House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jan 1991

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate and to contribute to the unnerving air of consensus which seems to characterise nearly all our debates these days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is well known for the interest that he takes in animal welfare matters. He is to be admired for the concern that he has shown for farm animals over many years and in presenting the Bill.

The last time that my hon. Friend and I were engaged on a major venture together was almost exactly five years ago when I had the privilege to be a very junior member of the Select Committee of which he was Chairman. Late one Monday night in April 1986 the Government lost the vote on Sunday trading. Early the following morning, my hon. Friend and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) found ourselves in Washington, where we were engaged in a study of pesticides. Without our knowledge, President Reagan bombed Gaddafi that night. We had a very interesting visit to the United States--and we did not pay for a single drink ourselves.

I want to pay tribute to the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have written to me about this issue. As some hon. Members have seen, it is true that I, as a constituency Member--and I suspect most hon. Members-- have received infinitely more letters on this subject than on the major events taking place in the middle east. That does not surprise me when animal welfare matters are at stake. I want also to pay tribute to many of my hon. Friends who, over the years, and during the two years that I have been at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been quietly lobbying and nobbling me behind the scenes about animal welfare. That will continue for the benefit of all of us and to the benefit of animals. Let me begin by considering the history of the welfare debate on stall and tether systems. The use of those systems for keeping dry sows and gilts has been and is one of the subjects of greatest animal husbandry concern. The systems are criticised by animal welfare organisations and,

Column 611

as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said, not all in the pig industry are content with them, either.

The Government too have had a long-standing policy of advising against the use of stalls and tethers and, more recently, of phasing them out. There is an equally long-standing commitment to research into the alternative systems. That research will not end with the current moves to remove stalls and tethers.

However, concern over conditions in which pigs are kept is nothing new. In 1772, a man by the name of Brauner, writing in Stockholm, described the agriculture literature of the time as constantly stressing the importance of providing swine with a dry lying place and straw bedding. He added that in those days systems were never used in which the pig was permanently tied or confined so that it could not separate the three functions of feeding, dunging and lying.

Indeed, most husbandry systems for dry sows used up until about the late 1950s to early 1960s consisted of individual pens or small groups which allowed the sows to use separate parts of the pen for those three functions. It was about this time that the close confinement systems were introduced. It has to be said that their introduction was not purely for economic reasons. It was thought that some welfare advantages would also result.

The first full examination of intensive livestock husbandry systems was in 1965 when the Brambell committee made its report at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

To a large extent, it was publication of the book "Animal Machines" by Mrs. Ruth Harrison which first led to the widespread public interest in farm animal welfare and which led to the formation of the Brambell committee. I am pleased to say that Mrs. Harrison is still a member of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and was a member of its predecessor, the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

The Brambell report made a number of recommendations on pig welfare. The recommendation relevant to the debate today was : "Pregnant sows should not be kept without daily exercise in quarters which do not permit them to turn round and, in any case, should not be tethered indoors".

During the 1980-81 Session of Parliament, the Select Committee on Agriculture, to which reference has been made today, examined animal welfare in poultry, pig and veal calf production. It published its report in July 1981. It also made a number of recommendations on the welfare of pigs relating to stall and tether systems including that "The Code of Recommendations for Pigs should recommend that steps be taken to relieve frustration and boredom where sows are tethered or kept in stalls"

It went on to state :

"Efforts should be made to develop alternatives to the close confinement of pregnant sows. As soon as these are established as practicable and economic, notice should be given that close confinement will be phased out over a reasonable period. Governments should support the necessary research and development work. Financial grants should be used to support the small- group system and should not be given to producers using close-confinement methods Pigs housed indoors should always have access to a bedded area, and the Code of Recommendations should say so".

Column 612

The Government's welfare code for pigs, based on recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, was revised in 1983. It tood account of the Brambell committee's recommendations and gave the clear warning that

"The keeping of sows and gilts in stalls with or without tethers raises serious welfare problems. It inevitably places severe restrictions on the animals' freedom of movement, denies them normal exercise, can give rise to patterns of abnormal behaviour and very commonly causes injuries and leg weakness".

However, the code went on to say that alternative systems, although recommended, required higher levels of stockmanship and increased capital investment. It was not thought then that the time was right to phase out those systems.

