| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The problem is not a question of diet. Distasteful as the eating of horsemeat may be to many of us, we have to accept that different countries have different traditions in these matters. What we eat in this country is abhorrent in others, so that is not the issue. But the welfare of animals in transit is an issue that should concern us. Moreover, there is a difference between farm animals and the particular vulnerability of equines in transit. My noble friend Lord Higgins mentioned the mixing of stallions and mares, and small ponies and large draft horses, which can result in injuries during travel. Perhaps I can add edge to the argument if I quote from a report from Trieste on a research trip carried out by the international league last August. It stated:
“Three loads of horses were at this staging post; one from Poland and two from Romania (one of which arrived during our visit). The staging post was in poor repair. The horses were separated into mixed groups of up to eight—fights broke out regularly due to a generally stressed environment. The Romanian load comprised 26 horses that had travelled for around 18 hours. They were separated into groups of up to eight—some with halters, some without (the majority of those without halters had halters put on for unloading). The horses showed signs of extreme dehydration (concertinaed skin), exhaustion (heads low), fear (some reluctant to unload), bruising (kick and bite marks). There was also a suspected heavily pregnant mare. One particular mare (who was in a compartment with six large working type horses) had collapsed on the lorry due to exhaustion, which was evident when they tried to unload her—it took her 20 minutes to get her to her feet and when she did she was extremely unsteady.
Injuries were also obvious on the animals that were in situ when we arrived, including: bite and kick marks; severe dehydration ... facial injuries. Stallions were showing severe signs of stress as they were tethered next to mares. Fights were breaking out regularly”.
This is not acceptable to us these days.
If the current legislative protection is not enough, we must seek fresh ways of tackling and enforcing action against this abuse on a European-wide basis. All noble Lords have said that modern refrigeration makes live transport unnecessary. The way that many horses are treated is unacceptable.
15 May 2008 : Column GC395
2.37 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am extremely grateful, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for introducing this debate. I agree with him that this is an excellent format for exploring an issue like this. This is the first time that I have spoken within this framework and I realise how much I appreciate the opportunities that this form of debate provides. When one or two of my colleagues asked whether I would need buttressing in this debate by supporting me with their presence, I said that this would be one of the occasions on which I was likely to be in almost complete concord with speeches from the Opposition—Conservative or Liberal Democrat. I am pleased to say that that is exactly how I feel, having heard the speeches.
There is no doubt that what has been expressed today is that great British affinity with and love of horses and the fact that we look upon them as animals to be cherished; but we are aware that different values obtain elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, indicated in his thoughtful contribution, it is not for us to dictate the mores of other countries and their patterns of consumption, but it is for us to be concerned about animal welfare. That is how all noble Lords have addressed this issue with regard to the problems that arise.
I have difficulty in responding to the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, of trafficking to Northern Ireland, because I do not have a detailed note. That was the only reference to this issue in relation to the United Kingdom because, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, properly said, we have a rigorous system in this country regarding the transport of horses.
It is true that inspection is carried out by local authorities, but noble Lords will recognise that it is for each member state to abide by the regulation and to bring its practice into consort with the regulation. But inspection is for those members states. I can see the enormous anxiety about how effective local inspection might be in some countries. On the other hand, we must recognise that some countries have extensive land masses, and it may be better that there is some national supervision. Suffice it to say that we are not in a position to say much about that; we are in a position to make all our representations on the effectiveness of the regulation. We are not in much of a position to say how countries enforce them; save that our concern is how effectively they are enforced.
I am not in any way, shape or form seeking to detract from the pressure that is represented by all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently in this debate about their views, which I entirely share. We are reflecting the fact that other countries approach horses and their transport differently. First, on the extent to which they go for slaughter, Italy is an important destination. It is also the case that such countries look on horse meat as being part of an attractive diet. I remember the first time I went to France, as a hitch-hiking student. We gaily ordered steak at what looked to be an extraordinary bargain price, and it was not until we chewed somewhat ineffectively for 20 minutes on a small slice of the steak that we realised that there was a difference between the definitions of meat in France and in the United Kingdom. One learns from those
15 May 2008 : Column GC396
What can we do about it? The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right. We want to see an improvement in the regulation. It is good that Europe has brought forward the review of the position to 2009, because it reflects the anxieties that are held not just by us but by many other states, which have the same perspective. I am not suggesting for a moment that we are without friends in these representations. I am indicating what every noble Lord recognises; that we are up against formidable perspectives in some countries about these issues and on the definition of cruelty to animals, particularly horses.
