minister whether he agrees with that, and what steps the Government are taking to implement reductions.

8.8 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I agree with other speakers that the ultimate aim must be an end to the long distance transport of animals for slaughter. If I go on to talk about more practical matters which apply at the moment, it does not mean that I have lost sight of that aim. It simply means that for the moment we have to start from where we are and do the best with what we have at hand. In the meantime, therefore, we must have much stricter rules controlling the length of journey and the intervals between feeding and watering. For example, the RSPCA, the BVA and the European Parliament, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu has said, all agree on the maximum eight-hour journey limit for slaughter animals. We should be working for that as a beginning.

But no matter how humane the rules may be, they will not be effective without real enforcement. The United Kingdom has a good (although not perfect) history of enforcement but, as we have heard, many of the other member states have little or none. That can only work to the disadvantage of the well behaved trader, so it is absolutely vital that enforcement is not only adequate but is also uniformly applied, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has said.

Will the Government take up the case for an EC inspectorate that can travel between member states and work to the same standards? If we take a lead in this we may be able to make some headway, given our present record on animal welfare. I understand that that happens at the moment for abattoirs, although from what I have heard this evening it does not sound as if it is too successful. However, that is what we should be aiming for.

The noble Lord, Lord Harvington, covered many of the points that I was going to raise, so I shall not go over them a second time but instead develop the discussion on lairages, which have not been mentioned so far. Before January this year it was compulsory to rest animals at a lairage near a port for at least 10 hours before a journey. That is no longer compulsory and hauliers will undoubtedly save time by reduced or no use of lairages. Since the lairages are private businesses, they will be adversely affected and may go out of business. This would mean that they were not available for emergencies such as bad weather which could delay the ferries or for good hauliers who wish to treat animals humanely. Keeping animals in their transporters is not resting them even if the transporter is no longer moving. Have the Government given any thought to how lairages will remain viable? Have they had discussions with the industry or with the hauliers to see what effect making the use of lairages optional has had on the business so far?

The new United Kingdom 15-hour rule could cause problems. Few UK journeys are over 15 hours. Once a driver has crossed the Channel, who will enforce the temporary regulations? I understand that they are temporary, but at the present rate of progress "temporary" could mean quite a long time. In any cases do the regulations apply across the Channel—that is, even if there was someone to enforce them?

I have given the noble Earl notice of a number of questions that I wish to put to him so I hope that I may get some answers. Perhaps I may refer to the journey plan to Europe. If a journey is intended to last for more than 24 hours—as most to Europe are—a journey plan is required, carried by the driver, detailing times and places of resting, feeding and watering. However, if a driver breaks the plan, who is competent to prosecute the hauliers? The RSPCA is anxious to know who prosecutes for cruelty to the animals? Can the United Kingdom authorities prosecute for an offence committed in Spain or Italy, or do we have to persuade their authorities to prosecute?

How long is a journey? Under our previous legislation a journey began from the moment the first animal was loaded and lasted until the moment the last animal was unloaded. Is that definition being used at present?

Does a farmer going to market need a veterinary check on his animals before he sets out? Technically, a farmer taking sheep over 31 miles to market should have a vet check on them before starting the journey. Does the new provision in the directive apply in this country? Does it mean that a farmer must have his animals checked before going to market and before taking them back again if he has not sold them? Are we saying, in other words, that the directive is to be enforced at each short stage? It is important for the farming industry to know that.

Finally, I raise once more the problem of the transport of wild birds within the European Community. I realise that they do not come under the directive if their country of origin is outside the Community, but large consignments arrive at EC airports and are redistributed to member states. The mortality rate is as high as 14 per cent. for many species, but for some species—for example, humming birds—it is 95 per cent. and can be much higher. Very few humming birds survive transportation. What action will the Government take to investigate those high mortality rates and to introduce measures that will achieve improvements? I hope that all those questions can be answered tonight. If not, perhaps the noble Earl will write to me.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, man is always creating new ways of being cruel to animals, birds and fish—and this is one of them. Before I continue my oration on this topic I have been asked expressly by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that she cannot be present tonight due to indisposition. She is one of the most regular attenders at our debates on animals and I am sorry that she cannot be here to support the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. I welcome the noble Lord to our debates on animal welfare. I have known him for many years and admire him in many ways. I knew that he was a nice man, but I was never quite sure whether he had a soft spot in his heart for animals.

As I said, man is always creating new ways of being cruel to other species and of denying to them all the rights that he claims for himself. Man says that his rights are God-given. I say that he invented them. They are what man has established for himself, in many cases putting religion behind his claim.