The next major review of stalls and tethers came with the publication in 1988 of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's assessment of pig production systems. At that time, the council considered that it was possible to ban new installations of stalls and tethers. However, a phase-out date for existing systems could still not be set. The council passed to the Government the responsibility for deciding when alternatives would be viable and sufficiently free of welfare problems. In the Government's response, we accepted the Council's recommendations. As there was a proposal for Community legislation concerning the welfare of pigs under discussion, it seemed most sensible to try to have the Council's recommendations accepted on a Community basis, and that is what we have striven to achieve. The Community negotiations are, however, taking longer than we wished, and we have now decided that the time has come to set an example to the rest of Europe.

Finally, a seminar organised by the European conference group on the protection of farm animals was held last November. This seminar, attended by a wide range of interests, concluded that alternative systems could now replace the stall and tether systems. The reservations that existed at the time of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations concerning the problems which could arise with alternative systems have therefore now been satisfactorily resolved.

The Government have therefore been re-examining welfare aspects of the use of stalls and tethers. The Farm Animal Welfare Council considers husbandry systems in the context of the "five freedoms". They are first, freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition ; secondly, appropriate comfort and shelter ; thirdly, prevention, or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury and disease ; fourthly, freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour ; and, fifthly freedom from fear.

It is clear that stall and tether systems do not meet all those freedoms and, in particular, sows certainly cannot display "most normal patterns of behaviour in them".

That is not to say that alternative systems are perfect--it is unlikely that any husbandry system will ever reach perfection in welfare terms. However, the scientific evidence that close confinement causes unacceptable welfare problems is now overwhelming.

In 1977, for example, it was reported that confined sows were not able to groom normally, that they may have difficulty maintaining the correct body temperature, that most are fed small amounts of food infrequently and that they cannot interact normally with other sows.

Column 613

Stereotyped behaviour is one response shown by a variety of animals to such situations in which the individual has little control of its environment.

Stereotyped behaviour is a pattern of repetitive actions that are fixed in form and orientation and serve no obvious function. It can be caused by confinement and boredom in a barren environment when the animal is unable to carry out most of its normal patterns of behaviour. Stereotypes are an indicator of poor welfare and they are frequently seen in many stall and tether units. The relatively low volumes of feed commonly given to pregnant sows may be a contributory factor to poor welfare, but the confinement itself must be a major problem for the animal.

Mr. John Townend : Does my hon. Friend accept that farrowing crates, which are not dealt with in the Bill, cause the same problems? He accepts that keeping dry sows in single stalls throughout the whole period is unsatisfactory. Will he also accept that there is a case for keeping them in stalls for 28 to 30 days immediately after they have been put in pig because there are problems of bullying and other problems at that time?

Mr. Maclean : I accept much of what my hon. Friend says. Neither the Bill nor our regulations propose to deal with farrowing crates. We see welfare disadvantages in farrowing crates ; but there are also tremendous disadvantages in the alternatives when pigs are about to litter. We pointed out in our regulations that we wish pigs to be confined in farrowing crates for the minimum period during the period of pregnancy when they are about to litter. But research and development is continuing into alternatives to those systems, too. In 1984 and 1987 it was observed that pigs in tethers spent less time in active behaviour. Pigs in stalls showed increased amounts of stereotyped behaviour such as licking and biting of the stalls and a higher incidence of aggressive actions. Physiological measurements taken from the pigs indicated that they were showing a chronic stress response as a result of confinement. Sows subjected to this stress were considered by one author to be suffering from clinical neurosis.

Stereotyped behaviour is recorded in tethered sows as well as those in stalls. Studies of stereotypes in tethered sows lead us to the conclusion that the behaviour can be spread to newly introduced sows, thus contributing to the stress experienced by the newcomers. Stall and tether systems, in particular those using tethers, are often the cause of injuries. Skin lesions caused by chafing of the tethers are not uncommon and were reported in 1986 as arising at levels of 39 per cent. and 21 per cent. of the animals in two herds studied. Girth tethering can lead to increased udder damage because the sow is impeded when getting up. Increased incidence of urinary infection and lameness in closely confined pigs has also been recorded.