I have nothing to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—who used the gap as we would expect, to speak with great effectiveness—about the Italy/Argentina link. I have no doubt that there is an important supply of horses to Italy. She will recognise that the regulation seems to have a marginal impact on the horses that come in by sea. Even my geography indicates to me that Argentina is some way outside the European Community, so it is not in the framework of the regulation. I bear in mind the point that she made, which is illustrative of the nature of the problem.
The Government’s position is straightforward. We do not think that horses should be transported for slaughter at all. We want to see that stopped. It is better that they are slaughtered relatively near to where they have come from than that they are transported in this iniquitous way. We must recognise that it is an extensive trade. There is no doubt that the enlargement of the Community has extended the trade. We take the view of the welfare organisations that we should, as best as possible, seek to make effective the regulation. Let us be fair to the member states; the regulation has only existed since 2005, so we have only three years of experience. As with any regulation, I do not need to talk too extensively to Members of this Committee about the differential implementation of European regulations across Europe. The British Government scrupulously observe the regulation, and I do not think that there has been any criticism in this debate about what happens in the UK. The task of influencing others is much more difficult. We agree with noble Lords about the weaknesses of the 2005 position, such as the length of time for which horses are in these vehicles without any relief or release from confinement during the journey.
There is an issue about the qualification of drivers—again, we license and therefore have strict controls over this—and the question of the crews who drive these great lorries over vast distances. Indeed, we will make representations to this effect. I emphasise the crews because on the whole in the UK we are used to lorries doing 400 or 500 miles at the very most. One recognises when talking about a trade such as this, however, that the trucks can go for well over a 1,000 miles quite comfortably—or rather very uncomfortably, given the length of time. The qualification, however, is about lorry-driver competence rather than animal welfare and concern. That is a difficult nut for us to crack.
15 May 2008 : Column GC397
Noble Lords—I am looking particularly at the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor—will recognise that when it comes to transport, we are all too well aware of the difficulties of transport regulation and driver competence. What is being sought here is additional competence in relation to the welfare of animals. We agree with that. We are looking at 2009 and the revision as an opportunity to answer exactly the points that have been emphasised so well here today. We do think that we should have maximum limits on the length of time that horses are kept in vehicles when they travel. We are concerned that the standards in Europe should improve and match our own, so we are concerned about the mix of animals to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred. It is important that there is effective segregation. The space allowance in the vehicle is crucial to the animal’s comfort.
We are looking to make progress on those matters, but I confess to the Committee this obvious point; nothing has been expressed today about the intent of Her Majesty’s Government, who do nothing else but subscribe entirely. We recognise the representations on welfare, and we also know the obvious interest of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in this matter. He mentioned five years, but I have no doubt that his interest in this issue goes back further than that, and he has taken this excellent opportunity today to put the Government under pressure. We do not need pressure in terms of our intent. The challenge for us is building up effective alliances to get effective change to the regulation.
As I say, we make due allowance for the fact that the regulation has existed for only three years. Nevertheless, the levels of abuse that have been identified so accurately in all the speeches that have been made today are such that we can substantiate our case for the necessary improvement of the regulation. I give the Committee the obvious assurance that we will make all the representations that we can for change in 2009, but I return to the fundamental point that was generously recognised by such knowledgeable Members on all sides; in talking about the transport of horses, we are also up against a perspective on the value of horses, which in some parts of Europe is somewhat different from the United Kingdom. That is one of the great challenges that we must overcome.
Lord Higgins: Before the noble Lord sits down—I understand that one does not have a right of reply on these occasions— perhaps I may thank him for his response. Will he be kind enough to check whether the penalties are actually being imposed in any country, or whether they are totally ineffective? I realise that he will not have the answer now, but it would be really interesting in negotiations, if the penalties have not been imposed at all, to stop this charade.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I can give a categorical answer, and should have done so in my contribution. I apologise for that. The maximum figure is £5,000. I do not have information on the extent to which that is imposed, but I will look into the matter. The noble Lord is right that it is part of the Government’s case as regards speculation on enforcement. However, as I
15 May 2008 : Column GC398
[The Sitting was adjourned from 2.50 to 3 pm.]
Antarctic: Tourist Ships
3 pm
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty’s Government whether the passenger safety and environmental protection regulations covering tourist ships in Antarctic waters are satisfactory.
The noble Viscount said: As I have no right of reply, perhaps I may say that I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for agreeing to answer the debate on behalf of the Department for Transport, which is what it is really all about.
On 15 January last year, in the short debate on the International Polar Year 2007-08, I drew attention to the increase of shipping during the Antarctic summer tourist season, and the risk of accidents. Sadly, this was all too prescient as within a month, the MS “Nordkapp” ran aground, sustaining a big gash in her bow. But worse was to come. In November last year, the Liberian registered ship “Explorer” hit an iceberg and sank. The crew and passengers were all evacuated to lifeboats, but they were open lifeboats. Very fortunately, the sea was calm and they were all picked up several hours later. If the weather conditions had been less favourable—high seas are quite frequent in that part of the world—they would have survived only a few minutes in the sub-zero water, thereby causing a major marine catastrophe.
So that is what this short debate is all about, and we need to know from the Government what measures are being taken to ensure that there are adequate controls on the number and quality of the tourist ships visiting Antarctica. Obviously, the British Government do not control this matter, but we are important members of the International Maritime Organisation, located in London, and great supporters of the British Antarctic Survey located in Cambridge. The issue was raised by the UK at the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Delhi last year, and I hope that it will be raised again at the Kiev meeting in June.
A free, specialised sat-nav service is currently available, which gives high-resolution sea ice and iceberg information. I do not know whether “Explorer” had this system—if it had, of course it would not have sunk. British input is via the British Antarctic Survey, but the funding comes from the European Space Agency. This means that we have to deal with the Brussels bureaucracy, which is complicated and lethargic. Clearly, it would be advantageous if this vital sat-nav service was made mandatory and provided free. Can the Minister press the European Space Agency for this to happen? Clearly, it would be a great advantage.
We also need to be concerned about the large number of British citizens cruising in ever-increasing numbers of ever-larger vessels in a fragile and often hostile area of great natural beauty. This has both
15 May 2008 : Column GC399
Other questions that need to be answered were raised at the last IMO marine environment protection meeting. They include: should ships burning heavy fuel oil be banned? Clearly, it would be very damaging if leaks occurred. Should ships without ice-strengthened hulls be banned? Are crew training standards adequate? Clearly, the UK cannot issue mandatory instructions to foreign-flagged vessels in international waters. The IMO is the only body that can impose international standards covering equipment and procedures. I understand that an IMO sub-committee has been appointed to consider design and equipment in ice-covered waters but that it is not expected to report until some time next year, by which time another Antarctic tourist season will have passed. Can anything be done to speed up these proceedings?
I appreciate that I have posed a great number of questions for the Minister with whom I discussed this issue in advance, but they are mainly to be followed up by his department, although anything he can say today will be very much appreciated and will help the cause forward.
3.05 pm
Lord Greenway: I thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for raising this important topic which has been focused by recent events in the Antarctic, as he said.
In some ways, this is not purely an Antarctic problem. There have been a number of instances up in the Arctic as well, especially in the Spitsbergen area. We do not need to go back to the 1930s when the Germans took an interest in cruising in those waters. Indeed, a large German company lost a ship in the 1930s. Therefore, we are not dealing with anything new here. However, as my noble friend said, the real change is the enormous increase in cruise tourism, certainly within the past 15 or 20 years. I did a cruise up in the Spitsbergen area and I am well aware of the difficulties that can arise for people who are not wary of what might happen. In fact, there was an incident only last year where a small Russian ship got too close to a calving glacier, a large portion came tumbling down and the resulting wave injured a number of passengers on board that vessel.
