House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Apr 1991

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : I am not sure how my hon. Friend knows what my views are on animal welfare. In the eight years I have been in the House, I have never spoken on the subject.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) : It must be the only one!

Mrs. Currie : As for the views on animal welfare held by farmers in the midlands, if there is an opportunity this morning I intend to express the views of farmers in my constituency on the animal welfare issues that are raised in the Bill.

Sir Richard Body : I am sure that my hon. Friend is not inclined to entice me to repeat what has been said by a number of people who have overheard her comments. [ Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] Her views on the subject are known.

Mrs. Currie : They cannot be.

Sir Richard Body : My hon. Friend can huff and puff, if she wishes--

Mr. Sedgemore : She is a whinger.

Sir Richard Body : --but her views on the subject are known.

Mrs. Currie : They are not.

Sir Richard Body : It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that she has not expressed her views in the House--I agree about that--but she has expressed them right enough.

Mrs. Currie : I have not.

Mr. Sedgemore : Dick knows.

Column 1372

Sir Richard Body : She has expressed them, but I do not intend to repeat them.

Mrs. Currie : My hon. Friend does not know what they are.

Sir Richard Body : Indeed I do.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. There is a motion before us for debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep to it. Then we shall have fewer interventions from a sedentary position from all parts of the House.

Sir Richard Body : I could invite the House to take a tour around my constituency and consider all the road schemes that may or may not be pushed through. We listened to all that for about an hour, but I shall not do that. I intend to stick to the point, but it ought to be recorded that a few hon. Members tried to prevent any debate on the Bill. I had hoped that we might debate it.

I am not concerned about the Bill going through ; as I have already said, the regulations are on the way and will be approved. We shall then have all that the Bill would have done, not only in this country but throughout the European Community, for the reasons that I have just given. The battle has been won. However, I had hoped that we might have a reasonably short debate on two points, the first being the European issue with which I have dealt. The European Commission is anxious to proceed along the lines of the Bill. I had also hoped that there might be an opportunity to rebut spurious scientific evidence about the 35-day period. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington would have quoted a few scientists. I had hoped to have the opportunity to show that that evidence is mistaken and that for every scientist that my hon. Friend could produce, there are many others who would say exactly the opposite.

Pig farmers overwhelmingly take a different view from that upheld by the small band of scientists who support the close confinement of sows throughout virtually the whole of their lives. I had hoped that it would be possible to explain that neither the Bill nor the regulations need prohibit the segregation of sows. All that the Bill and the regulations do is to prevent them from being so segregated and confined that they cannot move around.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us are here today to support the Bill that he saw through its Committee stage and that we are deeply disappointed that two hon. Members have sabotaged the Bill? Such a procedure is perfectly within the Standing Orders of the House. Nevertheless, it is deeply regrettable, as the Bill received its Second Reading after a clear majority of 118 hon. Members had voted for closure.

Sir Richard Body : Three hon. Members were involved and one or two others were going to come along later to help to sabotage it. However, it was a futile exercise because we shall achieve the aims of the Bill. Unfortunately, those aims will not be achieved in an Act of Parliament, and will not be debated in detail, as we had hoped. Had hon. Members raised scientific and practical points, their concerns could have been met.

The great majority of pig farmers who do not have 1,000-sow herds are in favour of the Bill and of cleaning up pig farming.

Column 1373

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington) : My hon. Friend really does not know east riding where there are pig farms of all sizes. I have not had one letter from a pig farmer opposing my stand on the Bill. I have had 100 per cent. support in opposing the Bill. I challenge my hon. Friend to come to east Yorkshire and address a meeting of my pig farmers. He will find out that he is wrong and that he does not have the support of pig farmers. Some of them are in the Strangers' Gallery. He is misleading the House. I am sorry that he is withdrawing his Bill without hearing the debate because we have the facts--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) was misleading the House? If that is the case, will he now withdraw that remark?

Mr. Townend : I apologise. I will rephrase that remark. My hon. Friend made an incorrect statement when he said that the majority of pig farmers supported the Bill. I challenge him to have a referendum with the pig farmers on that. I have a file full of letters which all--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Let us keep the debate in good order. The hon. Gentleman asked for an intervention. I shall try to call him later, but if he has finished his intervention I would be obliged if he would allow the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill to speak.

Sir Richard Body : I might be out of order if I remind the House that the only reason why I was selected by my constituency some 25 years ago was that I spoke with authority about pigs. The only reason why I chose to speak about pigs at my selection conference was that it was the one subject that I knew a bit about and I thought that I could stand up for myself on that issue.

My hon. Friend might be right about meadow units. I accept that, but they are not representative of farming or the great majority of pig farmers. I have been in the pig business for a long time and I have been to east riding four or five times to speak to audiences of pig farmers. I must say that on the last occasion I went there, they did not seem much like the majority of pig farmers elsewhere. They all arrived in Mercedes and other large cars. They did not seem to know much about pigs, but they knew all about computers and management. Some years ago a farmer in my constituency gave up pig farming. I asked him what he was going to do next and he said that he planned to concentrate on vegetables, mainly cauliflowers. I said, "That will be a tremendous difference", and he said, "No, it is all marketing. The same principles of marketing apply to pigs as to cauliflowers." That constituent had the same attitude to animal welfare as some of the farmers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the attitude of the pig farmers of east riding towards his Bill, the public will not stand for those practices any longer? The public buy the pork that comes from the pig farmers of east riding and elsewhere and they are the principal impetus behind the worthy Bill that the hon. Gentleman is promoting.

Sir Richard Body : The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but it goes a bit further than that. The House has been discussing the matter for a long time. As long ago as 1981, the Select Committee on Agriculture spent a long

Column 1374

time hearing all the arguments before producing a report that was against the use of sow stalls and tethering except under certain conditions--the kind of conditions embodied in the Bill and draft regulations. When the House supported the report in 1982, there was not a dissenting voice.

Ten years ago, there were no 1,000-sow units. Huge factory farms did not exist. They were about to appear and we thought that we should jump on them then. Unfortunately, however, we did not, and the result is that we now have some units with 3,000 sows. One man who telephoned me at the weekend has 10,000 sows on a huge mega-farm--if one can call them farms. That is almost unbelievable. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but it is not only public opinion that is against the practice ; the House condemned the system through its Select Committee and in a debate on the subject as long ago as 1982.

We are making progress. We are virtually there. The regulations are on the way and, as I said, the Commission has given the assurance that it, too, will be taking action. The House can be pleased with what has been achieved. It would seem that three hon. Members--perhaps one or two more-- wish to sabotage our attempts. I am afraid that, in future, they will find that rather more difficult because of the Community. I am no supporter of the way in which the Common Market operates, but we must face the fact that, in future, many of our laws will be made not by this House but in Brussels. [ Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] Yes ; the legislation on this subject and on slaughterhouses will be made elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that this country is leading in Europe. We are ahead of the other countries, and they are following. That is an achievement, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done.

1.22 pm

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : In supporting the motion, I wish first to express my great sadness that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has been forced to move it. This is a sad day because the House is sending a signal to the country and to the European Community that the British Parliament will allow itself to be sabotaged--in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)--and will allow vested financial interests to stand in the way of minor improvements in animal welfare.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. I fully acknowledge the support that he has received from the Minister for the principle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister are two honourable exceptions in the present-day Tory party. We have seen this morning that the Tory party is prepared to sacrifice minimal improvements in animal welfare for very marginal economic benefits. I recognise that other Conservative Members who have sponsored or supported the Bill are also exceptions, but we have seen the true face of the modern Tory party in the tactics that we witnessed this morning. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)--

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : The bookie's runner.

Mr. Davies : My hon. Friend refers to the hon. Gentleman as a bookie's runner. I would not put a bet on with the hon. Gentleman and I certainly would not fancy

Column 1375

him running. His tactics this morning showed neither courage nor integrity. He abused the procedures of the House. He did not wish to challenge the Bill that would now have been before us, choosing instead to subvert the procedures of the House to prevent the House from discussing and deciding on the matter. His actions were both undemocratic and anti-democratic. He would have done himself more service if he had been prepared to oppose the measure openly and frankly.

The debate and the Bill deal with a cause that has inspired millions of people. By his actions this morning, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh has brought disrepute to himself, the House of Commons and the Tory party. He was not alone. He was aided by those waiting in the wings. he was preceded by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who spoke for 18 minutes, and the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who spoke for 27 minutes. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) was waiting in the wings, as was the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). They are all signatories to the amendments.

Miss Emma Nicholson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies : I will give way to the hon. Lady, because I have named her. However, first I wish to finish my specific point.

The amendments were not designed to improve the Bill or to allow us to debate its benefits or economic consequences. They were tabled for the express purpose of allowing those hon. Members to kill the Bill this morning.

Mrs. Currie : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I signed the amendments to the Pig Husbandry Bill. He is wrong and I ask him to withdraw that.

Mr. Davies : The record will show clearly that I accused the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South of speaking for 18 minutes. When I referred to the amendments, I specifically referred to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West and the hon. Member--

Miss Emma Nicholson : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Chair to confirm that I did not have my name down to speak in the previous debate, that my name was not involved in any amendment and that it is a figment of Opposition Members' imagination that I was waiting in the wings to speak in the previous debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Let us cool the debate. These are matters for debate and I hope to call the hon. Lady shortly.

Mr. Davies : I do not wish to cool the debate. I am particularly angry this morning because I have seen the practices--

Miss Emma Nicholson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies : I shall answer the point that the hon. Lady raised in a moment.

Miss Emma Nicholson : Is the hon. Gentleman going to give way?

Column 1376

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member at the Dispatch Box said a moment ago that he was willing to give way in his own time. I am sure that he will do so.

Mr. Davies : Of course, I will. Faced with a lady who wishes to intervene and a lady in the Chair, I have no option but to give way. The charge against the hon. Lady is that she is a signatory to the amendment tabled for debate this morning. I refer her to the amendments--

Miss Emma Nicholson rose--

Mr. Davies : The hon. Lady must restrain herself. She was not present while we listened for two hours to the most tedious speech from her hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who is a partner in her crime. I, who have been listening for two hours, take it amiss that she has been in the Chamber for only five minutes and wishes immediately to intervene. She is a party to the crime of this morning's hijack of the proceedings. She wants her hon. Friends to be allowed to give it, so she must take it for a moment.

Mr. John Townend : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies : No, the hon. Gentleman should sit down.

My point is that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West is a signatory to the amendments--

Miss Emma Nicholson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies : For goodness sake, for the fourth time

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady must restrain herself. The hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box said that he would give way when he had finished his point. Will she please restrain herself until he gives way to her?

Mr. Davies : My point is that the amendments were tabled for the express purpose of killing the Bill. The hon. Lady is a signatory to the amendments. If she wishes to justify that, or withdraw her name from the amendments, I willingly give way to her.

Miss Emma Nicholson : The hon. Gentleman is withdrawing from his earlier statement, when he said that I was a partner in crime and was waiting in the wings to speak in the earlier debate. Does he agree that that was incorrect? My name was not down to speak in the earlier debate. I came here to speak on the Pig Husbandry Bill. The hon. Gentleman is taking my name in vain. Indeed, he is turning out to be a classic Labour male chauvinist pig or, might I suggest, a real sorry bore.

Mr. Davies : The hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to her view. The record will show that my point is clear and that it was clear when I made it initially. We have had one debate already this morning. It was deliberately prolonged by the hon. Members whom I have named precisely to ensure that inadequate time remained for this debate. Miss Emma Nicholson rose--

Mr. Davies : The hon. Lady must restrain herself. I know that she is getting excited, but she must--

Miss Emma Nicholson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Column 1377

Mr. Davies : No. The hon. Lady must understand that when a Member is addressing the House he has a right to finish a sentence without these constant interruptions.

The hon. Lady is a party to this morning's attempt to kill the Bill. Her name is on the list of amendments. I am fully aware that she intended to come to the House to speak to the amendments to the Pig Husbandry Bill. All Labour Members know that the purpose of the amendments is to kill the Bill, as the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made clear.

Mr. John Townend : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies : No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman now. There will be further opportunities for him to speak.

Mr. Mullin : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies : I shall give way to my hon. Friend because he was present for the Second Reading of the Bill. He has been in constant contact with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston and has shown himself to be supportive throughout all the proceedings of the Bill in this House, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). If any of them wishes me to give way to them, I shall certainly do so because I know that they are concerned about improvement in animal welfare standards.

Mr. Mullin : My constituents and I care strongly about this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those responsible for this morning's sabotage and the vested interests that put them up to it do not derive any advantage from what happened? Indeed, on the contrary, does he agree that it is important that they derive a serious disadvantage and understand that their actions this morning will be to the detriment of the vested interests that they represent? I realise that my hon. Friend is about to say that a Labour Government will certainly support such a measure in the European Community and, if necessary, through legislation. Does he agree that when the issue returns to the House we should think in terms of reducing the phasing-out period from 10 to the original five years? That would signal to the vested interests that the more they carry on with this sabotage, the harder it will get for them.

Mr. Davies : That is a powerful argument and I shall return to it in a moment.

I pay full credit to the Minister who will introduce regulations which will give effect to the particular purposes of the Bill. I have told him privately and will now do so in public that we shall do all we can to facilitate the passage of that legislation.

The present difficulty arises because this is a private Member's Bill and it would be inappropriate for the party to arrange any whipping or attempt to make a party political response to the Bill. All my hon. Friends who have supported the measure have done so as private Members. It is noteworthy that when the closure was forced on Second Reading, every Labour Member who voted, supported the Bill. It is true that the Labour party is absolutely committed to not only this welfare measure but others. I give full credit also to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who represents the Liberal Democrats, who share our objectives in this matter. It is true that thus far we have been acting as private Members and that when the matter is introduced as a Government

Column 1378

measure, we shall give it our full support. Inasmuch as this private Member's Bill has been wrecked, I undertake that when we have a Labour Government, as I am confident we shall in the

not-too-distant future, we shall review these measures.

The hon. Member for Langbaurgh spoke for two hours this morning, but he has not had the courtesy to remain for this debate. However, he achieved one thing this morning : an incoming Labour Government will review the regulations. The attempt to hijack and sabotage the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston may have been successful, but that action may rebound on those hon. Members responsible. They will not be allowed to profit from their infamy. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston had the support of many of my hon. Friends and his colleagues when he sought to move the closure. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. Those hon. Members who killed the Bill this morning did not have the courage, integrity or the troops to call a Division against the Second Reading. They let the Bill go in the knowledge that they would attempt to subvert the will of Parliament at a later stage. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston had the full support of the Government. They wanted the Bill to be amended to bring it into line with their objectives. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that we had a constructive debate in Committee when we explored the relevant issues. A number of amendments were accepted with near-unanimity which took account of the representations made, the need for the Bill and the Government's reservations. There was unanimity about attaining those objectives.

We improved the Bill and it came back to the House for what we hoped would be a formal Report stage and Third Reading. Little did we know that those hon. Members to whom I have referred would set about their task of tabling wrecking amendments with the purpose of killing the Bill.

Those hon. Members have succeeded in killing the Bill and I suppose that that is a credit to their parliamentary tactics, but it is a discredit to them as members of the human race. They have done a personal disservice to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, who is a respected member of their party because of his support for animal welfare. Although the hon. Gentleman is a man of integrity and commitment to the cause of animal welfare, it is clear that he does not have many friends in the present Tory party. Those hon. Members, by wrecking the Bill, have done a disservice to the cause of animal welfare as the British House of Commons has been shown incapable of accepting even a minor measure that would result in minor improvements in animal welfare.

How will such actions strengthen the arm of the Minister, committed as he is to argue for animal welfare in the European Community? The Minister may argue at the EC that Britain wants to enforce the highest standards and to improve animal welfare. How will he defend his case when those who do not want to adopt the supposedly traditional British standards of animal welfare turn to him and say, "Yes Minister, but what happened to the Pig Husbandry Bill?" Where is the great British commitment to animal welfare when financial vested interests were used to hijack the British House of Commons.

Column 1379

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that most hon. Members will be disappointed that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has not succeeded. I must defend the integrity, however, of my parliamentary colleagues. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) alleged that they are acting for vested interests, but I am sure that they are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents. I am quite sure that if they had an interest in such matters they would have declared it.

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is barely a point of order for me because I am sure that those hon. Members would, or will, declare their interests. I hope that they will have an opportunity to respond during the debate.

Mr. Davies : I am not suggesting for one moment that those hon. Members who killed the Bill will receive any personal gain from doing so. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is wrong if he thinks that I made such an assertion. If I had done so I would have referred to the declaration of interests and I would have specified my charges. I have made no personal accusations, but vested interests have wrecked the Bill. Some of those vested interests represent the pig farmers whom the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned earlier and whom he considers with such disapproval. Those farmers might be the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Butterfill rose--

Mr. Davies : I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman raised a phoney point of order and he should give me the courtesy of his attention when I reply to it. I suggested that they had deliberately inspired hon. Members to kill the Bill. They did so because they did not wish to be involved in the capital expenditure that would be necessary to bring about the improvements. They believed, wrongly, that they would suffer a small financial disadvantage if the Bill were passed. That is why the Bill has been killed and that is why I make the charge. The Bill is about improvements in welfare standards and it has been killed because it would marginally infringe on the financial interests of those who would be affected. That is my charge and I do not withdraw it. I am glad, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you ruled that my charge was valid. I believe that the hon. Members who have killed the Bill have done a disservice to their constituents by their actions and they have demeaned the House and themselves. The Bill was a small but important measure. It would have brought about minor improvements in welfare and in dry stalls by preventing a practice that has been widely recognised as cruel, unnecessary and unacceptable. The Bill was important not merely because it would have prevented the practice of using stalls and tethers, but because it would have been a message that the House was prepared to legislate and to demonstrate a commitment to be at least a first step in matters of animal welfare. That is why the defeat of the Bill saddens me.

The Bill was not presented as the personal whim or crusade of one individual. It had the support of everyone who has studied the practice of sow husbandry.

Sir Richard Body indicated assent.

Column 1380

Mr. Davies : The hon. Member for Holland with Boston agrees. It was widely supported on Second Reading when hon. Member after hon. Member testified to the strength of public feeling. Hundreds of letters were written and more than 100 hon. Members took it on themselves to come to the Second Reading debate to commit themselves to the cause of the Bill. There was not only support from those of us who are public representatives, but specific and specialist support from others who had considered the Bill. The veterinary profession was almost united--the hon. Member for Holland with Boston will challenge me if I am wrong about that--in advocating the Bill. Academics who have studied husbandry have supported the Bill, as did the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming--whose Bill it was--and the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which was established to advise the Government on animal welfare and the European Commission. The Government support the principles behind the Bill even if they do not support the precise form in which it has been drafted.

Although the Bill has received broad support, it has been destroyed by the vested interests to which I referred, ostensibly to further economic interests. I believe that hon. Members who have spoken so far and who believe that they have served the financial cause of their pig-producing constituents have done them a disservice, not only for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) but for another reason : I believe that the British pig industry will be disadvantaged because consumers will begin to show a preference. The hon. Member for Bridlington may mock, but I look forward to a proper system of food labelling so that our constituents, when they do their weekly shopping, will be able to express support through their purchasing power for non-intensive systems and for systems that rear animals in conditions which they consider acceptable. The hon. Members to whom I refer therefore, have done their constituents a disservice in the financial sense. One benefit of the Bill has been a proper debate about the impact on sow and pig rearing of the stall and tether system. All the evidence from the academics and veterinarians who have studied the matter is that the alternative systems which the Bill would encourage are more efficient pig producers than the stall and tether system. The alternative systems give a greater opportunity for breeding at a marginally faster rate. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that litter sizes and the growth of piglets are superior under the alternative systems.

Sir Richard Body : The hon. Gentleman mentioned academics and veterinarians. Does he agree that stockmen share their view? Just over a year ago, I took part in the launch of the National Herdspersons Society to try to raise the standard of stockmanship. Members of that organisation are wholly in favour of raising standards and of ending the sow stall system because it has driven out of farming so many good stockmen. They say that one cannot be a good pigman unless one likes pigs, any more than one cannot be a good shepherd unless one likes sheep. They say that one cannot support and condone the system of sow stalls on its present scale if one has any feeling for or wish to work with pigs. That view has been repeated many times by professional stockmen for many years. It was emphasised to the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1981. The prediction was made on behalf of the stockmen

Column 1381

that good stockmen would get out of the pig industry if the sow stall system continued. We have had to learn that lesson.

Mr. Davies : The hon. Gentleman is correct in the matters to which he has drawn our attention, as he is in so many other matters relating to farming.

The express concern of the hon. Members who have killed the Bill was that Britain would be out of step with Europe and that British interests would be jeopardised. I do not believe that. There is now clear evidence--the Minister may wish to address the point--that the Commission would have accepted the standards in the Bill and that it would have ensured that the standards were adopted throughout Europe. The cause of animal welfare in Europe has been weakened by the decision this morning.

There is some consolation in our debate. At the end of the day, victory will go to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. He has ensured that we have had a full debate, that the public are aware of the issues, that the public have had the opportunity to express their concern and that the wide range of specialist and scientific opinion to which I referred has been given the opportunity to present its case to the House. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that his hon. Friend has ensured that when the Minister tables the regulations, stalls and tethers will be phased out. Those of us of all parties who are prepared to argue the case for animal welfare will have to acknowledge our debt to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. I pay full tribute to him.

I understand that the Government have put the regulations out to consultation in almost final form. I have not yet had a chance to look at the proposed regulations in detail, but I understand that they will give full effect, if in a different way, to the proposals in the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on that. The regulations will have our full support when they come before the House and we will do whatever is necessary to facilitate their passage through the House.

The hon. Members who have attempted to kill the Bill this morning will not be allowed to profit from what they have done. One of the earliest acts of an incoming Labour Government's Ministry of Food and Farming will be to review all farm welfare measures. We shall then look, as a matter of Government policy, at whether the regulations now being tabled should be continued.

1.50 pm

Next Section

Home Page