However, as the Farm Animal Welfare Council has accepted, the alternatives available are not without their problems. The lack of control over injuries caused by aggressive interactions between sows and bullying of individuals at the bottom of the dominance chain are typical examples. As I have said, it is unlikely that any husbandry system will be completely free of welfare problems. So it has been a fine judgment to decide when the time is right to take action. The industry itself has all but abandoned new installations of stalls and tethers. But,

Column 614

contrary to what has been said this morning, we have evidence that a few have been installed in the past few years. However, the industry has largely given up the system. The only real question that remained was how long was needed for existing systems to be phased out, and whether we could go ahead in advance of the rest of the European Community.

Against that background, we must look at the economic situation of the industry. I have already emphasised that in 1989 the Government fully accepted the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council for phasing out stall and tether systems. We have always made it clear that we wished to pursue this matter on an EC basis, and we shall continue discussions to secure Community agreement on these measures as soon as possible. I give that firm assurance to the House. But the Community seems reluctant to move. Now that there are viable alternatives to stall and tether systems, we believe that we must go it alone.

However strong the arguments on the welfare aspects, we cannot be blind to the dangers that moving on a unilateral basis will present to the competitive position of our pig industry. The pig industry is totally dependent on pig breeders. If breeders went out of, or reduced, production, there would be fewer piglets for the fatteners to rear. We would run the risk of increased imports of pigmeat produced by the very systems that we were banning in this country. There would be less pigmeat for our slaughterers and processing plants to handle. There would be a smaller market for our cereal producers and feed processors. Other ancillary trades would also be affected. A large number of our people are involved, either directly or indirectly, in the pigmeat industry. We do not want to put those people out of work, nor to hand over an even larger slice of our pork --especially our bacon--market to producers in other member states producing under the very system that we would have banned. The United Kingdom pig industry is an important part of our agricultural and national economy. We must bear that fact very much in mind and proceed carefully.

The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) rubbished the unilateral argument and quoted the example of veal crates. I shall tell him the direct effect of the veal crate ban, which I am proud that we introduced unilaterally on 1 January last year. The net effect, not in commercial terms as I do not know the figures but in welfare terms, is that veal is now eaten in this country which has been imported from overseas and produced under the same system that we thought was inhumane and that we banned. Because of the treaty of Rome, we cannot ban such imports.

Mr. Ron Davies : I share the Minister's concern about the development of the live export trade in calves. Does he acknowledge the fact that, because we have taken that action in this country, it immeasurably strengthens his hand when he is arguing in the Council of Ministers for the adoption of a ban on veal crates throughout the Community?

Mr. Maclean : That is a fallacious argument, and I shall deal with it later, as other hon. Members have made the same point. It does not necessarily strengthen our hand to be unilateral in Europe. Firm scientific advice on the judgments that we take is what strengthens our hand.

Mr. John Townend : My hon. Friend has been arguing a poignant case against the Bill and has been using the veal

Column 615

example in support of that case. If he is so worried about the pig industry and believes that it may suffer the same problems as the veal industry, why is he putting forward these proposals?

Mr. Maclean : I have already told the House that a fine judgment has to be made here. We believe that, because alternative systems are now available, and because of the increased welfare benefits, we should act upon this matter now, and we shall make strenuous efforts to ensure that the European Community agrees with us as quickly as it can. However, I do not want any hon. Member to dismiss the unilateral argument out of hand, and to say that there is no problem about Britain acting unilaterally. There are problems, but at times we decide that we must do it for welfare considerations.

There has been some discussion in the House about the percentage of sows housed in such systems. Our estimate is that about 70 per cent. of the 800,000 sows in the United Kingdom at present are housed in stalls, but, whether it is 50, 60 or 70 per cent., as we are in agreement on the main principle, we should not argue over the figures. The natural life span of these stall systems is about 15 years, and very few have been installed in the past three years. I have no sympathy for pig producers who installed stall and tether systems after the Government announced in 1989 that we had accepted the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations for phasing out stall and tether systems. That means that there are still a large number of stalls which were built before that date, and which pig farmers could reasonably have expected to last up to 13 years. To ask pig breeders to take out their stalls within too short a time scale would clearly lead to a great deal of wasted investment, and might encourage them to leave the industry altogether.

The need for a transition period of sensible length is reinforced by the consideration that those in the pig industry make a precarious living. The pig industry has not enjoyed the same degree of support under the CAP as the producers of some other commodities. The pigmeat regime is a light one. There is no public intervention. Within the ring fence of the Community's borders there is very much a free market and producers have to make their living from the market price. Given the fierceness of competition, and the vagaries of the pig cycle, margins over time are slim and are often non- existent and at times highly negative. In short, there is not much money available for reinvestment.

My staff in the economics department of the Ministry have carried out a very careful calculation of the economic costs to the industry of a ban on sow stalls . On the best assumptions which they can make, they estimate that the economic costs of banning sow stalls to the industry, in terms of wasted investment and additional running cost, would be £99 million if there was an immediate ban. Even if the ban was delayed for five years the cost would still be £30 million which I believe to be an unacceptably high figure and one which would encourage a good number of pig breeders to go out of production. If the transition period extends to the time limit that we have proposed, the cost falls to around £9 million which, it seems to me, is a figure which we could ask the industry to live with. It compares with the total value of our pig industry's output of about £1 billion.

Column 616

But the industry has the potential to offset some of these costs. Many consumers in this country consider farm animal welfare very important. They are prepared to pay a premium for produce from animals which they believe are reared under conditions best suited to their welfare. In future the pig industry will be able to say with all honesty that it is not using the systems that have caused so much controversy. I appeal to our farmers and producers to capitalise on the lead that they will have over the rest of the Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) suggested that I become devious and ban pigmeat imports from these countries. That is not the solution. It is not for me to be devious but for our producers to become good marketeers. I spend a great deal of time speaking to consumers and meeting consumer groups ; I go round the shops and big supermarkets and I can see the trends in them. Some sell "conservation-grade" meat, some "traditional" meat. I tell the shops that we shall monitor them to make sure that the terms that they use are factually correct so that the consumers are not deceived.

I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and not just because I visited Northern Ireland and had a chance to go round the Province just before Christmas. I believe that there is a marketing opportunity, but it will not simply land in farmers' laps. They will have to go out and then persuade consumers to buy British pigmeat. When the regulations come into force or if this Bill is passed, some time this decade British pigmeat will be produced under systems with greater welfare benefits than those in any other country in the European Community. That gives us a possible competitive advantage--if we seize it.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : My hon. Friend's figures puzzle me. I have been trying to work them out : £99 million if there is an immediate ban ; if we wait for eight years, £9 million ; if we wait for five, £30 million. I can make no sense of that. The progression seems wrong, but the figures seem to be loaded in favour of the Minister's argument and against that of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body).

Mr. Maclean : I do not want to take up too much time going into the figures in depth. Our economics division has worked them out carefully. The short answer is that the figures relate to an exponential curve. We examine not just capital costs but the running costs of the enhanced systems. I can take my hon. Friend through the arguments later if he wants ; I have pages of statistics with me, but I do not want to bore the House with them.

Mr. Ron Davies : The Minister speaks about the positive advantages and the protection that would accrue from enhanced production methods. Does he accept that the logic of that argument is for him to introduce a labelling system for all animal products sold in Britain indicating the system under which they have been produced? That would be an enormous advantage to the consumer because it would allow him to exercise choice, and it would give the producer a market advantage.

Mr. Maclean : I do not want to be led into the labelling trap because time is pressing and other hon. Members wish to speak. Our independent food advisory committee has just published a huge review of all aspects of labelling, and

Column 617

welfare labelling was one of the topics considered. I expect that that massive report is in my weekend box. That will ensure that I am kept out of mischief this weekend.

Of course the Government are generally committed to the principle of more informative consumer labelling, but I stress potential marketing advantages and hammer home the point that farmers and producers need not think that there will be an automatic marketing advantage. They must get out there and tell the consumer. It sometimes grieves me to know that our egg producers are not drawing to the attention of consumers the potential benefit that British eggs may have over imported eggs.

Mr. John Townend : Could my hon. Friend give the split between capital and revenue costs, which is quite important?

Mr. Maclean : We calculate that the capital costs of buildings and equipment for sow stalls and alternative housing systems are considered to be broadly equal at about £400 per sow place. In both cases it is assumed that the total investment has a life span of about 15 years and that repair costs of £40 per place will be incurred in the last five years. Additional running costs will be associated with the alternative systems because they must have a higher quality of animal husbandry and better qualified pig men. The level of the additional costs will depend on the type of system used and the value of additional inputs.

