| Protection of Animals During Transport
|
|
Matthew Green (Ludlow) (LD): I draw the Minister's attention to the regulatory impact assessment. It talks about the cost to typical businesses, and it looks at the costs for transport and livestock hauliers. A lot of those costs will be passed on to the farmers. The Minister will be aware that concurrent with the proposals are the changes to the common agricultural policy, which will have a potential effect on suckler cow herds in severely disadvantaged areas. Has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs carried out any work on the potential long-term effects for the UK livestock industry, particularly the suckler cow herds in SDAs, taking the two proposals as one? There is nothing in the regulatory impact assessment about the cost to farmers. It examines the cost for hauliers but not the costs for farmers. Mr. Bradshaw: We have not considered the issue of cattle specifically because there is no export in that area at the moment. However, we have done the best we can to provide the Committee with details of our estimate of the costs involved. That has been incredibly difficult because there are difficult and complicated calculations to be made about the number of animals on a journey, the level of density, space allowance and so forth. As the proposals have changed, it has been difficult to pin those costs down, but we are in no doubt—the industry, with which we have had regular discussions, is in no doubt about this either—that any improvement in animal welfare will inevitably involve some extra cost. The hon. Gentleman says that costs will be met by the farmer, but it is also the industry's prerogative to pass that cost on to the consumer. In the end, the public have to decide whether they are prepared to pay slightly more Column Number: 007 for their meat in order to pay for better animal welfare.Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): Would not the only honourable position for the UK be that animals for slaughter are slaughtered in their home country? That would do away with all the questions of monitoring and cost. We have a good way of dealing with that issue in this country and we could insist that all other countries in the EU—and others—should have that position. Mr. Bradshaw: We could not insist on that. Well, we could insist on it, but we would not get anywhere unless we managed to gather a qualified majority for such a policy. That is our policy. Britain is moving towards it. In successive years, the proportion of UK meat that is exported on the hook, as opposed being exported live, has grown. The proportion that is exported live is diminishing. Hon. Members will welcome that. We do not have the power to dictate to other countries what they do. The judgment that we will have to make next week—we will go right up to the wire—is whether it is worth signing up to an agreement that does not go nearly as far as we would like, but is better than the status quo, or whether, possibly with other countries, we should vote against it. The latter could mean that we do not get an agreement. Hon. Members know that, after May, there will be another 10 members of the European Union in central and eastern Europe. Those countries generally do not share our high standards of animal welfare. So the likelihood of getting a better agreement after enlargement is very low. That presents us with some difficult moral dilemmas. Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister clarify again the question of journey times? It seems that he is saying that nine hours travel, two hours on the vehicle, nine hours travel and 12 hours possibly off or on the vehicle are allowed. Can the cycle then be restarted so that it is unending? Does the Minister intend to go to the discussions next Monday and say that there must be an end to the cycle? Mr. Bradshaw: That has always been our position, but there is a blocking minority for any finite cycle. What we are trying to achieve is a rest period in those cycles, possibly in a second cycle, that would in effect make impossible the long journeys that people in the UK so dislike. Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): I understand that Mark Watts MEP, the Labour representative for the South East, was successful in the European Parliament last week in a proposition that was much more stringent, under which animals had to be taken off the vehicle after nine hours travel before any repeat. What status do our European Parliamentarians have in achieving some resolution of that difficult problem? Mr. Bradshaw: At the moment, none, except an advisory one. It is unusual, to say the least, for a proposal from the European Parliament to be treated in the contemptuous way that it was by Commissioner Column Number: 008 Byrne last week. As my hon. Friend knows, if the European constitution were in place, which would move us in the direction of co-decision on those matters, the decision by the European Parliament would have carried real weight.Norman Baker: Does the Minister agree that one of the drivers for the live trade is the loose rules on labelling, under which animals are exported and then slaughtered and a label can be attached to the meat suggesting that its country of origin is the country of slaughter rather than the country of production? Is the Minister going to do anything to tighten labelling rules, which, if they accurately reflected country of origin, would discourage live trade? Mr. Bradshaw: I am keen to improve the quality of information given to consumers, as is our Department, but that is a matter for the Food Standards Agency. Rob Marris: The proposals made last July, which are listed on page 123 of the bundle in paragraph 1.1.d say,
Is the United Kingdom Government proposing to apply periods shorter than nine hours if the proposals go through? Mr. Bradshaw: We will consider any unilateral proposals that we think are justified on animal welfare grounds. Indeed, our rules on horse exports are unilateral. At the same time, we would not want to do anything that put our industry at a severe disadvantage competitively, for example in comparison with the Irish, the French or other producers unless there was a strong welfare argument for it. Mr. Viggers: What is the record of the EU in policing the existing regulations? Are any changes proposed for policing the regulations? Mr. Bradshaw: The record that led to the proposals, which I outlined in my original statement, was pretty poor. It catalogued a range of areas where the existing rules were not being implemented and enforced properly or were being broken. I had a figure somewhere for the number of prosecutions that have been taken, but I do not have it to hand. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him. Or perhaps in the next few minutes my officials will provide me with some statistics. Rob Marris: The proposals from the regulatory impact assessment, in paragraph 8 on page 70 of the bundle, refer to the enforcing authorities as ''Local Authorities''. I presume that that refers to matters other than vehicle matters. Is the Minister sure that local authorities have the resources and capabilities to carry out such functions? Mr. Bradshaw: Certainly in this country they do. Matthew Green: When the Minister responded to the question about adopting different times within the UK on a unilateral basis, had he considered the trade of sheep in Shetland? What discussions has he had with his colleagues in Scotland on the matter? Long distance travel is inevitable from that area, and if it Column Number: 009 were to be stopped we would see the end of sheep production in Shetland.Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, we have considered that. If the hon. Gentleman examines the proposals, he will find that they include a derogation for remote areas. Rob Marris: As I understand it, the proposals refer to ''electronic tracking systems''—I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 6.9 on page 59 of the bundle. However, the regulatory impact assessment talks about ''Satellite Navigation Systems''. I believe that those two systems are different. Are electronic tracking systems cheaper or more expensive than satellite navigation systems? Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid to admit that I do not know. As I said earlier, the introduction of compulsory satellite navigations systems on all vehicles will be a very important aid to enforcement. Mr. Paterson: On page 58 of the bundle, there is a derogation for local transport, which is limited to 50 km. The National Farmers Union has suggested that 100 km may be a better distance because of the large size of modern farms and the reduction in the number of abattoirs. Has the Minister considered that? Mr. Bradshaw: We have considered it, and I understand that the latest proposal in the compromise from the presidency is 100 km. Rob Marris: I understand that discussions, difficult as they are within the European Union, have been going on for more than four years. Page 69 of the bundle, from the regulatory impact assessment for vehicles and vehicle inspection, says that the UK Government have still to decide what the appropriate inspection authority will be. After four years of discussions, why is that so? Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question, but I will write to my hon. Friend to let him know. Matthew Green: The Minister is right to say that everyone would prefer trade in livestock on the hook rather than on the hoof. However, in order to achieve that we need many more local abattoirs. One cannot take the policy in isolation. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that support for the development of small abattoirs will run alongside the policy? Closing down one option without making other options possible is clearly an unsatisfactory way forward. Mr. Bradshaw: Although that is not my area of responsibility, I am aware of the important role played by small abattoirs, not least in my constituency in Exeter and Devon. The Government recognise the important role of abattoirs. The hon. Gentleman is not completely right to suggest that the long journeys that worry the public and animal welfare organisations are necessary—except in some very remote areas. That is because of the number of abattoirs that we currently have in the United Kingdom.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 20 April 2004 |
