| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rifkind: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the document. He was good enough to acknowledge that he had not yet had a chance to do so--and, if I may say so, that was obvious from his question.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): My right hon. and learned Friend will have noticed that many hon. Members have mentioned the European Court of Justice. Does he accept that the European Court has become the ratchet of centralisation, mostly because it legislates by reading what it believes to be the intentions of the legislators, rather than treaty-based documents? I urge my right hon. and learned Friend, at the forthcoming IGC, to get our partners to agree to exclude that possibility from future judgments; part of the problem will then be resolved.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that good progress would be made if there were a requirement for strict interpretation of matters in the treaty or the directives. That would not eliminate, but would considerably reduce, the opportunity for the European Court to make law as opposed to interpreting it. That could only be in the public interest not just of this country, but of Europe as a whole.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): The Foreign Secretary said that he wanted a flexible Europe, and also
enlargement. Given that other European Union countries are hardly likely to agree to an enlargement to 27 states without moving towards qualified majority voting, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position mean either that he favours total inflexibility and immobility in the Union, or that he is really against enlargement?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman implies that we do not already have substantial qualified majority voting. He knows perfectly well that we do: that is the whole point. We have a substantial amount of qualified majority voting on the common agricultural policy, the single market and a number of other matters. We believe that that process has gone far enough, and we do not see any need to take it further because of enlargement. I reflect on the fact that NATO, with 15 members, has never had a vote in the past 50 years--it has never had a vote in its history--yet it has been able to function very effectively. I know that we are talking about a different organisation, but to some extent similar principles apply.
Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, over the centuries, Britain's time-honoured role has been to speak on behalf of the peoples of Europe and to protect them from the actions of patrician and arrogant elites--whether those elites incorporate kings, emperors, dictators or Commissioners? Does he also agree that it is honourable and not sceptical to oppose policies in Europe that would produce a slow but inevitable economic decline, and that it is honourable and not sceptical to oppose forces that would still like to bring about a European corporate state? I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the tone of his statement and the way in which he set out his objectives in that regard, but I ask him to consider seriously the points that have been made about the European Court of Justice. Britain is uniquely defenceless against its acts.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the European Court is a matter of increasing importance. I said in my statement that, in addition to the White Paper, we would publish a memorandum in the near future that would go into greater detail about what we believe ought to be achieved and ought to be negotiated with our partners. That demonstrates the priority that we attach to the subject.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on to other business.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will hon. Members who have been standing for an hour without being called get favourable consideration the next time that the subject of the statement comes up?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that with a major statement, it is virtually impossible to call all hon. Members who are anxious to put questions. Questions went on for more than an hour. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the Members whom I have not been able to call. I have a complete list
of such Members from both sides of the House. I cannot give a commitment that they will be called the next time that the subject comes before us.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) rose--
Madam Speaker: Just a moment; I have not finished. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to say; I have quite a lot to say, too. I cannot give a commitment that those Members will be called next week when we debate the subject, but I shall certainly do my best to ensure that they are recognised as often as I can. I know who has been standing today, how long the statement went on and the keenness with which Members wanted to question the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During a ministerial statement, do you have to follow the convention of calling Privy Councillors, who all get called nearly every time that we have a statement? I understand that they take precedence in debates, but does that hold true for ministerial statements?
Madam Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman twice out of the last three times that the Prime Minister made a statement on European affairs at the Dispatch Box. I have a list of the times that hon. Members are called. The hon. Gentleman does very well indeed at statements. If he would let me have a list of the Privy Councillors who have had privileges over him, I should be glad to receive it. I called two Opposition Privy Councillors. One of those I called first, the other by no means first, but way down the list. I am not clear about the Privy Councillors on the Government Benches. I tend to call some of them first, but by no means do they get priority during statements. They receive a little priority during debates, but certainly not for asking questions on statements.
Mr. Banks: How many were left standing?
Madam Speaker: I asked the hon. Gentleman to let me have a list of how many stood in the first place.I know how many there were; I doubt whether he does.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield):
I beg to move,
The UK chicken flock comprises two separate flocks. One is kept to lay eggs. Most of those birds are kept in battery cages and their welfare problems are relatively well known. In the other, much larger, flock, chickens known as broilers are reared for their meat.
In Britain, we rear over 700 million broiler chickens a year, yet they are the only one of the UK's major factory-farmed animals to have no specific laws to protect them. The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 contain detailed provisions on pigs, calves and battery hens. On broiler chickens, however, the law is largely silent despite the severity of the health and welfare problems encountered by the birds.
The vast majority of broiler chickens are reared intensively indoors. They are kept in huge, windowless sheds that often hold up to 30,000 birds. The sheds are so overcrowded that, as the birds grow bigger, one can barely see the floors, so thickly are they carpeted with chickens. There are fears that the maximum stocking density recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in its welfare code is frequently exceeded. To solve that problem, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended in its 1992 report on broilers that the maximum stocking density should be laid down in legal, binding regulations, rather than being left, as at present, to an unenforceable welfare code. To date, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has failed to act on that recommendation. No maximum stocking density is laid down by law. I hope that my Bill will remedy that omission.