I do not want to spend 10 minutes going through all the economics of the industry, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) about the figures that I have given and about the view that the Ministry has taken on the calculation of the costs. We think that an instant ban would cost the industry an extra £99 million and that a five-year ban would cost £30 million. Under the time scale that we propose the figure can be reduced to about £9 million.

When stalls and tethers are phased out in the rest of Europe, we must have our systems and management up and running and operating as efficiently as possible and in the best interests of the animals so that we are ready to seize the potential marketing advantage. Taking all that into account, the Government believe that changes can and should be introduced now. Powers already exist under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 for Ministers to make regulations about the welfare of livestock and, in particular, on the dimensions and layout of accommodation. The enabling Act is already in place and its powers will be used to implement any agreed Community obligations for pig welfare.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 10 January that he intended to use those powers to make regulations to phase out stall and tether systems for pigs by 31 December 1998. A consultation exercise, which is required by the 1968 Act, has already begun. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) asked whether we had the competence to introduce these regulations. We have the competence unilaterally to make them, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has the legal power to pursue his Bill. Of course we cannot enforce our regulations on other countries, nor can we ban their products because their pigmeat has not been produced under the system that is required by our regulations.

Column 618

It has been argued that our EC partners will think that an Act of Parliament resulting from the Bill has a higher standing or is more important than regulations. I see no reason for giving credence to that case. I am afraid to say, although it grieves me to do so, that we must not kid ourselves that the EC Commission pays strict attention to measures going through the House, and differentiates between whether they are Bills or regulations. Nor will it pay tremendous attention to what happens on Friday mornings in this Chamber.

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), whose contributions I always enjoy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) said that, if we reject the Bill, we shall send the wrong signal to Europe. That would be true if we did nothing at all, but I am not proposing to do nothing at all, because that would be wrong. I am asking the House to note that our new draft regulations, which are wider in scope than the Bill--

Mr. Malcolm Bruce : They are only in draft form.

Mr. Maclean : They have to be in draft form because we must go out to consultation. When the consultation has finished in February, I shall ask the House to pass the regulations into law. I believe that the regulations will be better and will go further than my hon. Friend's Bill. If the EC pays attention to what the House does, it cannot fail to be impressed by these regulations, which will become British law if the House agrees to them.

Mr. Bruce : Given the time scale that the Minister has just given us, with the consultations finished by the end of February, would it not be appropriate for him to support Second Reading and bring the results of the consultations to the Committee so that the Committee can determine what should happen on the basis of those arguments?

Mr. Maclean : That is for the House to decide. I am merely saying that, as our regulations are wider in scope than the Bill, they do everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston wishes to do with his Bill, and on other technicalities do even more. We have a disagreement on the time scale. I leave the decision to the judgment of the House, but I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Bill and go for the regulations.

The regulations that we have proposed will vary from the provisions of the Bill. The major differences are in relation to the scope of the provisions and the time by which all systems must comply. I note with interest that the Bill does not appear to prevent new installations of stall or tether systems. It would be highly unlikely, and dashed stupid, for a farmer to go ahead with such installations. Nevertheless, that point should be addressed, and our regulations do so.

With regard to the scope, I believe that our proposals go further than the Bill in some important respects. There are some producers, if only few, who keep boars and finishing pigs in close confinement systems. There is no justifiable reason for keeping these animals in such a way, and our regulations will, therefore, apply to all pigs. It is also our intention to phase out all forms of tethering, not just tethers for indoor pigs. It is the Government's view that the potential injuries and frustration that can be caused by tethers can arise in outdoor systems just as easily as in indoor ones. In addition, the old outdoor tethering systems, using a harness on a 10 to 15 ft rope, might be reintroduced. Such

Column 619

ropes can get tangled around trees or other obstacles. Of course, the possibilities for injury if they are not properly adjusted are just as severe as with ordinary tethers. We see no good reason to take these chances, and they will be outlawed by our regulations. The date by which all stall and tether systems must comply is the most contentious aspect of the regulations. The industry would prefer such action to be taken on a Community basis or, if we have to do it unilaterally, over a period of 10 years or even more. The Bill, along with many voices in the welfare lobby, proposes a five-year period. The signs are that European Community action to phase out stalls and tethers will not take place before the Commission has undertaken a review of these systems. It is difficult to predict when the EC will follow our lead. I warn the House that we shall be hard pushed, even after the most strenuous efforts, which we shall continue to take, to get it to agree the deadline in our regulations. I am certain that, irrespective of the efforts made by the Government, hon. Members and welfare organisations, the EC will not phase out stalls and tether systems within the five years proposed in the Bill. Therefore, we have proposed the date of 31 December 1998 as a realistic balance between the ideal for the industry and the five years proposed by the Bill, which the Government believe would reduce the competitiveness of the industry too much and allow in further imports of foreign pigmeat produced under the system that we would have outlawed.

There are other minor differences between the Bill and our proposals, particularly in areas where legitimate close confinement should be allowed for short periods. The Government's proposals have been sent to all interested parties for comment. The comments received will be considered quickly but most carefully before draft regulations are placed before the House. I am sorry that my hon. Friend--as I shall call him--the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) is not in his place. Both to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) may I say that I understand from my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that, following the usual practice, their regulations are not included with ours but that there is a firm intention to follow the lead that we are taking in our regulations.

Let me make it clear that the Government's proposals have not been led by the industry's economic concerns. Both my hon. Friend's Bill and our regulations will have an impact on the competitiveness of the industry. The regulations are firmly opposed by some sections of the industry. I have already said that there is a real risk that the increased costs to the industry, both capital and running costs, will lead to more imports of pigmeat produced under the stall and tether system. Until we can achieve a Community ban on stalls and tethers, those increased imports are likely to be from animals kept in the systems that we are acting against. Our time scale reduces that risk to a level with which we believe the industry can live.

The Government's timetable also has welfare considerations. Many people seem to believe that to stick sows into group housing systems, whether indoors or outside will magically lead to perfect welfare conditions. That is not necessarily true. While alternative systems may be

Column 620

ready--and some are working well in practice --the level of stockmanship required to operate them must be of a high order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston acknowledged, if different welfare problems are not to take the place of those created by stalls and tethers. That was recognised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its 1988 assessment of pig production systems. Farmers cannot find high calibre pig men and pig women to operate the alternative systems without a significant period being allowed for recruitment and training.

Let us not be in any doubt that this is a major task for the industry. If the welfare of pigs is to be improved, the industry must be given a sensible period within which to achieve that objective. Five years is a long time, but I remain to be convinced that the industry can achieve its target within that time. If it does not do so, the animals will suffer.

I believe that the Government's proposals will go further in providing welfare protection for pigs than the Bill now being discussed. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has told us for the first time that the Scottish agricultural colleges back the Government's approach. Everyone will respect their independent view. I believe that the timetable for the final phasing out date for stall and tether systems is far more realistic than that proposed by the Bill which, as I have already said, would probably serve only to export our welfare problems while causing damage to our industry. The Government's proposals will ensure that this country remains in the forefront in its commitment to farm animal welfare. Our producers will rear pigs under the most humane systems in the Community. The industry should make that fact known to consumers. The Government will not forget their commitment to raise welfare standards not only in this country but in the European Community. In future discussions on European pig welfare legislation, we shall continue to fight for our minimum standards to be adopted on a Community basis, and as quickly as possible. The Government's proposed regulations can only strengthen our hand in achieving that goal.

1.59 pm

Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : I warmly congratulate

Sir Richard Body : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Several hon. Members who have been in the Chamber for many hours wish to take part in the debate. They should be heard.

Mr. Amess : I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) on introducing the Bill. I have no intention of delaying the proceedings and I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Bill. I arrived here this morning, naively believing that not many hon. Members would wish to speak and that this was a fairly uncontentious measure--how wrong onecan be. The House may wonder about Basildon's interest in the Bill. There are still 28 farms and smallholdings in Basildon and a few of my constituents still keep pigs. My constituents enjoy pork, ham and bacon, but they have no wish to enjoy that food if it has been produced by cruel

Column 621

means. It is clear that tethering sows for four months is cruel and is a treatment more suited to being dished out to Mr. Hussein. Between 1955 and 1959 my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston represented the constituency which I now represent and he is still remembered with affection by my constituents. He will recall how warmly the people of Vange thought about him. A few years ago, those people came to my surgery complaining about the cruel tethering of horses, ponies and donkeys. I introduced a ten-minute Bill and, judging by what happened this morning, I had better fortune than my hon. Friend. With the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the then Minister, the Bill went through on the nod and the debate in the other place resulted in its name being changed. I am happy to tell the House that since 1988 there has been an Act that prevents horses, ponies and donkeys from being cruelly tethered.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston on the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading. 2.2 pm

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington) : Naturally, like all civilised people, in principle I am in favour of animal welfare and against cruelty. There is room for improvement in every aspect of agriculture and I understand the argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) about tethering. Tethering is being phased out, but the Bill goes too far, too fast.

This debate occurs on a Friday, and I am sure that my colleagues will accept that it is rather unusual to see me here on this day. I usually have constituency engagements, but I am taking part in this debate because pork production is a major industry in my constituency and because there are nearly 200 pig producers in it--indeed, there are more pigs than people. My area is the biggest pig-producing area in the United Kingdom and has some of the most efficient pig producers in Europe. So important are pigs to our part of the country that my daughter and son-in-law bought me two stone pigs as a Christmas present to put outside my door.

My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that few people are employed in this industry and that most of the work is done by the farmers. That is untrue. Many of my pig units employ a large number of staff who are well trained and have attended agricultural college.

My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston talked about animal rights--pig rights--and, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), I began to wonder where it would all end. I thought that he might suggest that pigs should have votes. I am sure that the Opposition would support that, as I do not believe that I would be back here after the next election. Animals do not and cannot have the same rights as human beings. The whole process of producing meat for human consumption demonstrates that that would not be practical. People who go over the top about this can only justify their attitude if they are vegetarians, and I accept that there are such people about. In one part of my constituency, Holderness, there are 112 pig farmers. My hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that a large proportion of pig producers are moving away from single stalls and tethers because, of that 112, 105 would be

Column 622

affected by the Bill. Not all those farms are large and my hon. Friend is also wrong to say that it is only those farms that will suffer. My hon. Friend has argued that many farms do not have any staff and that the farmer works seven days a week, but he then argued that by moving to loose styes there will be more work. Who will do that work? Unless the small-scale farmer undertakes that work he will have to incur the extra cost of employing another man.

We are all pleased at the success of the pig industry. My hon. Friend spoke about the increase in exports. Despite his criticism of the industry in my constituency, many of the exports come from east Yorkshire. Exports of breeding stock, in particular, come from one of the most famous producers-- Northern Pig Development.

We all accept that there will be a small premium market that will appeal to the green element in society. I noted with interest what my hon. Friend said about Safeway--no doubt that store will be copied by Tesco and Sainsbury. I assure my hon. Friend that if my pig producers thought that they could get 25 per cent. more on the cost of their pigs by changing their system, the system would change tomorrow. I congratulate my hon. Friend on coming second in the ballot. Ever since I entered the House 11 years ago I have seen a regrettable steady decline in the number of hon. Members who could be described as characters and their own men. I am pleased to say that I have always looked upon my hon. Friend as his own man, and without any doubt he is a parliamentary character. He is an independent man, a person of integrity and courage. Over the years I have greatly admired the way in which he has criticised the nonsense of the agricultural policy of the Common Market. However, I was hurt and saddened at what I considered to be his unwarranted attack on the pig industry when he launched his Bill. I was saddened at his attack on the pig farmers in my constituency and, in particular, on the stockmen. I am sure that my hon. Friend is a generous man and that, on reflection, he will accept that criticism, especially as he admitted to the House that he had not visited a single farm. If the Yorkshire Post has misreported him, no doubt my hon. Friend will wish to intervene and I shall be happy to allow him to do so. My hon. Friend's remarks were so outrageous that they were described in the Yorkshire Post in the following terms : "A scathing attack on Humberside's more intensive pig producers has come from the Tory MP, Sir Richard Body at the launch of his Private Members Bill on pig husbandry yesterday. Sir Richard, MP for Holland with Boston, said he thought it would be a very good thing if many of the regions 1,000 sow producers went out of business."

With respect, that was an appalling thing to say. I know that my hon. Friend has been involved in agriculture for many years. He has also been a Member of Parliament for many years. I do not know whether he has ever faced bankruptcy but he should realise that when people go out of business and go bankrupt there are enormous effects not only for them but for their families and for those who work for them.

Sir Richard Body : Let me clear this matter up. What I said then, and what I have said in my hon. Friend's constituency on two occasions, is that livestock farming should be conducted in smaller units. I deplore the fact

Column 623

that livestock farming is involving larger and larger units because that is not good farming. That was my point. I do not want anyone to go bankrupt.

