Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Nichol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that Article 11 of the 1994 GATT prohibits bans on imports and exports for any reason? That prevents member countries from applying ethical standards. Is it not possible that in future the European Union is likely to back away from any more measures to improve animal welfare because of the ban? Will my noble friend seek, in the forthcoming ministerial conference in Geneva in May, to air this subject so that at least this country can make its views known on the need for greater protection for animals?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are entirely sympathetic with the broad approach she takes. We are committed to improving animal welfare standards in this country, in Europe and throughout the world. The problem appears to focus on the WTO. But it is not the WTO; it has 130 members, and there is not a majority consensus for the kind of welfare reforms and the raising of welfare standards that we seek. That is why we are working through the European Union to argue with the WTO to raise standards. We will be arguing for that at the May

9 Apr 1998 : Column 851

conference and we have a working party of chief veterinary officers already looking at this subject. I should point out to my noble friend that, as a lead department, it is for the DTI to take the lead, though MAFF will be involved in the preparations.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, will the Minister join with me in recognising the value of the work done by the Farm Animal Welfare Council? Perhaps he can be enticed to be a little more specific in the aims he outlined for the work at the May council. Can the noble Lord say also that at that meeting of Ministers in Geneva the Government will press for the establishment of EU and WTO equivalents of the Farm Animal Welfare Council? And, if not, why not?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's support for that council. Indeed, MAFF provides the secretariat and the running expenses. It would certainly help us if all other countries had a similar council. I shall look seriously at the matter and discuss with the department whether that can be an item on the May agenda.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the point raised by my noble friend Lady Nicol is a good illustration of the far-reaching powers and authority in the hands of international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (which will soon be strengthened by the multilateral agreement on investment), the IMF and other such global bodies? Does he agree also that, because of the far-reaching ramifications of many of the policies made by those bodies, there is a need within Parliament to introduce systems for systematic scrutiny of what is being done in such institutions and what is being said on our behalf by officials who represent this nation on such bodies?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my noble friend has made a perceptive observation and a most constructive suggestion. More and more of our affairs are discussed, conducted and decided on a multinational and at times a global basis. The degree of accountability in that respect and the opportunities for Parliament to exercise its influence are limited. The progress towards globalisation is irresistible; indeed, it is part of the development in the world. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that we have not caught up with it in all areas so as to ensure that for our national interests and accountability the decision-making and discussions of those bodies, especially at official level, are sufficiently accountable. I thank my noble friend for this suggestion.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will accept thanks for the action being taken by the Government. However, will he ensure that our parliamentary representatives in all relevant international fora are adequately briefed so that the level of attention and debate can be raised? That will ensure that, as far as concerns animal welfare and ecological considerations, the lowest common denominator does not apply.

Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords; that is a danger with all this pressure to reach agreement. Indeed, on

9 Apr 1998 : Column 852

questions such as animal welfare, it is extremely tempting to reach an agreement at the lowest common level, which in animal welfare would achieve little and be very unsatisfactory. We do our best to ensure that those representing us are well briefed. This Government have raised the importance of animal welfare and made it a priority. Indeed, it is one of the stated priorities for our presidency of the EU.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there will be a need for him to keep an eye on this exercise? I ask that question because I have seen a letter from the DTI dated 6th April to a Member of the other place which says that there are no current plans in the EU to raise farm animal welfare standards at the WTO ministerial meeting in May. Therefore, it will be necessary for my noble friend's department to apply some pressure in that respect.

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we welcome that because we try to keep an eye on other departments; indeed, the DTI is one department in particular on which we need to keep an eye. I should point out to the House that I only dared say that after having checked that my noble friend from that department was not present in the Chamber. However, there will be interdepartmental discussions and we shall make that department aware of our priorities. But, of course, that is the department which is currently involved and its priorities are based on competition.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is also a problem of transparency? The example that I shall give the noble Lord in that respect is leg-hold traps, where one part of the Commission reached the point of legislation, only to be stopped by DGI at the last moment because the WTO had suddenly woken up to the implications involved. I do not know what finally happened but I do know that there was a most splendid muddle, which was caused partly because not only did our Government not know what was going on but neither did the Commission.

Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords; I think that I will probably accept that description of what happened. It was unfortunate as regards leg-hold traps, but it was a lesson in not being too optimistic and pushing too far ahead without being absolutely clear about what can be achieved at the WTO level. That is why we are now cautious in our approach. However, we will be working through Europe to build a consensus for a better position.

Chernobyl Site: Safety Plan

11.23 a.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What action is being taken to deal with the continuing problems and risks associated with the Chernobyl nuclear site; and whether they consider that these matters are being given sufficiently urgent attention.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the safety of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, including the sarcophagus covering the destroyed Reactor Unit 4, is

9 Apr 1998 : Column 853

the responsibility of the Government of Ukraine. Nevertheless, there is broad international consensus that urgent action is needed to deal with the deterioration of the current structure of the sarcophagus. To this end, a shelter implementation plan was finalised in May last year between Ukraine and the G7 countries. The aim of the plan is to stabilise the current shelter, remove the danger of any further explosion and, finally, construct a temporary confinement to facilitate the removal of the destroyed reactor's most unstable parts. Implementation of the plan has already started, and efforts to ensure sufficient funding for its completion are under way.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I visited Chernobyl after that agreement had been made and saw very little evidence of progress. Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that adequate and urgent attention is paid to the site, to the disintegrating sarcophagus which shrouds so much horror, to the quality of the rivers in the region and to the operation of the neighbouring reactor? These things certainly require attention on behalf of the whole of Europe, if not much more widely.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government agree that it is an extremely important and urgent issue. So far, the UK contribution to the SIP bilaterally, and through the EU, amounts to some £30 million US dollars. In addition, we have allocated over £6 million from the Know-how Fund towards the energy sector reform measures which are needed in the Ukraine. We have also contributed over £18 million to the international nuclear safety account, of which £10 million has been earmarked for the Chernobyl-related projects. Her Majesty's Government are taking this most seriously. Officials from the nuclear industry's directorate of the DTI currently hold the chair of the G7 nuclear safety working group and will do so to the end of this year. So the United Kingdom is in the lead on the issue.

Lord Gisborough: My Lords, Chernobyl was one of many similar systems. Therefore, can the Minister say whether these have been made safe, whether they are still working or whether they are being phased out?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page