However, we are dealing with the transport of live animals and I say that that trade is ignoble and unnecessary. One of these days we must rise up and say so. All that the trade is about is the difference between a refrigerated carcass and a live animal. That is all that there is to it. It is a matter of taste. It is a matter of meat being "home killed", which is butcher's rubbish. This problem has become much worse in recent years because of new consumer demands. When did consumers have the right to demand something for themselves which causes suffering to other creatures? When did consumers assume sovereignty over our affairs, especially over moral issues such as this?

The figures that the RSPCA has supplied in its brief show that there has been a substantial increase in this traffic in recent years with 0.5 million more sheep being transported in 1992. Most of those are lambs —and most of the lambs are suckling lambs. Here is a most hideous description of animal transport. Suckling lambs are going to Italy by the hundred thousand and account largely for the increase in the total. What is more, according to the list of journeys which the RSPCA trailed in 1991, they are going on the longest journey. They are going to Italy because, I am told by those who are in the business, the Italians have developed a taste for suckling lambs. Therefore, we are sending suckling lambs to Italy. That is disgraceful. I wonder that the farmers do not rise up and say, "This is a hideous trade and we do not want to have anything to do with it". I feel sometimes that we should hear from those who produce the animals. What do they feel when they send off the animals on those long trails across Europe in conditions of great discomfort and privation?

We must address ourselves to that issue and other matters related to it in our dealings with the Europeans. It is not much good pressing for still higher standards of welfare unless they can be enforced. It would be better to go step by step and have improvements that can be enforced. We owe to the RSPCA the fact that we know what conditions are like. It has been trailing those journeys for a number of years. The stories that come back are most disquieting. So far nothing has been done effectively to remove anxiety. Not until we have a European society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shall we have any confidence in enforcement in Europe.

There was a time when some people thought that the only way of dealing with cruelty to animals in Europe was to have a European society based on the model of the British society. In parenthesis I say that we seem to assume that prevention of cruelty is the duty and within the scope of a voluntary society. Cruelty is condemned by law. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is a crime under the law. The enforcement of that law is the duty of the state, but it has fallen into the hands of the voluntary societies. I do not under-estimate their value. They are probably more reliable than institutions in the attention they pay to these matters. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that cruelty is the responsibility of nation states within the European Community.

There is nothing to justify the trade. In the days before refrigeration there was at least an excuse for shipping live cattle across the Atlantic to Birkenhead to be slaughtered, but there is no excuse for that now. There is no excuse for sending cattle, calves or sheep on that trek now. Another thought crosses my mind. Why are we always cruel to the young? I am not talking just about our own young, but the young of the animal kingdom. Lambs, suckling lambs, piglets, suckling pigs, calves, anything your Lordships can think of—they must be young and must be tender.

It is difficult to get away from the humbug of mankind in all these matters, because it cannot find a straight moral or philosophical line through the labyrinth of attitudes towards the animal kingdom. When shall we have some moral basis for our attitude to and relationship with the animal kingdom? What are we here for that they are not here for? Are we claiming again that we have some special right to be here and they have none at all? Is that the basis of our approach to life on earth? We never get down to such things. We get down to things such as whether they should have 10 hours' rest or receive some food and water to make life less insufferable as they go on their journey. They are important details and we must attend to them.

Article 13 left unsettled a great deal which is important in relation to animals being transported across Europe. We have standards which we believe to be better than those in Europe, but it is not much good having better standards for our animals going to the coast than they have going from Calais to Italy. It is one long journey for the animals. We cannot feel entirely happy that we are giving them a little more comfort and consideration on their way to Dover or Folkestone. The long journeys we read about in the RSPCA brief, for which we are all grateful, all start from the French port of Calais.

With the present rapid increase in numbers what chance is there of standards being improved? If we are to transport hundreds of thousands more on those long journeys will they be any more comfortable or will they be overcrowded? Will commercial considerations cut down what benefits they have to achieve a quicker turn round to fetch more animals?

I am sorry, but there is no fun in animals. My wife will have nothing to do with animal welfare because she says there is no happiness in it. There is not. We cannot withstand the mass demand and claims upon animal life. When it comes to the point, our competitors' commercial considerations and all the mundane acquisitive instincts come to the surface. I do not know whether the Minister knows what conditions for transporting suckling lambs are like. It would be interesting to know. Presumably they want feeding. We can only do our best. We are not in a position to dictate to the rest of Europe. We might look at the issue as a whole and consider whether we should continue to send our live animals on those long journeys just to satisfy what I have described as consumer demand. Cannot people be content with a frozen carcass? It need not be refrigerated for long.