One of the tour guides on my cruise was a great expert on wildlife and ice and had spent many years down in Antarctica on the “Explorer” under her former name the “Lindblad Explorer”. As he was coming away from Antarctica on a small Russian ship, they came across a single pillar of ice standing up out of the ocean, which I think he said was 300 to 400 feet high. They stood off this ice, luckily not too close, because as they looked at it, the thing collapsed. He had some of the most amazing photographs I have ever seen showing this huge finger of ice crashing down to the sea, causing enormous waves. Even standing
15 May 2008 : Column GC400
I wish to comment briefly on environmental issues. Huge concern was expressed in Antarctica in the early days when larger cruise ships started calling there, mainly expressing anxiety that too many people were going ashore. It was thought that they might damage the fragile environment. Measures have been taken to try to limit the number of passengers going ashore at any one time. However, it was pointed out at the time that the damage done by cruise ship passengers was not as great as that done by scientists and researchers who spend years down there, because things do not degrade in those low temperatures and the detritus—if one might call it that—from Captain Scott’s expeditions is still sitting there untouched. Things hang around for a very long time.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery mentioned the recent incidents. There is one other concern with regard to Antarctica, which was brought to light when the captain of the Royal Navy’s ice patrol ship HMS “Endurance” gave a talk to the Parliamentary Maritime Group two or three years ago. He showed us some fascinating underwater pictures taken by the new side-scanning sonar. Developments such as that are making a big difference to what we know about the underwater profile down there. He still thinks that lack of good charting in that part of the world is one of the major risks. No doubt as more and more research ships go down there—I believe that the Norwegians have just ordered a very sophisticated new ship to look at Arctic and Antarctic waters—they will help us to have a lot more knowledge about the seabed configuration.
The cruise ships tend to go to the same anchorages all the time. They tend to get very familiar with them. When the ship is anchored there, they will put down crew in small boats and make their own soundings, so they produce what are termed mud charts, so they are pretty well aware of what goes on where they anchor; it is only when they are transiting towards the open sea that the real danger occurs.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery also mentioned that larger and larger ships are becoming involved. Princess Cruises has sent two 100,000-tonne ships down to Antarctica in the past two or three years. Those ships can carry up to 3,500 passengers and burn heavy fuel, as my noble friend rightly said, whereas smaller ships, such as the one that sank recently, run on diesel oil, which is much thinner. In the case of the “Nordkapp”, the Norwegian ship, where some fuel was spilt when they were shifting it from tank to tank, it evaporated very quickly and no adverse results were found when the area was looked at a little while later.
The other thing that I would say in support of large ships is that, as the Committee may imagine, they cost a huge amount of money, so it is in the cruise company’s interest to ensure that nothing adverse happens to them. Also, because of their size, they are much more compartmented than smaller ships, so hitting a small iceberg would not necessarily have the same effect as what happened to the “Explorer”. As far as I know, that has not really been explained. There was talk of a fist-sized hole, and I am still rather surprised that a
15 May 2008 : Column GC401
Finally, I come to the situation with the International Maritime Organisation, to which, again, my noble friend alluded. The IMO is responsible for international maritime safety regulations, as I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware. I understand that it has undertaken to rewrite, not just amend, the guidelines for operation in the Arctic and Antarctic waters; I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Also, a correspondence group has been set up, with Canada acting as co-ordinator. That group will report in time for the IMO working group discussion early next year. It is hoped that life-saving equipment, search and rescue planning and response and other issues will be fully addressed.
In their own best interests, cruise companies operate within well established safety management systems as required by the IMO. In addition, as we heard, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators has set up emergency contingency plans and recommendations that include participation in a database that details the position of ships and includes a list of emergency equipment available on board, agreement to assist any other vessel in the event of an emergency and is looking into carrying ice pilots. Another development that cruise companies are actively instigating concerns their planning for going down Antarctic waters. They look at pairing ships so that there is a buddy ship in the area capable of taking off the crew of another craft if there is a major incident. That is a useful step forward.
These developments are usually brought upon us by disasters, but unfortunately one cannot always act as quickly as one would like. Although the machinations of the International Maritime Organisation may seem to be a little slow, I think that that is the correct way of dealing with these matters, and I can only say that I hope that we will not suffer another, and possibly worse, incident in the mean time.
3.15 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |