asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What representations they have made to the Government of Japan about their hunting of whales.

My Lords, we consistently voice our opposition to Japan’s so-called scientific whaling. On 8 January, Jonathan Shaw, the marine and fisheries Minister, met the deputy ambassador from Japan to express the United Kingdom’s outrage and to urge Japan to end its slaughter of whales. On 21 December, the UK, along with 29 other countries, also took part in a démarche calling on the Japanese to cease all their lethal scientific research on whales and to assure the immediate return of the vessels.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very helpful reply. I hope he will pass on my thanks to his department for the work that it has done on this matter. What is the position of the two people from the “Sea Shepherd” who boarded a Japanese whaling vessel yesterday in order, they say, to present a letter to the captain stating that it was unlawfully whaling? They were, according to press reports, detained and tied to the mast. Will my noble friend ensure that any protests on this subject are made at the highest level; namely, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister?

My Lords, we are in touch with both the Australian and Japanese authorities. We have noted the reports that crew members of the “Sea Shepherd” are being detained on a whaling ship. Obviously, we want to see these detained members handed over to the proper authorities, and hope that this can be achieved safely and without further delay. Japan has confirmed that the two men have been detained, but denies that they have been harmed or assaulted.

My Lords, at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission held last year in Anchorage, a motion was passed overwhelmingly calling on Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of its scientific programme in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. It was made quite clear at that conference that the Japanese research project was not scientific and therefore broke the convention on whaling. Are the Government going to take any legal action within international fora to enforce that motion and get a redefinition of scientific whaling?

My Lords, we have been attempting to do that for quite a while. Japan’s view that its whaling is scientific is quite preposterous. The latest check on the position in 2006 showed that of the almost 500 papers on whales posted on the ISI Web of Knowledge database, only 0.8 per cent came from Japan’s whaling programme, so it is not scientific in the sense of publishing papers. We continue with our work through the International Whaling Commission, and all United Kingdom foreign posts are constantly on the lookout for people joining—or not joining, as the case may be—the commission, because that is really where these decisions must be taken.

My Lords, as my noble friend is certainly aware, Japan derives much support in these matters from the votes of some small countries—many of them, I am afraid, well known to be in the Commonwealth. It is perhaps only coincidental, but many of them get economic support from Japan. Will my noble friend at least investigate discussing with like-minded countries the possibility of setting up a fund that has a countervailing effect on Japanese economic transactions in that area?

My Lords, my noble friend raises an issue that I am told is highly sensitive. Allegations are consistently made regarding new members who join the International Whaling Commission and their apparent economic connections with Japan, but evidence has been a bit short on the table. Nevertheless, we have recently renewed our efforts through a document Protecting Whales: A Global Responsibility, the foreword to which was signed by both the Prime Minister and Sir David Attenborough. It was sent to more than 60 countries in the past few months. We are also actively working, through like-minded countries, to make sure that membership of the International Whaling Commission is such that the moratorium is maintained. My noble friend Lord Gilbert’s concern is constantly raised, but evidence is in short supply.

My Lords, will my noble friend advise the Japanese Government of the success of the Icelandic Government in promoting tourism associated with whale watching? I understand that something like £10 million a year is brought in there from that industry.

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The figures for the southern hemisphere show that in 1900 it was estimated that there were 240,000 blue whales; yet in 1996, the estimate was 1,700. At the same time, estimates have been made that the whale-watching industry is worth a billion dollars a year globally. There are thus economic advantages to not killing whales, which, as we know with good reason, cannot be killed safely, quickly or humanely. There is economic benefit derived from preserving whales and letting their stocks rise again.

My Lords, could the Minister be a little more precise on the illegality? Is it the case that Japan is not observing the text of a treaty to which she is a party, or rather that she has chosen not to join that part of the treaty?

She has, my Lords, which raises questions on what is scientific and why Japan needs to do it. As I said, it claims that the whaling is scientific, yet it publishes no papers—or not to the extent that others do on it—so it cannot put any facts behind the claim. The meat ends up on the market in Japan, so the allegation is that it is not scientific. No research or papers come out of it, although Japan claims that, scientifically, it needs to kill 1,000 whales to find out how they live. Well, while it is not publishing any papers based on its research, that killing is feeding back into restaurants in Japan.

My Lords, if it makes no sense whatever economically, why do the Japanese Government go on doing it? Is it not absolutely essential for them to do so?

My Lords, the Japanese Government must answer for themselves. What they are doing is, frankly, indefensible, and we have expressed our outrage about it.

My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister’s reassurances, all the evidence from Written Answers suggests that the Government have not been using all the channels available to raise this at the highest level. As well as Defra, do not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and even the Prime Minister need to engage in making it clear to the Japanese that their behaviour is not acceptable?

My Lords, that has been done and more. The Foreign Office has been involved, and we have contacted more than 60 countries within the past few months since, as I said, we republished that document with a foreword from the Prime Minister. Messages have also been sent to all our posts abroad. This has not been left just to the government department dealing with marine and fisheries; it is being dealt with at the highest level, across government and on an international basis. That is the only way we can deal with it.