The worst welfare problems, however, stem from the broiler industry's use of selective breeding methods and rich diets to get chickens to reach their slaughter weights in double-quick time. Today's broiler chickens have been bred to reach their slaughter weights in only six weeks. That is twice as fast as 30 years ago. It is the muscle that grows quickly--the part that is sold for meat. However, their legs fail to keep pace and cannot properly support the overgrown body. As a result, each year millions of chickens suffer from painful, sometimes crippling, leg disorders.
Academic research, which assessed the walking ability of broilers, suggests that as many as 180 million chickens a year are suffering from those painful problems. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's working group found leg problems of varying degrees of severity on almost every farm that it visited. In the worst cases, chickens are incapable of sustained walking and can move only with the help of their wings or by crawling on their shanks.
Professor John Webster, head of the veterinary school at the university of Bristol, describes those broilers as suffering from a long list of painful bone and joint disorders. He adds that the chronic pain suffered by many of them
Hon. Members should know that broiler chickens reared in Britain are growing too fast not only for their legs, but for their hearts and lungs. Many birds develop
congestive heart failure, which causes ascites--a pooling of body fluids in the abdomen. About 7 million broilers die of ascites each year before reaching their slaughter age of six weeks.
Professor Webster also said:
That is something with which I agree wholeheartedly.
A significant number of broilers suffer from painful breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Those injuries arise because, owing to leg weakness, many birds spend long periods squatting down on the litter. That is often contaminated with droppings and prolonged contact with it can lead to the injuries to which I have referred. Wood shavings are the material most commonly used as litter in broiler sheds. After two or three weeks, however, often there are hardly any wood shavings left; what remains is largely solid poultry manure. Improved litter management is a key factor in reducing the incidence of breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. My Bill includes a requirement that litter is kept clean and dry.
Regular inspections are essential if acceptable standards of broiler health and welfare are to be achieved. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that a law should be brought in requiring all flocks to be inspected twice a day. My Bill includes such a requirement. I fear that, at present, the absence of adequate inspections means that many diseased, injured or dying birds are not being identified as such and, as a result, are given no appropriate attention or treatment.
So extreme are the health problems of today's chicken broilers that if, instead of being slaughtered at six weeks, they were allowed to live on, 80 per cent. would die before reaching the age of puberty at 18 weeks. That presents a massive problem to one particular sector of the broiler industry. The broiler breeders--the birds whose role it is to produce the subsequent generations--must remain fit and healthy into adulthood so that they can breed. If fed normally many would, as I have said, die before reaching puberty. Those that survive would suffer from reduced fertility.
To address those problems, the parent stock--the breeders--are fed on restricted rations to slow down their growth rate. One study found that broiler breeders ate only a quarter to a half of what they would have eaten if given free access to food. The researchers concluded that restricted-fed broiler breeders are
There can be no justification for keeping birds in a state of constant hunger. My Bill requires broilers to be given sufficient food to prevent hunger.
Further problems arise during what the industry calls harvesting, which is when the birds are removed from the sheds and packed into crates ready for the journey to the slaughterhouse. Teams of catchers depopulate the sheds at great speed, carrying four or even more chickens in each hand. The birds are held by just one leg, with rough handling being commonplace. The extent of the brutality involved in the catching process was highlighted in a Bristol university study that examined the cause of death in broilers that were dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse. Just over half had died from heart failure. The researchers presumed that, for those birds, the stress of catching, loading and transporting had been simply too much for them to cope with. Some 35 per cent. had died from traumatic injuries, with a dislocated hip being the most common injury. That was associated with profuse haemorrhaging and in about one third of the cases the femur--a major bone--had actually been forced into the chicken's abdominal cavity. The researchers suggested that catching and carrying large birds by one leg is conducive to dislocation of the hip. Clearly, the catching process is not just stressful and frightening for the chickens, but in many cases leads to injury and even death. My Bill requires catching to be carried out in such a manner as to avoid injury to the birds.
I believe that if people knew of the suffering experienced by broiler chickens in Britain there would be a public outcry no less strong than that occasioned by the export of calves. Urgent reforms are needed to deal with the very serious health and welfare problems experienced by chicken broilers. My Bill would require the broiler industry in Britain to take a much more responsible approach in the rearing of its chickens. I hope that, one day, the Bill will stand as a benchmark for this House and for the remainder of Europe.
That the Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 107) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.--[Mr. Bates.]
4.36 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems.
"must constitute the single most extreme example of man's inhumanity to another sentient creature".
"It is absolutely not right that animals in the first weeks of their life should be experiencing heart disease; it is absolutely not right that animals in the first weeks of their life should be crippled."
"chronically hungry, frustrated and stressed."
12 Mar 1996 : Column 806
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |