House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Apr 1991

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : I shall be brief to enable other hon. Members to take part in the discussion, and I hope that I can restore some of the harmony and consensus that existed on Second Reading and largely in Committee.

I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has had to withdraw his Bill, and I understand why he has taken that step. There was a great deal of consensus in Committee. All the issues were widely explored, particularly the vexed question of when the end of the phasing out period should be. Amendments were proposed to bring the date forward and to bring it in line with the Government's position. It is remarkable that hon. Members on both sides with deeply held views on

Column 1382

animal welfare concluded that the phase-out period which is now in my hon. Friend's Bill, and which will be the same in our regulations, was an appropriate time.

I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for his kind words and, at the outset, I wish to put on record firmly that the Government agree with the objectives of the Bill. As I said in Committee, we take, and will continue to take, the matter of pig welfare seriously. On every occasion I have spoken about the Bill I have said that the Government would rather the objectives of the Bill were achieved by way of regulations made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. The House will be aware that the Bill, as amended in Committee, contains a number of tortuous formulae which are necessary only because we are working with primary legislation.

I also made it clear that we would have preferred our regulations in the first place, but, because the Bill was considerably amended in Committee, it would have had the support of the Government. We welcome it and could have lived with it. I would also have told the House today, had we dealt with the amendments, that the Government could not have accepted any of them as tabled and would have wished the Bill to have passed as it stood. But I shall not go into any of those details now. I suspect that we shall cover them when we debate the regulations, which will be laid and be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure.

As we have no Bill, we can have regulations instead, and I intend that that shall happen. Those regulations can be introduced quickly and relatively easily, and they will have exactly the same effect as the Bill. Officials in my Department are maintaining a draft version which mirrors the progress of the Bill. The latest version was issued for brief comment on Tuesday of this week, with a short period given for further comments to be made. We kept that measure ticking over because we believe that regulations could be better than the Bill. We wanted a fall-back position in case this eventuality, as happened today, occurred. We gave a commitment that the Government intended to introduce regulations if the Bill fell. It now seems that the Bill will fall, so we intend to introduce the regulations. I should give a slight warning. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston quoted the support of the Commission. I understand that although the Commission has not put a block on the regulations, the deadline for notifying the EC has not yet expired. We have until 6 May, and it is possible that there will be objections to them. If the Commission is giving us the green light, that is excellent news. If we get the Commission fully on our side, while that is good news and will allow our regulations to proceed unhindered, it will not mean that all other EC countries will fall in line pdq.

We will have a tough fight on our hands to persuade other EC countries, with the full support of the Commission if we have it, that they should follow the British lead on animal welfare. I can assure the House that when our regulations are in place--if the House agrees to them--we shall press most strongly in Brussels and other EC countries for similar legislation to apply there so that we are not at a competitive disadvantage and animals in those other countries are not at a welfare disadvantage.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that the will of the House had been frustrated today. May I say on the Government's behalf that the will of the House will

Column 1383

not be frustrated today. Many hon. Members agreed with the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston and the Government would agree with it if it were amended. The regulations, which we have put out for consultation, mirror that. I give a clear undertaking that we intend to proceed with those regulations and, barring any hiccup from the Commission or our parliamentary procedure, they could and should be law by the summer.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is little debating time left. I hope to call all hon. Members. If they apply common sense and speak briefly, I may be able to do so.

1.57 pm

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : I shall speak for the fewest possible moments because I know the keen interest of other hon. Members to ensure that their voices are heard.

I warmly welcome the Government's adoption of measures identical to those proposed in the Bill. I read carefully everything that was said on Second Reading, for which I was present, and in Committee. I supported the Bill and its principle on Second Reading. My views on it are on the record. I asked the sponsor no fewer than five times if I could be on the Committee so that I could make some other points. He was unable to hear me in that context, which is the sole reason why I put down my name to speak today. I was glad to put my name with those of other hon. Members in support of the amendments. They are important amendments which should have been heard in Committee, and if I had been fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee I would have spoken to them then.

I am a lifetime supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The deputy chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA was, at my instigation, the only speaker at a meeting of the constituency farm council of Torridge and Devon, West more than a year ago when we discussed other aspects of intensive farming. I proposed the Slaughter of Deer Bill which, I am sorry to say, was blocked by members of Her Majesty's Opposition. It was a private Member's Bill and I accept that it was not blocked by Front-Bench spokesmen ; Members of both major Opposition parties blocked it, for which I am sorry. I have a track record of speaking on animal welfare matters in the House and have put forward my own Bill.

