| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.16 am
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): May I first say how pleased I am that this debate is taking place and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his comments? I agree with virtually everything he said. He crammed a lot into 15 minutes. I hope that, today, we will receive some assurances from the Minister that the Government view the matter with the same gravity as the hon. Members who are present in this reasonably well-attended debate on a Wednesday morning. I hope also that he will tell us how they intend to tackle this hugely important matter.
May I remind the Minister that an early-day motion on this very subject, which I tabled with other Members earlier this session, has now been signed by almost 100 Members? It shows clear support and concern for the thrust of this debate--concern that is cross-party, I think--and Members' determination to ensure that the Government take this issue seriously.
I believe that the Government's intentions are honourable and sensible in this matter, but I wonder whether they have the will power; I hope that I will have the assurance today that they do.
The hon. Member for Dartford mentioned genetically modified food. I raised that matter with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
who has responsibility for food safety, in the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. There was great sympathy from him on that occasion, but he said, "We are not in the driving seat"--that was his exact phrase.
That may be true, but the Government must get into the driving seat and ensure that they control events. It may not be easy. There may be opposition from the American Government and others, but the Government have to force this issue and ensure that the environmental, animal welfare and social concerns that all hon. Members share, I think, are taken into account. They must not throw up their hands and say, "We cannot do anything about it." I hope that the Government will take that seriously; I am confident that they will.
Of course my party supports free trade--that is nothing new from Liberals--but we are not Manchester Liberals. We think that the market has to be regulated to achieve social, environmental and welfare ends. Part of the problem with the WTO is that it could stand for Welfare Taken Out, for the reasons cited by the hon. Member for Dartford. We must have free trade, but we must not be afraid to regulate it. There would be no reason for our being here if we simply let the market rule without trying to influence it. That is why we have specific concerns about the WTO and the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Environmental, social or welfare concerns raised by any nation or group of nations are being challenged across the world. The lowest common denominator will triumph unless our Parliament and the world community prevent that. The basic rules of GATT are being manipulated towards that end, although that is not GATT's purpose. The original purpose of GATT must be re-emphasised.
The hon. Member for Dartford set out his several examples extremely well. There is a conflict between different international agreements. We have WTO and GATT on one hand, and other agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species--CITES--and the biodiversity convention on the other; and we should overcome this disparity. The hon. Gentleman referred to turtles, a case in which the Americans--the good guys this time--are trying to honour CITES and to protect the turtles. Opposition has made protection difficult, however. We must clarify these international agreements.
Then there is the ban on the import of fur derived from the use of leg-hold traps. Hon. Members on both sides find it abhorrent that animals can be trapped in that way. They suffer for days on end, and either have their limbs chewed off by the traps or chew their limbs off themselves so that they can escape. We are importing fur to satisfy consumer demand, but even those consumers who want fur do not want animals to be captured in that way. However, we appear to be stuck with it. European Union attempts to introduce a sensible animal welfare policy on fur trapping have been challenged. It cannot be right that a small group of people who have a narrow vested interest in retaining the status quo can wipe out the rest of the world's concerns. The Government and the EU must have the backbone to challenge that opposition.
Social, environmental and animal welfare concerns also raise what might be called selfish issues for United Kingdom producers. Participants in Monday's agriculture debate may have heard me mention that our farmers
produce chickens to given standards, but are being undercut by the import of chickens from Thailand that are processed in the UK, then labelled British. Whenever we accept a lower welfare standard, we fail to raise welfare standards in other countries, and we face the danger that the higher standards that apply here will be driven down. Consumers believe that those chickens are British because of their labels. The consequence will not be that Thai farmers will stop keeping chickens in poor conditions, but that British chicken farming, which has higher standards--although conditions for British chickens are not brilliant--will close down because it is uneconomic.
Parliament should set an example, and should set out the ideals towards which we should strive. Basic decency says that animals should be treated acceptably. We must look after the environment, too. We cannot have standards driven down by international agreements that have been misinterpreted and skewed by small interest groups. If we are not successful in changing international rules, what is the point of having higher standards?
We should take a warning from the case of veal crates. We banned them, but the veal consequently imported from Europe is reared to much lower standards. We must get international agreement on such matters; otherwise, the good work done in the UK will be undermined elsewhere.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh):
I want to deal with animal welfare, which is close to my heart. I am a trustee of Animal Defenders, an interest I declare now.
Aside from great political issues, the issue most raised in my postbag, and in those of most Members of Parliament, is animal welfare. Animal rights have come to the forefront over the past decade, and increasingly so during the past year or two. Many of us will remember the recent emotional debates on hunting with dogs, and the substantial vote against it. I was fortunate to be drawn to ask a question at the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the summer recess, and I asked my right hon. Friend to undertake to honour our party's pledge to deal with hunting with dogs, and to bring in a total ban on that detestable and despicable activity. I do not forecast that that will happen in the next Queen's Speech, but I expect it to be in the one after because of indications that have been floated. I am disappointed that the time has not yet come, but it will come over the next couple of years. The House will have another free and democratic vote on hunting.
Debates of this type are understandably emotional. However, we have all witnessed the cruel treatment of animals on our televisions. Experimentation and the transport of live animals for slaughter are unbearable to many people, especially young people--from students to primary school children. The advance of computers and new technology into the classroom has created a growing
potential for involvement by those youngsters, and that augurs well for the character of British society. That--if I may use the phrase--is the British way.
Our minimum standards for the export of animals mean that sheep are packed in by the hundred. Huge transporters, four tiers high, are used in Europe. There is supposed to be a mutual agreement that sheep must be watered after eight hours, but it does not happen. The average time without water is between 18 and 24 hours. I am told that sheep sometimes go 36 hours without feed of any kind.
Horses and ponies are sent in their thousands for slaughter abroad. As deputy leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, I know that countries have joined that organisation from eastern Europe where, with all due respect, people are indifferent to animal welfare. There are many circuses in that part of the world. We have tried to plead with delegates to introduce a code of conduct and to bring humanity to the care of animals.
To return to an earlier point, because of appalling slaughtering standards, the Government do not allow certain animal exports. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) noted the existence of conflicting standards.
I cannot mention the establishment in question because it is in the constituency of another Member who is not present, but I recently tabled an early-day motion:
More and more people believe that it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer and die in the laboratory. We know that laboratory animals feel pain in the same way that we do. The law acknowledges that and science accepts it, too. Thousands of animals suffer and die in research laboratories to test cosmetics and toiletries such as lipstick, soap and shampoo. Many such products, which we use every day, have been paid for with suffering. Drips are put into the unprotected eyes of animals, rubbed into the raw, shaven backs of guinea pigs or forced down the throats of rats. I do not want to describe such things because the result is obviously not beautiful. We must consider when purchasing such things whether we should give the producers concerned our custom.
"That this House condemns the appalling and deplorable trade practice at establishments that breed cats and kittens for the vivisection industry and sell them to laboratories worldwide; notes that some of these kittens are only six weeks old when they are subject to horrific experiments; and calls upon the Home Secretary to investigate this cruel trade".
Police protection for the establishment concerned has cost £1.5 million of taxpayers' money. There are others, unfortunately, involved in a cruel trade with barbaric practices that puts profit before humanity.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |