Recall of MPs Bill
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Thomas Docherty(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I say very gently that he is seeking to amend the Government’s Bill and is then asking the Government to come up with suitable amendments to his amendments. That, I am afraid, is not how it works. Perhaps in a few months’ time he will be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—we do not know what Boris will do—but he is not on the Front Bench at the moment. It is not for other people to come up with amendments that tidy up amendments tabled from the Back Benches.
Thomas Docherty
I will give way to the hon. Lady, because I have taken her name in vain on more than one occasion.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman did take my name in vain and for the record I am very glad to be able to put him straight that I have never, ever knocked a helmet off anybody, much less a policeman. With respect, I think the arguments he is making are spurious. The amendments described by the hon. Member for Richmond Park are already in the Bill. Amendment 23 is also very helpful when it comes to regulating the amount of money we are talking about. Frankly, the idea that this is something cooked up by 38 Degrees is such an insulting suggestion. The hon. Member for Richmond Park and many more of us have been working on this issue for many, many years.
Thomas Docherty
I hope the hon. Lady will accept that I did not mean to imply that she had knocked off a policeman’s helmet. On her main point, I must say that simply working on something for a long time does not in itself solve the problem. I have been working for some time on trimming down but have not made enough progress; that does not mean I should simply stop and say it has been accomplished.
Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Thomas Docherty(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move, amendment (a), leave out from “House” to noting and insert
‘notes the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979; and resolves that explanatory statements on amendments be mandatory, subject to guidelines to be issued under the authority of the Chair’.
Today, we have the opportunity significantly to increase transparency and transfer just a little bit of power from the Whips to Back-Bench MPs. When I first arrived here, I was immediately struck by how difficult it was to work out what all the amendments tabled on the Floor of the House actually sought to do; and I did not seem to be alone, so I joined with others who also wanted a brief explanation of amendments so that everyone could know what they sought to achieve. At the moment, as we run from another meeting, we look to see what we are voting on and find something like: “Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1)”. So then we need to consult several dense documents to work out what that and many other multiple amendments actually mean.
It is quite right, of course, that MPs should, as much as possible, listen and contribute to debates in the main Chamber, follow all those debates and then be enlightened on the effects of every single amendment, but as hon. Members know, being an effective MP involves many other tasks, including responsibilities to undertake work in Committees, to attend Westminster Hall debates and to chair and attend meetings. As a result, colleagues frequently cannot sit in the Chamber all the time a debate is going on. There are many talented Back Benchers in this place who want to scrutinise, and they should not be treated as Lobby fodder.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
We have checked with the Vote Office and our e-mails and we cannot find an explanatory statement for the hon. Lady’s amendment. Given that she did not table one with the Vote Office or circulate one to colleagues, surely she is defeating her own argument.
Caroline Lucas
I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that matter, because I actually sought some advice on it. We were allowed to table explanatory statements during the pilot, but as I understood it, we were not allowed to do it now, otherwise I would have done it, precisely to make that point.
Thomas Docherty
But the hon. Lady could have circulated one to colleagues. There was nothing to prevent her from using the e-mail system—the green way of doing it—to send an explanatory statement to all 650 colleagues. Why did she not do that?
Caroline Lucas
I want to make it mandatory for everybody. It is very nice to do it voluntarily, as we would have done had we been allowed, but we were not. [Interruption.] Instead of smirking in that rather irritating fashion, the hon. Gentleman should focus on the debate in hand.
I was making the point that MPs should not be treated as Lobby fodder. After two pilot schemes, everyone seems now to agree that 50-word explanations are a good thing, so the motion from the Procedure Committee to make possible explanatory statements to amendments to be discussed on the Floor of the House is very welcome. I wish it was possible all the time; it is a pity that we have to get special permission even to make it possible. On those two pilots, it was possible.
I also welcome statement in the Procedure Committee’s report that it wants the statements to
“become an accepted norm of the legislative process.”
If that is what the Committee wants, why not make the statements mandatory, rather than just talking about an aspiration or a wish? The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) rightly said that the Government did indeed issue explanatory statements on that occasion, and that the Opposition did not do so. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, one day, the Government will become the Opposition and find it less convenient to produce them in future. If we want it to become as natural to issue an explanatory statement as it is to sign an amendment, we have the opportunity tonight to make them mandatory.
A cross-party group of us, including senior colleagues, who are working on parliamentary reform have tabled amendment (a) because we would like the explanatory statements to be mandatory, to ensure that the Procedure Committee’s wish for the statements to become the norm becomes a reality. To clarify, in calling for the statements to be mandatory, we envisage guidelines to include dispensing for the need for them in relation to self-explanatory or consequential amendments. Actually, that is a good reason for not having circulated an explanatory statement on amendment (a), as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was tempting me to do: it is surely, even to him, self-explanatory.
Unless we have a mandatory scheme, as amendment (a) proposes, there is a danger that the statements would not become part of the culture of this place, and that they would be submitted only when it suited Members to do so. As we all know, the Executive do not behave within the spirit of the legislative system at all times, and we need a system that will ensure that, when they are substantially amending their own legislation—on Report, for example—they have to explain why.
The recent pilot taught us that the Whips pick and choose. The official Opposition did not bother to submit statements on the first Bill, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which was a great shame. However, they appeared to have a change of heart, and were prepared to submit them on the relatively uncontentious Small Charitable Donations Bill. I do not accept that they did not participate on the first Bill because of a lack of resources. Sometimes it is more convenient not to explain, and frankly that is not good enough. That is why we need the statements to be mandatory.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Thomas Docherty(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty
I must say that I think the PRU needs to get a better briefing sorted out, because I am not sure what genuine concerns the hon. Gentleman refers to. Perhaps his inbox is different from mine, but in the three and a bit years that I have been in Parliament not a single constituent has contacted me to say, “I’m really concerned that the permanent secretary at the Government Department, when sitting in a room, does not know who the person sitting opposite him is and who his clients are.” Actually, given his constituency, I suspect that his inbox is very different from mine.
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would also be a scandal if people got the impression, no doubt completely erroneously, that he was speaking at such length so that we do not reach later amendments on the amendment paper? I am sure that is not the case, but we have to give the Bill an awful lot of scrutiny tonight, so I gently say to him that it would be enormously helpful if he would bear that in mind when making his comments.
Thomas Docherty
I can honestly confirm that I am a parliamentary bore and that I am speaking at this great length because I can bore on the subject, and I think that Members on both sides of the Committee would agree that I am demonstrating that with some aplomb. The hon. Lady makes a serious point about the lack of time that the Government have made available. I deeply regret that the Bill has not gone upstairs, where you would have ably chaired the proceedings, Sir Roger—you would have kept us all in order, as you do so well as Chairman of the Panel of Chairs—and that all we have is four and a half hours—
Trident Alternatives Review
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Thomas Docherty(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I want to shift the terms of the debate. I do not want to pursue the fallacy of an independent deterrent, although let us be very clear that it is a fallacy: our so-called nuclear deterrent is not independent—we would need agreement from the US to do almost anything with it—and there is not very much evidence that it is a deterrent, either.
Caroline Lucas
I want to make some progress.
Rather than pursuing that particular argument, I want to argue that it is now time to shift the emphasis of the defence debate and that the best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to solve global threats such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking of weapons and drugs, and the poverty and desperation that fuel conflict, hunger and violence around the world.
That is why it is deeply worrying and, indeed, the height of irresponsibility that both the 2010 strategic defence and security review and this review of an alternative to Trident have not explored the full range of options. The Prime Minister trumpeted the review as “neutral” and “factual”, but I would argue that it is biased and empty of essential facts. That means that there is a risk that any parliamentary votes taken in 2016 will be ill-informed and hung up on a cold war era that has long gone.
The decision that should be taken is one based on what would genuinely contribute most to the security of the British people. There is a real argument that says that by not replacing Trident we could improve national security and allow the Ministry of Defence to spend the more than £100 billion saved over the lifetime of any successor nuclear weapon system on an appropriate response to the real security threats and challenges of the 21st century. The 2010 national security strategy identified these as organised crime, cyber-warfare, pandemics and, of course, climate change. Scientists, former US Presidents and, indeed, former UK Prime Ministers, among others, have all agreed that climate change is in fact the greatest threat facing humankind, and every pound spent on Trident is a pound not spent on more appropriate responses to the real dangers linked to climate change.
If that is the case, let us explore how that money could have been better spent. The £80 billion to £100 billion price tag for Trident could have been spent on energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy, all of which represent an investment in a positive future and the opportunity to be world leaders in an area of rapidly advancing technology, as opposed to a cold war past. Just £16 billion would insulate the 16 million homes in Britain that are currently uninsulated, saving 4% of UK carbon emissions and helping to prevent 20,000 annual cold-related deaths, and £30 billion would provide 3,500 offshore turbines, supplying 15% of UK electricity use. Crucially, positive investment in a greener future would make us more secure by reducing the impacts of climate change and ending our dependence on foreign oil—a key root cause of global terrorism.
The national security strategy also highlights the ongoing need to tackle terrorism, but as Tony Blair himself said in October 2005:
“I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 841.]
A group of senior military officers, including the former head of the armed forces, Field Marshall Lord Bramall, reached much the same conclusion in a letter to The Times in 2009:
“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of the violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism.”
As one commentator has recently put it,
“confronting the threats of today with nuclear weapons is as archaic as attempting to fight tanks with a blade attached to the barrel of a rifle would have been 70 years ago.”
The bottom line is that the UK does not need Trident; nor can we afford it. An independent and strategic assessment of risk does not justify spending tens of billions of pounds on Trident when we have, for example, troops on the front line who are not getting the equipment they need. Alternatively, and in this time of austerity, we might also question whether or not the initial estimated £25 billion could pay instead for 60,000 newly qualified nurses or 60,000 new secondary school teachers for the next 10 years. That is why I say that to use the amount of money suggested on a project that will make Britain and the world less, not more, safe is politically irresponsible, morally bankrupt and economically obscene.
Moreover, this Government, like the last, have committed themselves under the non-proliferation treaty to
“make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.”
The UK committed to multilateral disarmament when it signed the NPT in 1968 and agreed to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons. So far, Britain has not played a particularly constructive role in that process.
Animal Welfare (Exports)
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Thomas Docherty(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have caught your eye. It has been an excellent consensual debate so far. I have the privilege of serving on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also serve on the Defence Committee and I hope that the Backbench Business Committee will in future consider the timings of some of these debates. I suspect that this debate may not go the whole five hours. There might have been an opportunity for a second debate later, although I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is still to share his huge wisdom with us, which may take some time.
As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I am cognisant of the issues facing the farming industry. It has been a measured debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing it and on being present to open it and then to hear the very good exchanges that have taken place. I received a number of e-mails from constituents asking me to attend and I was happy to do so. I shall tackle a couple of issues that particularly affect Scotland. Also, I am conscious of the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore for a Select Committee inquiry. I shall return to that.
On the subject of transportation, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned the importance of the export of live animals to British farmers, particularly those in the sheep industry. I understand that around 400,000 live animals a year are exported, more than 90% of which are sheep.
We all recognise the challenges facing the sheep industry across the United Kingdom, particularly in upland areas. Were we to ban live exports, not only would we fall foul of European law—article 34, I think, but I might be wrong—but there would be serious consequences for our farmers. However, that is not to say that we should not require the highest standards of animal welfare in the process, and I welcome the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for South Thanet and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse on the way forward.
It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s thoughts on some things. For example, does he agree that using regular services on large, cross-channel freight ferries from Dover might be more advantageous than the less than ideal conditions in which they are sailing from Ramsgate, as the hon. Lady said? Not only are journey times significantly shorter, but there are more frequent sailing opportunities for ferries. Also, there are probably—I hope she takes no offence—better and more appropriate port facilities for live animals at Dover than there are at Ramsgate.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Opting for an all-out ban right now would be against EU law, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister did everything he could to advocate such a ban at European level, because we are often told that things are against EU law, but when member states really start to push they can get breakthroughs?
Thomas Docherty
No, I do not agree that we should have an outright ban. If the hon. Lady had been here since the start of the debate, she would have heard the reasons why. We have a fragile farming industry and banning the trade would be ludicrous. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is sitting beside her, will probably wish to point out to her that banning the use of ferries would effectively end sheep farming on the Western Isles, the Isle of Arran and other islands around the United Kingdom. I am sorry that she has not had the opportunity to go across the country and listen to farmers, because otherwise she would understand the fragile state of their industry and the damage an outright ban would do. If she had been here for the whole debate, rather than coming in at the last minute, she would have had an opportunity to hear the eloquent speeches made by Members on both sides of the House.
Another consideration is that there are larger, faster and more stable boats sailing each day from Dover. As the hon. Member for South Thanet set out clearly, we are dealing with a very dubious character when it comes to the gentleman running the trade out of Ramsgate. It is obvious that animal welfare is not his priority and that he is not interested in local public opinion or in what DEFRA has to say. For him, it is all about the bottom buck. It would help if the Minister set out what powers DEFRA has to ensure that a fast buck is not the most important consideration for exporters and that animal welfare is crucial.
Over the past few years we have seen that having an export market for livestock helps even those farmers who sell within the UK because it takes some of the surplus supply overseas. About six weeks ago the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and I had a very good debate in Westminster Hall on the dairy industry. We pointed out, along with another Select Committee colleague, that what farmers need is a fair price for their produce, whether it is milk, mutton, lamb or beef. Doing all we can to encourage exports will not only bring additional revenue into the UK and help the balance of payments—I do not intend to give the House a lecture on economics—but help to secure a fairer price for farmers and a vibrant farming industry. Perhaps the Minister will also set out what DEFRA intends to do to encourage exports to other parts of the European Union, because Labour Members, with perhaps one exception, recognise that a vibrant farming industry is a good thing for the British economy.
Caroline Lucas
I am sorry, but the condescension coming from the hon. Gentleman is hard to bear. He is implying that the UK farming industry is all of one view on this, but I know UK farmers who are absolutely against the export of live animals precisely because of the cruelty involved. To suppose that those of us who are, for strong ethical reasons, against the trade are somehow also against UK farming is a gross simplification of the issue.
Thomas Docherty
Obviously I speak regularly with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I know that colleagues speak regularly with the National Farmers Union in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. If she can point to which of those four organisations, which are the voice of farmers, shares her rather extreme views, I would be delighted to meet it.
Thomas Docherty
It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on every issue, so the fact that we are on the same side of the argument today, as are Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues and, indeed, Members on my own Front Bench—always a pleasant treat—shows clearly that the House supports a vibrant but, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, ethical and humane export policy. That is the nub of the debate. It is not about the principle of exports; it is about how we treat the animals. That is why we need more rigorous enforcement. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how he thinks DEFRA, with its existing powers, could better ensure that that happens.
The House will be aware that yesterday the European Parliament debated a motion, similar to those we often have in this place, to approve a report by its agriculture committee. It contained much to be welcomed on the issue of animal transportation. It recognised, as we have done today—those of us who have been here throughout the debate—that we should seek to have higher standards and that it is a question of how we ensure compliance across all member states.
However, there is one issue that I and the National Farmers Union of Scotland disagree with, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: an obsession with the eight-hour rule. There is no credible scientific advice demonstrating that exceeding the arbitrary limit of eight hours leads to a drop in animal welfare. As the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and for Brecon and Radnorshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and other Members from elsewhere in the great parts of the Celtic kingdoms would point out, getting to abattoirs even within the United Kingdom can take more than eight hours. I am thinking, in particular, of the pig industry and the difficult circumstances Vion is currently going through. For example, if Vion is sold and its Scottish abattoir is closed, the nearest abattoir for pig farmers from north-east Scotland will probably be in Yorkshire. If we were allowed to head down the path of the eight-hour rule, it is difficult to see how farmers in Morayshire and across north-east Scotland, never mind those in the highlands, could survive. I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce, and do not support, an eight-hour rule.
I hope that the Minister, who is no doubt busy taking notes in his head, will also tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations. It is vital that DEFRA work with Mr Lochhead in the Scottish Parliament, our Labour colleague in Wales and our Democratic Unionist party colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly so that we are all working together on this issue, on which, overwhelmingly, all the grown-up, sensible parties are united in wanting a vibrant farming industry.
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that the entire membership of the RSPCA are not sensible people? I find his—what is the word?—patronage towards people who do not agree with him to be absolutely unacceptable.
Thomas Docherty
I think that the word the hon. Lady wants is “patronising” rather than “patronage”, but I accept that she was grasping for it and missed. Obviously, the RSPCA is entitled to its view, but it has not—dare I say it?—looked at the bigger picture. It is surely the job of parliamentarians to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We have to follow the evidence, and the reality is that there is no evidence to say that an eight-hour rule would lead to a rise in animal welfare standards. In fact, it would only damage the farming industries in Scotland, parts of Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Let me move on to what more we could do. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has written to the Select Committee about this. One issue that we have not talked about is what more supermarkets can do. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether we could encourage them to introduce labelling that says that they have introduced their own voluntary codes about humane standards and clearly states what they are. We all know of the great success that the British egg industry has had with the introduction of the red lion symbol on packets of eggs. There are also fair trade labels for overseas goods. In the debate on the dairy industry a few weeks ago, an eloquent point was made by an hon. Member who said that we rightly talk about fair trade for overseas farmers but do not talk enough about fair trade for British farmers. I want to extend that principle. We should have clearer labelling from the supermarkets and the food producers that says that all their products have been produced in a humane way that complies with the highest possible standards of animal welfare.
On the request for a Select Committee inquiry, I am not in a position to divulge the thinking of colleagues, but the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have listened sympathetically to the arguments made today. We have been talking about the need for an inquiry into how EU regulations as a whole are implemented. I hope that we will have an opportunity in the near future to carry out such an inquiry, which might be a useful tool. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore responds to the debate he could set out in a little more detail what he thinks the terms of reference might be.
Caroline Lucas
That is a helpful intervention. I would much prefer to see many more small, local abattoirs around the country so that even within this country we do not have long journey times. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Although one can argue that more stress factors are involved in transporting animals overseas, such as animals being decanted into different vehicles, even if animals are transported within the UK for eight hours or more, it is not necessarily in their best interests.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Lady seems to be missing the point that was made earlier about some of our smaller communities, such as Arran, the Western Isles and some parts of Wales and the highlands of Scotland, which simply could not have a local abattoir. Is she saying that she opposes the movement of sheep, cattle and pigs from the Western Isles or Arran by boat?
Caroline Lucas
No, because I want to make some progress, if I may.
Calf exports have been declining amid concerns in some important countries about bovine tuberculosis. However, as Members know, countries such as Spain are still major destinations for British calves. Journeys to Spain can take more than 90 hours and young calves are poorly equipped to withstand the rigours of such a journey. Dr Claire Weeks, the senior research fellow in animal welfare at Bristol university has concluded:
“Scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport… Therefore transport should be avoided where possible, particularly as morbidity and mortality following transport can be high.”
On arrival in Europe, calves are typically kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems have been outlawed in the UK. There is a real question about the ethical acceptability of calves being sent for rearing abroad in conditions that have been prohibited on welfare grounds here at home.
With calf exports declining, the industry has been considering alternatives, for example through the work of the Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum. That initiative involves beef and dairy industry bodies, Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, Government, retailers and academics. The forum is starting to overturn the assumption that male dairy calves produce low-quality beef and hence should be exported for veal production or shot in the head soon after birth. As a result of its work, male dairy calves are increasingly being reared in Britain to high welfare standards, with a resultant fall in the number of calves shot at birth or exported for veal production. I am confident that more dairy farmers would abandon the trade if the Government engaged with the industry more proactively and gave them more help to do so. The carcass-only trade is already widespread and I want to see an end to the remaining exports of live calves.
The export of sheep is in many ways no better. It, too, entails significant suffering and long, stressful journeys. In addition, British animals may experience poor welfare in European abattoirs. In 2007-08, a French animal welfare organisation carried out an investigation into 25 French slaughterhouses and found many breaches of EU legislation that is meant to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. Earlier this year, a report by the EU’s food and veterinary office identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. The Netherlands is the destination for many sheep that are exported from Britain. Once animals leave our shores, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. All the evidence suggests that they are not necessarily being treated with standards comparable to our own welfare expectations.
For sheep, as for calves, I believe that the trade should be meat and carcass only. Slaughtering a higher proportion of animals in the UK for domestic consumption or meat exports could create jobs and increase profits here. Indeed, the economic case for the live export of sheep seems negligible. In 2011, just 0.5% of the sheep reared in the UK were slaughtered abroad. That is 72,458 sheep, compared with the 14.5 million that were slaughtered in the UK. It is difficult to believe that transporting such a relatively small number of animals abroad for slaughter makes a significant contribution to the sheep sector’s earnings, or that that contribution justifies the suffering that the sheep undergo during the long journey from the UK. The UK economy would probably benefit much more from the added value derived from processing animals at home, rather than exporting the raw material for the benefit of processors abroad.
Much of this debate has focused on the disaster at the port of Ramsgate. Animal welfare conditions are questionable during the process of live transport, as well as on arrival. Other Members have spoken strongly about the Russian tanker, the Joline, which had to turn back en route to Calais because of adverse weather conditions. The ship’s design means that it is particularly sensitive to poor conditions. On this occasion, the sea was breaking over the vessel. Its design also means that there is little leeway between the time that it takes to cross the channel and the maximum journey time for calves of nine hours after a one hour rest at port. On another occasion, the vessel was held at Ramsgate for two hours because of adverse weather warnings and the lorries on board were in danger of exceeding the journey limit.
In a six-month period when the RSPCA was inspecting every vehicle involved in the trade through Ramsgate for infractions, it issued six warning notices. In September 2012, one lorry was stopped because of faults with the vehicle. The animals were unloaded and two sheep, one with a broken leg, were put down. Another 41 lame sheep were euthanised. Six sheep fell into the water after they were loaded into an area where a drain became exposed. Four of them were rescued by RSPCA officers, but two drowned. It appears that a proportion of the lame sheep were injured during the journey owing to a defect in the vehicle, but others were apparently lame before the start of the journey. By law, an official veterinarian must, before an export journey begins, certify that the animals are fit to travel.
That case raises serious questions. If some sheep were lame before the journey, why did the vet who inspected them certify them as being fit to travel? Are the checks and balances that are meant to be in place fit for purpose? Given those failures, can DEFRA’s ordering more inspections give us confidence? It is not even clear whether it intends to increase the number of inspections that are taking place or simply to meet its current legal obligations.
I agree with those who have said that the facilities are Ramsgate are not suitable for ensuring the welfare of animals if they need to be offloaded in an emergency. Despite the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), saying that he intends to pursue a zero-tolerance approach to animal welfare and live exports, I think that the contingency plans that DEFRA has announced are inadequate. A temporary ban on live animal exports out of Ramsgate was lifted last month, but legal action is still under way. It is vital that far more is done to safeguard the welfare of animals that are shipped through the port, especially as access for the RSPCA to inspect conditions has been denied.
In the 1990s, the European Court of Justice twice ruled that the UK cannot ban live exports. Such action has to be taken at EU level. That does not let the Government off the hook. There is much more that they could be doing to bring this trade to an end. They could go to Brussels and press for a change in EU law to allow individual member states to ban live exports.
Since the two European Court cases, article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has recognised animals as “sentient beings”. It requires the EU and member states, in formulating and implementing EU policies on agriculture, transport and the single market, to
“pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.
That article creates a new legislative landscape in which, with the right political will, the UK would be justified in pressing for the right to lawfully end this trade.
Earlier this week, MEPs voted for improvements to the conditions in which live animals are exported, but they failed to reduce the maximum journey time. How different might the result of that vote have been if the UK had actively lobbied for an eight-hour limit? The Government must take the lead in pressing the EU to place a maximum limit of eight hours on journeys to slaughter or for further fattening.