Mr. Townend : If many of the 1,000 sow producers go out of business, more than simply one or two big producers will be involved. As I said, there are 200 pig producers in my constituency.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : Let me interpose myself between my two hon. Friends. The key point is that if there are more smaller pig producers, there are more, not fewer, jobs. My hon. Friend should realise that there will be changes ; we heard as much from the Minister. The question concerns timing and whether we should go further. I think that the House would like the Bill to go into Committee and to see what happens after that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) may prefer to have no change at all, but he must face the fact that that choice is not available. The question is whether he and others propose to continue the debate for 10 or 20 minutes and prevent the House from reaching a decision on the Second Reading of the Bill, when pigmeat consumers clearly want to have confidence in what they eat. I believe that the pig producers' best friend is my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who, like so many of us, wants the Bill to go into Committee.

Mr. Townend : I represent the biggest pig producing area in the country. Not one pig farmer has written to me in support of the Bill. I am in contact with my farmers on a regular basis and I have not met one farmer who is in favour of the Bill.

The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston have caused great upset in my constituency. He is reported to have said :

"I think they are not good farmers ; not good livestock men at all."

How he can say that about farms he has never visited, I do not know. My hon. Friend continued :

"I know how they spend their time : sat behind mahogany desks with a computer."

I do not know what is significant about a mahogany desk and I cannot believe that my hon. Friend really thinks that farming can be carried on today without a desk, without paperwork and without adequate costings. Even Members of Parliament have been dragged reluctantly into the 20th century and have their own computers. My hon. Friend went on to say, although I do not know how he could say this, given that he has not been to any farms :

"They also recruited a very poor type of stockman. I regard stockmanship as an art. In their eyes it's entirely a science, and I don't think they make good farmers."

It was most inappropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston to attack the work force in the industry and his attack was greatly resented. Many stockmen in the pig industry attended the Bishop Burton agricultural college. They are very dedicated men. It is a matter of argument whether something is a science or an art. Just because my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston believes that the industry is an art, that does not mean that those who think it is a science are wrong. My hon. Friend went on to say that many would "throw in the sponge" over the coming years. If the Bill is enacted, many people in the pig industry will do that because they will face financial pressure.

Column 624

I agreed with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Minister said. However, he accepted that the Bill would place enormous financial pressure on the industry. Having said that, and having put forward many of the arguments that I intended to put forward and with which I agreed 100 per cent., I could not understand why my hon. Friend the Minister reached his conclusions.

I will give the House an idea of the resentment caused by the remarks of my hon.. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston. In a letter to the Yorkshire Post on 19 January, a pig farmer called Mr. Dewhirst wrote

"The only element of truth in that statement is that nearly all pig farmers use computers to record the performance of their herds." I cannot understand why my hon. Friend opposes the use of computers. Mr. Dewhirst, continued :

"They are an essential aid to management and are used in many other areas of agriculture just as they are in all industry."

Without being offensive to my hon. Friend, Mr. Dewhirst went on to write :

"This modern-day Luddite would obviously far prefer to see us all blundering in the dark without the use of any technological advance whatsoever.

His second assertion that pig farmers in Humberside have recruited a very poor type of stockman' is a disgraceful slur on some of the more dedicated and hard working men and women employed in agriculture.

Humberside possesses some of the most efficient pig units in the world, with numbers of piglets reared per sow per year being the envy of many Continental producers."

If the Bill enters Standing Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has an opportunity to speak, I hope that he will give a full apology to the industry and in particular to the very hard working dedicated stockmen in the industry who are great believers in animal welfare and care for their animals more than anyone else.

Unlike many hon. Members present today, I have been to see some of the best run pig units. I visited some of those units in my constituency last Saturday and that was a very good way to spend a Saturday. I visited one of Mr. Dewhirst's units. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, Mr. Dewhirst is one of those computer pig breeders who sits behind a mahogany desk. Mr. Dewhirst began breeding pigs in 1972 with 140 sows. Over the years he has expanded his business and he now runs five pig units with 1,700 sows producing more than 35,000 bacon pigs a year. Before starting his pig business, he spent three years at agricultural college completing his national diploma in agriculture and a diploma in pig technology at Harper Adams college. Mr. Dewhirst employs very skilled and efficient people.

Next Section

Home Page