I am glad that the Minister spoke so strongly in favour of the principles and practice of the Bill. I am also glad that he will now have time to consider the points made in the amendments. We shall perhaps have another opportunity to discuss those points with him. I welcome that and look forward immensely to working with him. 1.58 pm

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington) : I have no vested interest in the pig industry. I see that the "Oxford English Dictionary" defines someone with a vested interest as someone with a personal interest in the state of affairs with an expectation of gain.

Column 1384

I am sad that the Bill has been withdrawn. If my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) had not withdrawn it, we could have had a debate of an hour and a half and I would have had an opportunity to propose the amendments in my name. They were not wrecking amendments ; I did not intend to wreck the Bill and I made an offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston to withdraw my opposition if he would accept my amendment dealing with the 35 days issue. We proposed that amendment on the basis of welfare as well as economics. As other hon. Members wish to speak, I am sorry that I will not have the opportunity to make those points. My other main amendment would have prevented the Bill from coming into operation until there was equivalent legislation in other Community countries. I was saddened to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said. When my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that he wished to withdraw the Bill, I thought that there would be rejoicing in east Yorkshire tonight. The pig farmers realise that their livelihoods are at risk. I tell Labour Members that as a rural Member of Parliament, it is my job to represent my constituents--just as it is the job of mining or textile Members of Parliament to represent their constituents.

There has been a clear change of Government policy

Sir Richard Body rose --

Mr. Townend : With respect, other hon. Members wish to speak and my hon. Friend has had a good crack today. I have been waiting all day to speak. I was prepared to speak for three hours and I would have talked out the Bill because it would undermine the British pig industry.

In March 1989, the former Minister said in a Ministry document : "It is clear that any legislation should be on a Community-wide basis."

The major objection of the pig industry is that, when moving towards a single market, the Bill would not allow them to compete on a level playing field. The Government now intend to impose regulations that will make their position very difficult. On Second Reading, the Minister accepted that the Bill would disadvantage British trade, so I do not foresee objections from other EEC countries. He also said that the Bill had to be enacted within five years, or we would be flooded with pigmeat produced under the system that we had banned. That is likely to happen at the end of eight years because the revenue differential will be the same. The Minister also said that the new proposals would increase running costs 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."--[ Official Report, 25 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 617.]

We expect the Labour party not to back British industry, but we expect the Conservative party to defend British industry and British agriculture. The Minister says that he will attempt to obtain EC regulations. I do not think that there is a cat in hell's chance of that. Some 90 per cent. of pig breeding in Denmark is under the dry sow system, as is 80 per cent. in Holland and more than half in Belgium, France and Germany, and the system is expanding rapidly in Spain. In Holland, it would be practically impossible to move to loose houses because it does not have the straw.

Column 1385

European Governments back their farmers for political and national reasons. If we legislate as the Government suggest, our pig farmers will be at a disadvantage. Can the House imagine other Common Market countries introducing legislation to lessen the advantage to their farmers? Can the House imagine the French introducing legislation that would place further burdens on their farmers while giving our farmers an advantage? It is inconceivable.

I know that we are up against it, but we shall continue the battle. Whatever regulations the Government may introduce, if they are imposed on our industry and not on our competitors, we will oppose them. There has already been one example of that on veal calf crates. They have been abolished in Britain, so when the calves are born they go to Holland, where they are fattened in the very crates that are illegal in this country and the veal then comes back to Britain. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that British farmers had lost an opportunity. Does he really believe that if the Bill had been passed and the cost of our pigmeat increased, the ordinary punter in the supermarket would be prepared to pay a premium for British bacon over Danish bacon? Labour Members do not live in the real world. It is difficult enough to try to sell British bacon in competition against the long tradition, heavy marketing and high quality of Danish bacon and we have made a lot of progress. However, if one attempts to appeal to a niche market--to sell to the sort of people who will make that decision--one will condemn oneself to a small part--10 or 15 per cent. --of the market.

There is a deficiency of £6 billion a year on our food account--larger than that for cars. The Government are introducing an initiative to reduce that deficiency and to increase exports of food products and decrease imports. Considering our balance of payments problems in the past 18 months, we certainly need to do that. How can one expect our food industry to increase exports if it cannot compete on a level basis? When my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston talks about pig farmers in my constituency, he does not know what he is talking about. They vary from the smallest to the largest pig farmers. We have the largest concentration of pigs, and we are the major producers of pork in the country.

The reason why British bacon has been gaining market share is the quality and price of the bacon produced by those farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston wants to go back 25 years to the old farmer in his muddy boots. He does not think that they should have desks or computers. Why have they come to meetings in nice cars? Because they are successful. One thing that the former Prime Minister did for this country was to show that we have to be successful if we are to survive. When I hear all this claptrap I think that it is a criticism of successful farmers who are able to produce more. For years the Government have been calling on farmers to produce more and to reduce imports. If they have been successful and have invested the money, they will have made profits. Therefore, they have a right to a good car, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has a good car out of his parliamentary allowance.

I am ashamed of what has been going on and of the way in which pig farmers have been treated. I shall fight and fight again to make the Government change their mind.

Column 1386

2.6 pm

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : The arguments used by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) did not do pig farmers a good service. I probably represent a level of pig production comparable to that which he represents. In the past few weeks, I have sat down with large-scale pig farmers and their advisers in my constituency and I am well aware that they are concerned about welfare.

If there has been a full debate on the Bill today I would have been prepared to engage in that constructive debate and to ensure that their concerns were taken into account as we move into the transitional phase. That is legitimate, as the Government have said that they will introduce regulations and I think that farmers' worries need to be considered. However, I do not in any way withdraw my support for the Bill.

One of the reasons why I support the Bill is my belief that public opinion is demanding this change of our farmers, and it does farmers no good to have representatives such as the hon. Member for Bridlington telling them that he is not interested in what the British public want or what Parliament wishes as regards animal welfare demands. Essentially, that is what the debate is about and that is what we should have been debating this morning.

I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will introduce their own regulations in a similar format. I hope that the Minister will not regard this as a discourtesy, as it is not intended as such, but I think that his position has become clearer, and was put in more forthright way, than it was on Second Reading. Our debates on the Bill have helped to crystallise his Department's thinking and to raise the standard of the debate within the European Community.

We have to accept that there is a north-south divide within the European Community on animal welfare matters. The hon. Member for Bridlington simply says that because of that divide we have to accept that the argument must be lost. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he does not intend to lose that argument, but will take it to the heart of the European Commission and make Britain the member that will lead the demand for improved animal welfare standards--a demand which ultimately has to penetrate the entire market. In due course, I believe that these matters will even become of greater concern outside the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Government accept that there are those involved in the industry who accept that there should be change but who say that if change must come, their ability to adapt, the time scale, the costs involved and the necessary research should all be taken fully into account. The Minister will be aware of the concern about pigs in large-scale units. However, things can happen to free-range pigs, too. They suffer from udder biting and from broken backs and legs during the lactation period. I am sure that those points would have been made in support of the amendments of the hon. Member for Bridlington, had he moved them. I should not have supported the amendments, but I would have pressed those arguments. The leading pig research unit in Scotland is in my constituency. It has said that if change is to come about--it accepts that it is the will of Government that it should come about--it will need to find ways to separate the pecking order out very early on to avoid such incidents.

Column 1387

Mr. Maclean : Perhaps I could reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we intend to continue with a lot of research into this and other matters relating to alternative welfare systems for pigs during the phase- out period, to the end of 1998, and that we shall probably continue with research beyond that date.

Mr. Bruce : I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, which was all that I was looking for in the context of this short debate. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has done a great service by introducing the Bill. It is a matter of great regret that he has been forced to withdraw it, although I accept that he did so in the context of regulations that are to be applied in any case. It is never satisfactory when Bills are frustrated by procedural means rather than by an honest exchange in debate and a vote on the issue, for that is when the will of Parliament determines what is to happen rather than tactical procedures. It will anger many people in the country who lobbied hard and believed that they had won the day on the Bill. The only saving grace is that the Government have had the integrity to honour the provisions of the Bill. Provided that they continue to do so, those people may be satisfied and mollified. Frankly, though they will not think much of Parliament. I could not defend Parliament's behaviour to them and I would not attempt to do so.

2.11 pm

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : I, too, am sorry that the Bill is being withdrawn. I wanted to speak on behalf of my constituents. I took part in an earlier debate this morning on an issue that affected my constituents. My name is also down to speak in the debate on the Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill because I have an interest in that. I take amiss some of the remarks that were made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), and also the uncharacteristically ungracious remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) as I came into the Chamber.

My interest has always been human welfare. Part of that has to be the provision of clean, cheap, safe food. That includes the welfare of people who work with animals. Animal welfare is of great importance. If my postbag is anything to go by, I suspect that some of those who write to me on animal welfare issues--whales, dogs or whatever--are frequently more agitated about those matters than those who write to me about human welfare issues.

The problem is that some of the animal rights proposals, which might have formed part of the Bill and might still yet form part of the regulations, are anthropomorphic. They assume that animals have the same feelings and needs as we have. They tend to forget the brutality that some species show to each other, expecially at certain times in the reproductive cycle. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to that point, and it is one to which I should like to return.

I ought to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who introduced the Bill, that any pig farmer who supports the Bill's provisions does not need the Bill. He could introduce new rearing methods all by himself. There is no law that says that he cannot introduce different methods. He can indulge in whatever form of husbandry he is happiest with and that he feels his stock is happiest with.

Column 1388

There is a substantial pig farm in my constituency. I am well acquainted with Mr. John Robinson, the manager of Midland Pig Farms. I have visited the establishment on a number of occasions. It is expanding. There has been a substantial amount of investment in it, and it produces some of the finest quality meat to be found anywhere in Europe. I am very pleased that it is there. The farm does not use girths or tethers, but it does use stalls for breeding sows. The boars have plenty of room. The fattening sheds are large and comfortable. The gilts run outside. Clearly, therefore, there is a technical reason why the sows are in stalls. There is plenty of room for them not to be in stalls. That is not the problem. I understand that the main purpose of the stalls is simply to prevent the sows from rolling on the piglets, which is what would happen naturally. No doubt the animal rights people would have a fit about the death of baby pigs, and that would be the cost of changing the system. The hon. Member for Gordon was correct in saying that there are other problems in breeding sows when put with other sows. The pig farmers in my constituency tell me that the animals fight and go in for unpleasant habits like vulva biting and general bullying. I was told that sows are not very sociable and that a sow's worst enemy is another sow. I was advised that losses of sows under the system being proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston could be as much as 70 per cent. higher than in stalls--for example, in loose housing or cubicle housing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take those issues on board. If that is right- -I can think of no reason why my constituents should tell me a lie--and if losses under the system proposed by the new legislation are 70 per cent. higher--and by losses I understand deaths of animals--what has happened to animal welfare? I stand here as an ordinary Back Bencher asking where is animal welfare if the changes intended to promote it result in the deaths of more animals and changing the system results in more cruelty.

I take on board the points that have been made about making sure that the changes proceed at the same speed throughout Europe. I am always pleased when Britain leads Europe and when we are able to show that our standards are higher than those in the rest of Europe and encourage the rest of our European neighbours to follow suit, but it is worth remembering that in Spain large numbers of stalls are being put in. We know that, because the stalls are being manufactured in Britain. We may well find ourselves importing meat produced in other countries when we have introduced regulations that restrict our own farmers.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has seen fit to withdraw his Bill, but we look forward to what the Minister and the Government propose in future.

2.16 pm

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : I shall be brief, as I hope that we shall salvage something from the wreckage of this morning and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will be able to introduce a measure that will be of great benefit to his and my constituents.

I am particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) found it necessary to make the Bill a partisan matter. I have the honour to be the

Column 1389

vice-chairman of the all-party animal welfare group. The chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) is not known for her socialist leanings, but that group stoically and consistently has given support to the measure brought before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). It is not a partisan matter ; it is an all-party matter and the all- party animal welfare group counts among its numbers large numbers of hon. Members from both sides of the House.

I am particularly sad that my hon. Friend has found it necessary to withdraw the Bill this morning, not because we have lost the measure--we have not, and I hope that the public will understand, because of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister, that the measure will go forward--but because the wrong message may go out from the House to Europe. It is our proud boast in the House of Commons and in the country that we blaze a trail in animal welfare matters and that we have not been afraid to go before the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament and to say that we will not tolerate unpleasant practices that do no service to the health and welfare of the animals that we seek to protect. That is why many of us gave our forceful support to the Pig Husbandry Bill and to the measures being put forward to implement the minimum values rule on the exportation of live animals, particulary equines. Many people in the House and the country feel extremely strongly about that. It would be a tragedy if a message went out to the European Commission, the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament that suggested for one minute that we were going soft on any of these issues.

Despite what has happened this morning, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go to the Council of Ministers and the Commission and say, with all the force that he can muster, that the United Kingdom will continue to blaze a trail in Europe on animal welfare matters. I hope that he will be neither ashamed nor afraid to say that long and loud and that we will never tolerate practices that do not coincide with animal welfare.

2.20 pm

Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks.) : My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) will recall from the Second Reading debate that my principal concern about the Bill was that it might introduce unfair competition. It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the initiatives that may come out of directorate general 6. That is most encouraging. If there were real determination in the European Commission and across the Community to tackle the issue as one Community, we would all happily accept and support any initiative that resulted. But some of us are still a bit sceptical--as the House heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend)--whether such unity of action will be forthcoming, and my hon. Friend the Minister urged caution in that respect. It is easy to get the Commission to talk about things. It is much harder to get it to agree on them and enforce them throughout the Community. Certainly what we have heard from Italian Ministers and other Italian sources in the past couple of weeks has not in any way suggested that it will be easy to achieve European Community agreement on these matters.

Column 1390

We look to my hon. Friend the Minister to press the matter in Europe before he introduces regulations in place of the Bill. We look to him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, to blaze a trail and say that if we are to take action, we expect the European Community to fall into line and adopt the same procedures--otherwise, as the Minister implied, British farmers will be at a competitive disadvantage.

It is because some of us were, and remain, worried about that, that we tabled reasonable amendments to the Bill which would have been considered had my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston not sought to withdraw it. We have every right to resent the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who accused us of tabling wrecking amendments. The hon. Gentleman also spoke disparagingly of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on the grounds that he left the Chamber when he had finished speaking. The hon. Gentleman has now done exactly the same himself. The hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friends and me of representing vested interests and of committing a crime by tabling amendments in an attempt to defend our constituents' interests. We are meant to defend our constituents' interests ; that is one of the reasons why we come to the House. I hope that if, in a few years' time, the hon. Gentleman tables amendments to legislation that threatens businesses in his constituency, he will not be accused of committing a crime or of representing vested interests just because he is attempting to alleviate matters. The hon. Gentleman's speech was foolish and intemperate and, following it, he has sunk in stature as an Opposition spokesman. He must have been taking too many lessons from the Leader of the Opposition, who often displays a similarly intemperate and ineffective manner. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had remained to hear my remarks. He will have to read them instead. My hon. Friend the Minister should press as hard as he can in Europe for a common European agreement. I urge him also to meet again those of us who are concerned about the effects of the regulations to discuss whether there are other ways in which they can be improved. It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of fair competition--a level playing field, to use the cliche that we hear so often in agriculture debates these days.

There is a serious danger for the pig industry in Britain. It has not had any special support. It has not relied on subsidies. It has had to cope with a free market in recent years and it has done so without the support of the taxpayer. The industry would be asked to compete with one had tied behind its back if the regulations were passed without European Commission agreement on them. We would probably see more pigmeat imported into Britain, produced by the very system to which people have objected--the stall and tether system. I am sceptical about the argument that the consumer will lead the way by looking for meat that is produced in a better way. We are short of evidence about that. Price still dominates, so the importance of European agreement is high. If we did not have European agreement, we would once again have shot ourselves in the foot. We always seem to be more keen--rightly so--than our European Community partners on enforcing regulations.

The Minister has already reassured the House, but I want him to take away from the debate the message from many of us that we look to him to press the matter with the utmost vigour in the European Commission and the

Column 1391

Council of Ministers. I hope that he will also pay attention to the misgivings that many of us have--they were the reasons behind one of our amendments, although it was not a wrecking amendment. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Caerphilly back in the Chamber. I have been talking about him in his absence and now he has come back to listen to the rest of what I have to say. I remind him that our amendments were not wrecking amendments. They were designed to improve the legislation in the interests of our constituents. One amendment dealt with the first 35 days after weaning. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of that amendment and listen again to the arguments. The first 35 days are a particularly important time in the 165-day cycle of the sow. The greatest problems of stock management and welfare arise in the first 35 days after weaning, if one does not have either a good stockman-- my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston knows a great deal about good stockmanship--or a stall system. It is in the first 35 days that the stockman's skills are most often required. One needs ease of access to the sow, easy identification of the sow and calm conditions in which to look after the sow. A good stockman can provide those things, but the skills are in short supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston gave good reasons why they are in short supply. But the fact is that they are in short supply and that is the position with which we must deal. Perhaps we do not disagree on that.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the arguments about the vulnerable time in the cycle of the sow. Certainly, that is the point about which pig farmers in my constituency are more worried than anything else.

Column 1392

Their opinion is that enormous damage would be done to the industry if the measure were adopted in this country but not in other European Community countries, and that the greatest damage would be due to the implications for the first 35-day period. The condition of sows in that period varies greatly. They often require individual attention. They have lost their strength from the milk that has been drawn out of them in previous weeks and they need to be looked after individually. It is also important

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have the Minister for Health here. This morning 600 job cuts were announced at Guy's hospital. Now this afternoon we hear that 300 more jobs are to go at the Bradford hospital trust. The Government are standing by doing nothing while their business managers are cutting the national health service. The Minister is here ; will she come to the Dispatch Box?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. If the hon. Lady makes her point at 2.30 pm, I shall deal with it then.

Mr. Hague : It is also important that people understand that during that 35 days serious injuries can often occur. Sows bully and become aggressive towards each other as they try to establish a social hierarchy. That is another reason why particular attention must be paid to the first 35-day period. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend listens to that argument.

Normally towards the end of that 35-day period farmers carry out a pregnancy test, for which they require sows to be still. They use what appears to be head-bone apparatus--

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Column 1393

Hospitals (Job Losses)

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I raised a point of order calling for a Minister in the Department of Health to come to the House to take responsibility for and explain the cut of 600 jobs at Guy's hospital trust. The Minister was not available. We now have a Minister present. We have had further news that 300 jobs are to go in Bradford as a result of the setting up of a hospital trust. The Government are standing by and Ministers are failing to take responsibility while their business managers butcher the health service. Are we prepared to let this go on, or will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, use your influence to bring the Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer our points?

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I represent one of the Bradford constituencies and both St. Luke's and the Bradford royal infirmary treat my constituents. The announcement that 300 jobs are to go is a real blow to the people of Bradford. I urge you to support our request for the Minister for Health to make a statement because this is a serious and important matter. Just as we predicted,£7 million is being cut from the national health service budget through the trust in Bradford. The trust has nothing to do with the NHS. It represents the enemies within the NHS, and it is time that we had a statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These matters are raised in the House of Commons because they are relevant to people outside. The House of Commons should debate the matter. The Government who introduced the legislation on opting out, which has already resulted in 900 job losses at two hospitals, have a duty to explain why this has happened. Furthermore--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have listened carefully to the three points of order, all of which are related. As the House knows, on Fridays statements are made at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Skinner : There was none.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Allow me to finish. I know full well that no Minister has informed Mr. Speaker that he or she wishes to make a statement today. [H on. Members :-- "Shame."] Order. If the Minister for Health wishes to raise a point of order, of course I shall hear it.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important to make it clear that the whole philosophy behind the reforms in the health service is--

Column 1394

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Mr. Speaker has not given permission for a debate on this matter. If the Minister wishes to raise a point of order with me, I must listen to it.

Ms. Harman : Further to that point of order--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The Minister cannot make a statement on which she will take questions. Is she raising a point of order? Mrs. Bottomley indicated dissent.

Ms. Harman : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy speaker. Could the Minister, further to this point of order, please say that she will make a statement to the House on Monday about the cuts in services under the hospital trusts?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady must pursue these points of order on Monday when we resume our next parliamentary business.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you and your colleagues do something about the fact that the Government have abused our proceedings today? At 8.30 am I alerted the Minister's office to the fact that I intended to raise in the House today the cuts at Guy's hospital and that the matter should be dealt with. I was told that two Ministers in the Department of Health were available in London throughout the morning.

Subsequently, we debated the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill. Although it is technically a private Member's Bill, we know that it is supported by the Government and that they sought a private Member to introduce it. There was a speech of two and a half hours on that Bill and, although it did not prevent the passage of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill, it stopped the Pig Husbandry Bill being debated to a conclusion. In all probability, that Bill would have had the support of the House. All that time we did not hear a word nor receive a visit from a health Minister. It is not good enough for the Minister for Health to come to the House now simply to say, if she was minded to do so, that the Government have no responsibility. I am sure that the hon. Lady intended to say that the whole idea behind the health service reforms is that Ministers will not answer for independent, self-governing trusts. That is unacceptable.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I am sure that I can help the House. Mr. Speaker has ruled that it will not be too late for him to hear applications on this matter on Monday. The matter must now be left to our next parliamentary day--Monday next.

Column 1395

Private Members' Bills

REGISTERED HOMES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Read the Third time, and passed.

BUILDING CONVERSION AND ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

YOUNG PERSONS (ALCOHOL ABUSE) ETC. BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Second Reading what day?

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaintthe House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her perogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?

Next Section

Home Page