Thomas Docherty
I am puzzled. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that, given the current location of abattoirs, an eight-hour limit would have serious repercussions for the Scottish agriculture industry?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we need to look for solutions to that problem. The suggestion is that a trade can carry on despite a wealth of evidence. He asked earlier about my evidence for the cruelty of the trade and I could read out a whole set of scientific studies. I appreciate that difficult discussions and debates must be had about how to safeguard the livelihoods of farmers, about which I care deeply, but to say simply that we should carry on with business as usual is not an adequate response.
As colleagues will know, I am a former MEP and I have worked extensively on this issue. As I have said, ideally I want a complete ban on the trade of live exports, but imposing a maximum journey time of eight hours would at least help reduce the current suffering. That should also be backed up with sufficient resources to ensure that minimum welfare standards are met.
For example, DEFRA could carry out more rigorous checks to ensure that the mandatory rest breaks required by EU Council regulation 1/2005 are provided. At present, that seems to be verified primarily via returned journey logs, which are often open to abuse and inaccuracy. Instead, DEFRA should ask the appropriate authority of the member state in which the rest break was due to confirm that it was provided, or check the data on which the vehicle’s tachograph or satellite navigation scheme depends. That would show when animals were rested, and for how long.
The sheep and dairy sectors receive generous subsidies from the taxpayer and we should consider whether they should carry the costs of regulating the trade, particularly the cost of pre-export inspections at the place of departure and the port. The Government could also amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to enable ports to refuse to allow live export consignments to use their harbours. I understand that Ramsgate would welcome such a move, as would other UK ports.
As I said, my constituents have been lobbying me in support of a ban on live exports, and the issue has growing public support. A petition on the No. 10 website has more than 31,000 signatures. That number is growing rapidly every day and I hope that when it reaches 100,000, we can have a further debate and—crucially—MPs can vote on whether to take a stand against the trade. I regret that so few Members are in the Chamber this afternoon but I do not think that that reflects the strength of feeling on the issue. If we had a votable motion, far more colleagues would have attended and contributed strongly to the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and I conclude with one simple request for the Government to make every effort to end what is a cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade in live animals.
Energy Efficiency
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Thomas Docherty(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful for that intervention, as it sums up entirely the correct decision taken on the basis of getting good value for the taxpayer because of the amount of revenue raised.
That leads me to my next point—that there is a myth about how long it would take to build new nuclear power stations. It does not actually take 10 or 15 years to build nuclear power stations. Westinghouse has an excellent model on the shelf, which they can take off it. It would take only three to four years; the problem comes in the planning process. I gently suggest to the Minister that I hope he will ensure, as part of the energy drive, that carbon capture and nuclear plants are not slowed down by the planning system, so that we can get them up and running as quickly as we possibly can.
Caroline Lucas
I am sorry, but I cannot hear all this talk about nuclear power without feeling the urge to leap up—so I have leapt. Will the hon. Gentleman please list those nuclear power stations that have been built, first, on time, and secondly, to budget?
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful. I do not have that long left; I cannot list them all.
Thomas Docherty
I suspect that if the hon. Lady looked at the number of wind farms built on time and on budget she would find that that list would be about the same length as for nuclear power stations.
I am very clear, as a champion of both the nuclear and clean coal industries—I have been throughout my whole time in politics—that there is no source of electricity that does not have some challenges and liabilities around it. The ones on nuclear are well documented, and I accept that some Conservative Members have raised some genuine points about clean-coal technology and the importing of coal. The problems surrounding both onshore and offshore wind farms are also well documented, as are problems with tidal power, which does not always work, so there are challenges to be overcome.
That brings me back to the central point that the previous Government were absolutely correct to promote a balanced energy. They said that we needed an element of nuclear power, an element of renewables, an element of coal and, indeed, an element of gas. It is quite surprising that we have heard so little in this debate about the role of gas in our energy mix. Again, I gently suggest to Government Members that the 3,000 mile pipeline presents an issue that we might need to look at.
We have had a fantastic debate. I very much welcome the Ministers to their new posts and I look forward to their perhaps providing some reassurance to my constituents when they sum up.