This is going on all over the world. Let us look at the millions of sheep going from New Zealand and Australia to the Middle East. I have seen shiploads of them going. There are terraces on top of the ships which are higher than the funnels themselves. They are all crammed with animals. There may be 20,000 or 30,000 sheep on board. If disease breaks out, there is hell to pay. That is what is going on.

I have every sympathy with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in having to cope with the details of the problems, because I am afraid that he is up against a degree of indifference that we in this country do not appreciate fully. We ought to offer to support the Minister even if he stands out for something which may cost us money. Why do we regard cheap food as the first condition of dealing with animals? People ought to be prepared to pay something for the comfort of the creatures that they are devoting to their own purpose.

I had better leave it there. I hope that we shall get these conditions settled this year to some degree of satisfaction; otherwise it will be necessary to have more debates on this subject and to arouse the agricultural industry. Do your Lordships know that the sheep subsidy from the Community has increased fourfold in the past five years? The number of animals that we are exporting has been rising too. Of course there is the subsidy. There are always subsidies, and they have to be manipulated. Earlier in the afternoon we were debating fraud in the European Community. There is a nice Tom Tiddler's ground for crooks and fraudsters. It has been going on for years, and a lot in the agricultural industry because there are subsidies. If you can collect two subsidies when you are entitled to only one, so much the better say some. I am afraid that everything to do with this contains an unhappy note for me.

I am sorry to have inflicted my strong views on the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, and to command the attention of the noble Earl on this miserable subject. The noble Earl would be much happier if he were dealing with efficiency testing in the Civil Service. He would rather go to Mr. Waldegrave's field of activity where he is only dealing with civil servants than, say, the area of agriculture. But the noble Earl comes from a stock that is speedy, enterprising and dashing, so he should bring these qualities to his work in the Ministry of Agriculture.

I am grateful to the noble Lord who opened this debate. If anybody else likes to be a candidate for my shadow cabinet, I should be very glad indeed to offer him a major appointment. Between us we might get something done before Christmas that might improve the lot of transported animals.

8.33 p.m.

Lord Slynn of Hadley

My Lords, it is singularly difficult to follow after the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. However, because of what I regard as the importance of this subject for the European Community, and because of what I regard as the importance of the role of the United Kingdom and thereby our Government, I venture briefly to intervene.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, have already graphically described the privations that are imposed upon animals transported around the Community. Beyond doubt it is a serious problem, as anyone who has been around Europe in recent years knows only too well from the lorryloads of tier upon tier of piglets and tier upon tier of sheep and calves going along the roads.

Despite that one must not underestimate that the Community has already done much. I do not underestimate the importance of the existing directives, and particularly of Directive 91/628, which recognised the importance in the single market of ensuring a satisfactory level of protection for the animals concerned being transported across borders. But what is essential is that we should not stop there. Indeed, the creation of the single market makes it particularly important that control by the Community should go on and that there should be vigilance as to all the matters that have been referred to this afternoon.

It is important to the single market, because it is plain from what has been said that breeders and traders are not going to be necessarily concentrating on the most humane methods of rearing and transporting animals. I well remember a case in the European Court that concerned the rearing of veal calves. The Community had laid down standards: so much space for the animals to turn; so much light to come into the sheds for so many hours a day. The Dutch Government went further and required more space per calf; more light for more time during daylight hours. Some of the breeders came to the court and said that the Dutch legislation was inconsistent with Community law because it was too generous to the calves and that it imposed on them the burden of giving better conditions than Community directives required. It is for that reason that the Community has to be extremely vigilant in ensuring that what is done is properly to be done.

My particular interest, upon which I wish to speak briefly, relates not to sheep, pigs or calves but to the transport of horses. Some three or four years ago I found myself one afternoon on a hot August day in a motorway garage in Poland. In the parking area there were two vehicles crammed with horses going to Italy. There was no room for the horses to move about in the trailer. One or two had fallen, and they were being kicked by the others. The horses were biting each other because there was not enough space, and one saw blood spattered over the horses and over the sides of the vehicle. Those horses had yet another two or three days in that intense heat to travel to Italy. It is the control of this sort of thing in the Community that can only be done at Community level. Therefore, there is a particular responsibility on the Commission to see that these things are done.

While the Maastricht debate goes on it is perhaps controversial to say anything about Britain's role in Europe. I venture to suggest, however, that as a country we have a special role and a special opportunity to press for directives and regulations to be made dealing with these matters, and to see that they are enforced. The British enthusiasm for animal protection is perhaps regarded on the Continent as an eccentricity, but it is one that is admired on the Continent, unlike some of our other eccentricities in relation to the European Economic Community. We should press forward as far as we can to insist on the right standards being observed.

I ask myself, if we do not, who will? It is for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has done a special service in raising this matter today. The Government have a special role. They have a special role in this country, and not least because we have voluntary organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, which do so much for animal protection not just in this country but also abroad. For example, the Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad has done great service over 70 years to ensure that horses, donkeys and mules receive proper treatment in North Africa, curiously but marvellously through money raised in this country, even though the animals were to be cared for in former French colonies.

The International League for the Protection of Horses is alive to the problems of transporting horses abroad, especially those intended for slaughter. The journals published by that body sometimes show horrific photographs of horses being transported, the way in which they are lifted onto the carriage vehicles and the way in which they are kept while being carried.

Your Lordships recently debated the role of the voluntary organisations, which were concerned mostly with the care of people. Their activities received high praise, and rightly so. However, I wish to pay tribute to the voluntary organisations involved in caring for animals. I have mentioned two, but there are many others. Despite their dedication and efficiency their finances and powers are limited. They need to be supported not only by private donations but by Community institutions and by government.

I hope that the Government will ensure that in the race for an internal market and maximum interstate trade the plight of such animals as are carried around will not be forgotten. There must be constant pressure on the Commission to regulate. It must enforce its regulations, if necessary by legal proceedings. I suggest that constant pressure must be put on the Commission by our Government, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is their intention.

8.41 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for having tabled the Question tonight. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for the way in which she expanded the grounds of the Question and the accusations which must be made.

The subject is one about which every noble Lord in the Chamber feels strongly, about which many of our countrymen feel strongly and, in spite of what is said, about which many people all over Europe feel strongly. According to the way some people talk one would think that St. Francis of Assisi was an Englishman. He was not; he was an Italian. There have been and are animal lovers all over Europe.

Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, it is for us to dictate terms to the rest of Europe. We are dictating terms from a high moral ground, although I hope not pompously. We are doing so from an area in which we have taken a lead. It is up to us to ensure that the activity is stopped altogether or that it is undertaken only on humane terms. Her Majesty's Government must go to any lengths to see that that happens.

I was at the weekend in Wales addressing a dinner of the Welsh Liberal Democratic Party at its spring conference. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Geraint, few farmers were present because they were lambing. I felt great sympathy for them because recently my son had to retire to bed as a result of heavy bronchitis brought on by lambing during the cold spell last week. My 10 year-old granddaughter is becoming a first-class shepherd. They are raising sheep to be eaten because our civilisation eats meat, as I do and as many other noble Lords do, and we shall probably continue to do so. However, we want to eat only meat which is raised under humane conditions. Today that can be ensured.

As I drove to Cardiff station I travelled through more than one town whose inn was called "The Drovers' Arms". The problem that we are discussing is not new because sheep had then to be driven all the way from Wales to London to feed the people in the capital. One would have thought that with modern refrigeration, which does not harm the quality of the meat, we would have been able to do away with this problem. We have not yet found a way, but we certainly ought to. My purpose tonight is to say that Members on these Benches join the plea made by noble Lords from all quarters of the House that the Government ensure that our wishes are enforced.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, because his Question has allowed us to debate this sensitive and important subject. The noble Lord mentioned the enormous increase in the size of the trade and we have heard about the strong emotions that can be aroused.

The problem highlights the practical difficulties which will result from the operation of a single market. The differing enthusiasm among member states for the implementation of measures to which there is attached an economic cost will mean that those who are less enthusiastic in implementation will gain a cost advantage over those who are enthusiastic and who try their best to carry out the various measures.

Despite what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, a fundamental point is that there is a difference in attitude towards animal welfare in the different member states. I shall not attempt, to name names but merely say that anyone who has travelled in other member states—particularly those in the southerly regions of Europe and parts of eastern Europe—will know that the concept of the moral status of animals, which is at the root of our attitude towards animal welfare, does not appear to enter the consciousness of farmers, transport operators and slaughterers in some parts of the EC and elsewhere. As a result of that there will arise the problem of uniform policing, requiring an EC inspectorate working to common standards.

It is important to make that point at the outset because unless it is recognised and accepted we shall continue to believe that the delay in achieving equality of treatment in this matter between the member states is a matter of bureaucratic dilatoriness. In my view the problem lies deeper than that. It will be harder than we believe to achieve the famous level playing field.

The first question I wish to ask to the Minister has been asked, but in different ways. Why during the UK Presidency of the Council of Ministers in 1992 did we not take the opportunity to ensure that the directive was fully implemented? As I understand it, the implementation of the crucial Article 13 has been delayed and I ask the Minister, why and for how long?

It is all very well for the general objectives to be agreed but, unless the precise details of issues such as the vehicle specification, the stocking densities, the journey times between resting, feeding and watering are agreed and adhered to, we shall continue to see the disgraceful cruelty that has been mentioned. That was set out in the brief from the RSPCA which has already been quoted tonight. It is almost unbelievable that human beings can treat animals in the way described in the brief.

Seven out of the 10 cases quoted in the RSPCA trial summary carried out during the period September 1991 to June 1992 relate to pigs. I wish to mention the first-class work carried out by the Cambac JMA research unit from Woodcote near Reading. That unit is an excellent example of collaboration between farmers, the trade and the Ministry to research pig welfare. In the UK the greatest "welfare insult" is, because of the sheer volume of the operation, the movement of meat herd animals. Fifteen million meat pigs are transported to slaughter each year. Valuable breeding animals are treated with respect. The movement of pigs between the points of production and the abattoirs may not exceed the upper limit of eight hours' duration but often the conditions to which they are subjected are substandard. There is the possibility that the amount of transport of pigs will increase when the ban on the sow stalls and tethers comes into place, because so many sow houses are unsuitable for conversion to group-housed systems and farmers will turn to specialised rearing and finishing. There will be an increase in the transport between units and then between the finishing units and the abattoir. The draft directive may be a step in the right direction, but it is very short on appropriate facts. There are a number of design specifications which are unlikely to promote stock welfare. But of course they will increase the cost to the whole industry, and this represents money which could be spent on welfare improvements.

To take just a few of the many points that could be made about detailed aspects of the directive, if we look in Chapter 1A, Section 2(d), it refers to journey times and stipulates that animals must receive appropriate water and food at intervals which should not exceed 24 hours etc. But in this there is no guidance on the time between the last feed of the animal and the loading, so that, for example, a pig could go for 47½ hours without food. If it was to be loaded 23½ hours after its last feed at the farm and then carried on for the 24 hours which is mentioned in the directive, it would he 47½ hours. This is an area where the directive is at fault. I would ask the Minister whether there has been an attempt to do anything about the feeding times before the animal is loaded so as to avoid the possibility of a long period between the last feed at the farm and the 24 hours that is mentioned in the directive for the journey.

Chapter 1A, Section 5, deals with the design of floors. It says that there must be sufficient litter on a floor to absorb droppings. In the case of pigs, if straw litter is used this may be the first time in their lives that they have seen straw bedding, so this would be just one more unfamiliar experience for the animals when approaching their slaughter. This is an example of the practical matters that the directive overlooks.

There can be little doubt that the recommendation by the RSPCA and the BVA as to an overall maximum of an eight-hour journey time for slaughter animals is correct in principle. I would ask the Government whether they accept this recommendation and whether they will press for this to be incorporated in the European legislation. There can be little justification for transporting animals live for 24 hours or more to take them to slaughter.

In an ideal world, obviously the export of meat should be in carcass form, but it may be a long time before we achieve this. The British Association of Sheep Exporters said that exports increased in 1992 to 1.4 million and contributed almost £45 million to the incomes of sheep farmers and to export earnings for the country's economy. This is big business, and we must expect it to take some time before anything can change.

We know that some good work is being done by farming organisations and others to achieve higher standards. For example, the British Association of Sheep Exporters has set out a code of practice for its members with 16 sections. I shall quote just one or two. It says that members have accepted the obligation to maintain a high standard of stock management and animal husbandry and to strive for the constant improvement of facilities relating to the export of live sheep. It says that members will ensure strict compliance with the EC limitations on travelling time and in particular will ensure adherence to the suitability of staging posts and lairages where any journey is likely to take longer than the permitted time for an unbroken journey. I shall not deal with any more of the 16 items, but they show that there are some farmers who are trying to meet the higher standards that we all want to see.

In the absence of a common policy throughout the Community to ban the export of live animals for slaughter, clearly there must be a common policy to deal with the vital welfare aspects of transport. The directive is a start, but clearly there is a very long way to go before we have a situation throughout the Community which conforms to the best standards in the United Kingdom. Until that time comes, the United Kingdom must strive to get acceptable and practical standards adopted throughout the EC and incorporated within Community legislation, with ideally a Community inspectorate to police implementation.

A number of speakers have said, and I know this from my own experience in agriculture, that no farmer worth his salt would ever defend cruelty to animals. However, I have to say that an awful lot of us do not always know what goes on and are not always as concerned as we should be about how the animal is treated once it has left the farm gate. The noble Lord who put down this Question has done a great service, and I have the feeling that this is not the last time that we shall be debating the subject. In conclusion, in this morning's post I received Farming Food News, which is the journal of the Farm and Food Society. On the front is a cartoon which shows a Customs official at an overseas port who is saying to a sheep, "Have you anything to declare?", and the sheep says, "Only that I am ashamed of my country".

8.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)

My Lords, let me begin with a categoric assurance: Her Majesty's Government regard the welfare of animals as being of the utmost importance. We have consistently given a high priority to the maintenance of strict welfare safeguards and to their effective enforcement. I welcome the opportunity provided by my noble friend to set out the Government's position on this issue and to respond to concerns expressed during this debate by noble Lords.

The Government agree with the view so well articulated by my noble friend that animal welfare is an international issue and that controls need to be established on a European basis. It is not a matter for subsidiarity. To this end we continue to press for the best possible safeguards to be set in Community legislation and for them to be enforced strictly in all member states.

The transport of animals is an issue which gives rise to particular concern. Animals of course have to be moved from farm to farm, to markets and to slaughterhouses. Whatever the purpose of the journey it is, however, essential to ensure that the animals are properly cared for and protected during the potentially stressful time of transport.

I should like to give the House a brief sketch of animal welfare transport controls as they operated before the start of the year, before the situation was altered by the introduction of Community Directive 91/628. We had a wealth of detailed legislation setting out the vehicle standards and other requirements which transporters had to meet. For journeys within Great Britain, farm animals were required to be fed and watered after 12 hours unless the animals could arrive at their final destination within 15 hours. In practice, since most journeys within GB territory can be completed within 15 hours, few journeys had to be interrupted to provide food and water for the animals.

In the case of animals for export, the law required, with limited exceptions, that they were rested for 10 hours at an approved lairage near the port. The animals were given food and water and inspected for fitness at the lairage. If the subsequent journey was likely to last more than 18 hours, the exporter was required to make arrangements for feeding and watering the animals en route.

On 1st January 1993, with the introduction of the single European market, Directive 91/628 came into force and this required some changes to be made to our arrangements. We were no longer able to maintain a distinction between domestic journeys and journeys to other member states in terms of the welfare conditions for transport. We thus had to introduce a single feeding and watering interval and to replace the export lairage procedure by new requirements.

My noble friend Lord Harvington has rightly drawn attention to the fact that the directive as it stands is incomplete. Although it recognised that detailed rules on such issues as feeding and watering intervals, loading densities and vehicle standards should be set by the Community, the standards themselves were not defined in appropriate detail. The directive required the Commission to present a report on the outstanding matters by July 1992, with appropriate proposals.

Regrettably, this timetable was not adhered to by the Commission and, despite the Government's many efforts to press the Commission to publish its formal proposals, as yet none have been tabled. It became apparent towards the end of last year that these detailed rules would not be in place by 1st January when the directive was to enter into force. The directive, however, permitted member states in this situation to apply national rules in the areas where further Community rules were awaited. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 10th December that the Government would take full advantage of this provision. Pending further action by the Community, therefore, we are continuing to apply national rules in the areas concerned.

Under these arrangements we are applying a 15-hour limit between stops for feeding and watering the animals. As I mentioned earlier, this compares with an 18-hour limit which was previously applied for exports, and for domestic trade it does not differ significantly from the previous limit of 12 hours which could be extended to 15 hours where the journey could be completed within that time. It is important to note that in adopting this approach the Government have decided to apply a limit which is considerably stricter than the maximum interval of 24 hours set by the directive.

We also ensure that animals for export receive a veterinary inspection before the start of the journey to ensure that they are fit to travel. These inspections were previously carried out at the export lairage but as the compulsory lairage system had to be replaced they are now carried out before the start of the journey. In other areas where the Commission has not yet proposed detailed Community rules, our national legislation will continue to apply. I am pleased to reassure your Lordships that our minimum value system which controls the export of horses has been retained.

The statutory instrument introducing these changes, the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992, revoked previous legislation in a selective manner with the result that the main body of our animal welfare legislation remains in place. The Government also took advantage of the opportunity to tighten up on certain areas such as the transportation of casualty animals which had caused concern in the past.

While we have successfully retained our high standards, the Government are most disappointed that the directive remains incomplete. We accept that animals can be transported safely but that safety relies on suitable standards throughout the Community. It cannot be right that in what should be a single market, different standards for the transport of farm animals apply in different parts of the Community. The Government will therefore continue to press for the introduction of the necessary further Community rules as soon as possible. I must tell my noble friend that we do not yet know when that will be. At the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in February, the need to complete the directive was raised and the Commissioner was left in no doubt as to the feelings of the United Kingdom and other delegations on the issue.

My noble friend Lord Harvington also drew attention to the most important matter of enforcement of the animal welfare legislation. I have already indicated that this is given a very high priority in the United Kingdom where enforcement is carried out by local authorities with advice and support as necessary from the State Veterinary Service. The enforcement powers have recently been strengthened by an amendment to the Animal Health Act 1981 to give inspectors additional powers to carry out random checks. Under the new Transport Order inspectors also have wide-ranging powers to stop and detain consignments of animals and also to prevent a journey taking place if it would contravene the legislation. I can well understand your Lordships' concern that equivalent high standards of enforcement should apply throughout the European Community. The Government fully share that objective and are most concerned that all member states should enforce the law with the same seriousness as this country.

It is now standard for Community directives on animal welfare to include provision for a Commission inspectorate with powers to visit member states to check on uniform compliance, and we ensured that the directive on animal transport contained such a provision. The United Kingdom has been pressing the Commission to establish this Community inspectorate as quickly as possible and I am pleased to say that the Commission is now making the necessary arrangements. We understand that veterinary inspectors are being appointed who will visit member states to check on compliance with the legislation. These visits will be arranged in conjunction with the authorities of the member states concerned, as it is not of course the intention that the Commission should take over the responsibility of national authorities in enforcing the law. Nor will the Commission have powers to prosecute offenders. Rather the Commission's role will be to ensure that every member state carries out its obligation to enforce Community law properly. It will also be able to investigate specific complaints where it is alleged that the law has been contravened.

Although it remains to be seen exactly how the Commission inspectorate will operate in practice, this is a very positive development which should do much to meet the concerns expressed by my noble friend and other noble Lords over inadequate enforcement of the law in other member states of the Community.

I turn now to some of the questions raised during the debate. My noble friend Lord Harvington mentioned excessively long journeys, sometimes trailed by the RSPCA. I entirely share his concern over the evasion of welfare controls as demonstrated in the examples he cited. The UK does all it can to ensure high standards and strict enforcement. As regards the particular case which he mentioned of a consignment exported to Italy without stopping for feeding and watering, the Ministry is taking legal action against the exporter.

My noble friend also pointed to the increase in the live export trade and questioned whether it was necessary in view of the possibility of carcass exports. Certainly we see advantages in exporting carcass meat rather than live animals. However, it must be said that there is a strong market demand on the Continent for live animals. Provisional 1992 statistics show that the live export trade was worth over £160 million to the UK. In a single market this is not a matter where the Government can intervene. However, government encouragement to the meat trade exists in the form of the group marketing grant which is available for assisting groups to get together to market British meat. We hope that that will happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned exports to Spain. I am well aware of the type of unacceptable slaughtering practices which were adopted in that country. However, in the single market the ban on exports of food animals to Spain had to be lifted. The Government have, however, reached a formal agreement with the Spanish authorities that animals exported for immediate slaughter in Spain will only be slaughtered at premises which have been confirmed as meeting Community welfare requirements. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, criticised apparent government inaction during the EC presidency. I ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to accept that the Government have continued to give the highest priority to animal welfare. However, as I am sure they know, during our presidency the UK could only seek progress in the Council of Ministers in those areas where there were Commission proposals. That is how the EC works. The Commission failed to produce its proposals as required under the directive, despite pressure from the UK and other countries. We hope that proposals will be submitted shortly. When they are, we shall seek rapid progress in the Council.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked about the use of mobile slaughterhouses. The Government welcome the introduction of mobile slaughterhouses and have commended the Humane Slaughter Association for its work in developing that facility.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, questioned the increase from 12 to 15 hours in the feeding and watering limit. As I have tried to explain, that is not a step backwards. The previous 12-hour limit could be extended to 15 when the journey could be completed in that time. In effect it was a 15-hour limit. Indeed, we have tightened the rules, because we previously had an 18-hour limit for exports, as I explained. It is now 15 hours for all journeys starting in the UK.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the Government regarded the introduction of the new directive as only a first step to banning live trade completely. Free trade is a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Rome, and much as we might disapprove of practices in other member states we could not take unilateral action to ban live exports. What we must do is to raise standards and the awareness of animal welfare in other member states. Some member states have supported the Government in pressing for high welfare standards for the transportation of animals. However, in some states, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, there is a cultural and attitudinal problem which we must work hard to overcome. It is through our membership of the Community, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, pointed out, that the UK can seek to obtain the necessary improvements in farm animal welfare in all member states.

My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked about the prospects for maximum journey times for animals. I am aware that several organisations have called for overall journey limits and in particular for an 8-hour limit for animals going to slaughter, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The Government sympathise with the view that animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to the place of origin but we believe that an 8-hour limit would be unduly restrictive. Animals can be safely transported under appropriate conditions. We believe that the best way to ensure proper care is to require the provision of rest, food and water at appropriate intervals. We shall be pressing for community arrangements that reflect the requirements which we already apply in the UK in this area, and in particular for arrangements covering individual species based on the welfare needs of the animals.

I agree that excessively long journeys must be avoided. However, I do not see any justification for distinguishing between animals going for slaughter and others. All animals need the same high levels of care. In the EC negotiations we shall press very hard for limitations on the stages of journeys.

My noble friend Lord Lindsay raised the question of the attitude of the agriculture industry generally, including middlemen. I have no doubt that the British agriculture industry fully supports strict animal welfare controls. Of course there are some individuals who may seek to cut corners but they are clearly a small minority and we must not judge the industry as a whole by them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer them all, but if I do not I shall be pleased to write to her. The noble Baroness asked whether the Government had had discussions with the industry about how lairages will remain viable now that they are no longer compulsory. Discussions have been held with the industry and, although not compulsory, lairages can play an important role as staging posts for resting, feeding and watering. Indeed, the lairages are continuing to be used and the industry is seeking to ensure that they remain viable.

The noble Baroness also asked a question about the 15-hour transportation rule; in particular, whether the regulation still applies on the Continent and, if so, who would enforce it. The new order applies to all journeys longer than 15 hours which commence in the UK, irrespective of their destination. The Ministry carries out checks on the feeding and watering arrangements prior to departure. If an exporter makes a false declaration, he can be prosecuted.

The noble Baroness asked whether the current journey time is taken from when the first animal is loaded to when the last animal is unloaded. The answer is yes. On the basis that the first animal to be loaded and the last animal to be unloaded may well be one and the same, it can be seen that the 15-hour limit is designed to be exactly that for every animal transported.

The noble Baroness also asked this question. When animals are treated cruelly in another state can the UK prosecute the individual, or is it solely the responsibility of the member state authorities in which the offence occurs? When offences occur in other member states the UK cannot prosecute. However, if we become aware of other member states taking no action to enforce EC legislation, then a report can be submitted to the Commission.

The noble Baroness asked whether there were veterinary checks for journeys to and from markets. It is a requirement for veterinary inspection at the start of all export journeys. Journeys within the UK are subject to random checking. Local authorities are very active on that front. However, there is no requirement to check every consignment to and from markets. It is, of course, a legal offence to transport an animal which is not fit for transport.

The noble Baroness also referred to the trade in birds and asked what the Government were doing. The directive applies to the trade in birds and to the conditions of the journey in transit to the EC. The Government are most concerned about the problems in that trade. Mortality rates for some species are far too high. We are vigorously pursuing improved international standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to the export of very young suckling lambs and other young animals. The directive makes it illegal to transport any animal which is unfit. All lambs for export are inspected by a veterinary surgeon at the start of the journey who will ensure that they are fit to travel. The noble Lord also expressed his view that transporting animals per se is immoral. It is worth making the point that animals can be transported very satisfactorily provided, of course, that we have proper welfare safeguards. I do not therefore believe that there is something inherently difficult about transporting animals.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, spoke about the trade in horses. Undoubtedly the trade in horses for slaughter from Poland and other countries has been a major problem. As the noble Lord said, the issue can be addressed, and solutions found, on an EC basis. The expected Commission proposals include strict limits on the journey stages for horses. We continue to prohibit the export of horses from the UK for slaughter.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the time between the last feed and loading of the animals. The new transport order requires feeding and watering of animals prior to the journey "appropriate to the species". The noble Lord also referred to the transport of pigs. I agree that pigs have particularly special needs. The noble Lord referred to the excellent research carried out by CAMBAC. That is Ministry sponsored work, as I am sure he knows. In general, we fully support a scientific approach in deciding the appropriate journey conditions. There is an important programme of Ministry research and development in progress.

Although it has been short, it has nevertheless been an important and valuable debate on a subject which I am sure your Lordships will wish to keep under regular scrutiny. I have listened most carefully to the points made today by all noble Lords. They reinforce the Government's determination to continue to give a high priority to animal welfare and to negotiate for the best possible standards throughout the European Community. To that end, I hope that it can continue to be said that the United Kingdom leads by example.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.