HC Deb 17 March 1967 vol 743 cc855-61

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3.—(REGULATIONS FOR SECURING HUMANE CONDITIONS OF SLAUGHTER FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, &c.)

11.14 a.m.

Mr. David Ensor (Bury and Radcliffe)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "imminent".

Members of the House who served on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill will recall that I accepted the insertion of this word in the Clause only to give me a chance to consider the points they had made before we proceeded further.

It may help the House if I explain that some members of the Committee felt that, unless we altered the Clause as originally drafted, the regulations to be made under it might be thought to cover any birds being reared on the same premises where slaughter took place, for example, in the larger poultry packing stations. Some hon. Members were unable at the time to accept my argument that the interpretation of this provision is governed by the general purpose of the Clause, that is, a power to make regulations in connection with the slaughter of poultry. It is not the intention that the regulations should deal with husbandry practices for rearing birds. The Bill would obviously not be the appropriate vehicle for dealing with such matters.

I have been assured by the Government and those advising me that no Minister would read the Clause other than as relating to the period immediately prior to slaughter. If he sought to do so, my legal advisers tell me that matters could be put right immediately in the House by a Motion for a Prayer for annulment of the regulations, for which the Clause provides.

I hope that, with these assurances, the House will agree to the Amendment.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) for considering in Committee at short notice Amendments that were tabled at a late hour and to which I could not be present to speak to owing to the clash of business in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) moved the Amendment in question in Committee and we realised that it was accepted with some reservation by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe.

I am not quite sure that our difficulties are entirely resolved, because there is the possibility that someone, not necessarily a Minister, not necessarily anyone in the Government, might seek to argue that the meaning of the Clause could include a much longer period of an animal's life than clearly the Government intend. It can be said of a broiler chicken that it is awaiting slaughter from the moment it is hatched simply because, in an efficient business, the number of days that it should remain alive is known ahead, since it should reach the required slaughter weight over a fixed period.

Therefore, while we are grateful for the explanation which the hon. Member has given, we are sorry in a way that it has not been made clear within the Bill at this stage that this strict limitation is likely to be effective. I do not, however, think that it is any good insisting on "imminent", as clearly the hon. Member's legal advisers would rather the word were withdrawn. Therefore, we would not seek to press our view.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 30, to leave out Clause 8.

This is a probing Amendment to give the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) an opportunity of explaining why he and his advisers have found themselves unable to insert in the Interpretation Clause a definition of "domestic fowl". In Standing Committee we offered a definition, which could be seen to be technically defective, and the hon. Member undertook with his advisers to see whether a definition could be introduced later.

The industry is anxious that at this stage ducks should not be included in the Bill, and should clearly be seen not to be included. The reason for this is that there is as yet no technically efficient apparatus for stunning ducks available. If the hon. Member can make it clear that there is no intention that the Bill should go further than the broiler chicken, we should be satisfied. If, however, it were possible to make this abundantly clear by a definition within the Bill, we should be still better satisfied.

Mr. Ensor

I give the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) the assurance, first, that the Bill is not intended to include anything other than domestic fowls. Ducks are not included at this stage for a variety of reasons, one of which is that there is no reliable weapon with which they can be stunned.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of definition. The shorter Oxford Dictionary describes a chicken as the young of the domestic fowl. It has been made plain in a number of Acts of Parliament—including the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, the Protection of Livestock Act, 1953, and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943—that the expression "domestic fowls", unless the Interpretation Clause of the Act says otherwise, excludes ducks, geese and other birds, which are varieties of a different nature.

I am advised that there is no problem under the Interpretation Clause and that the Bill as it stands includes only domestic fowls—which, in colloquial terms, means what the hon. Gentleman and I would mean as chickens and turkeys—and no other birds at this stage. If, at a later date, there is an efficient weapon for the stunning of ducks and geese, it may well be that the Minister will ask for an extension, but that is not the intention now and I am advised that the Bill includes only chickens and turkeys.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

The Government oppose this Amendment because the Bill would be killed without the Interpretation Clause. But, of course, we understand the reason why the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) put it on the Notice Paper. He wished to use it as a probing Amendmend. I hope that the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) has satisfied the hon. Gentleman on the point he raised about domestic fowl.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are a number of precedents. Whether the hon. Gentleman will accept the Oxford Dictionary's definition, I do not know. We cannot use the word "chicken" because for some reason or other it has a special meaning in Scotland. But I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that ducks are not covered by the Bill. If any Minister ever attempted to make regulations covering ducks without the necessary extension of the powers to do so, he could be quite rightly opposed in this House on a Motion for a Prayer for annulment.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

I am grateful for the various explanations which have been given. The assurance seems to be satisfactory and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.24 a.m.

Mr. Ensor

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is the first opportunity the House has had to discuss the Bill as a whole, so I should like to say a few words about its purpose. The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1958, provides safeguards for the welfare of farm animals, and horses, in the slaughterhouse. In particular, it requires, with certain exceptions, that they should be humanely slaughtered. Such protection has been lacking for poultry, however, and the aim of the Bill is to provide it.

The Bill provides for the stunning of chickens and turkeys before slaughter, except where they are slaughtered by neck wringing or decapitation, which are both considered to be humane methods and which obviously apply to the small person with a few chickens in the garden or on a smallholding. It also provides for humane methods which may be developed in future.

As in previous legislation, exception is provided for slaughter by Jews and Moslems of poultry intended for consumption by followers of those respective religions. The Bill also requires that premises where stunners are to be used must be registered with the local authority and this, together with the power of inspection, will enable Ministers to ensure that the main purpose is achieved.

It is essential to authorise officials to enter premises where stunners are being used and to see that they are properly maintained and used. Ministers will be able to make regulations to secure humane conditions and practices for poultry awaiting, and during, slaughter. The regulations would cover the provision of food and water, protection from extremes of weather and other aspects of their treatment.

The regulations would also limit the length of time that birds may be hung before being stunned and stipulates the shortest time which may elapse after slaughter before they are put into scalding water. After consultation, Ministers may extend the provisions to cover other birds, but it is not intended to do this at the present time. As suitable humane stunners become available for other birds, such as ducks, they can also be protected by the legislation.

I am most grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for having helped me with the Bill. It is a minor but important Measure and I hope that the House will agree to give it its Third Reading.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) on using his good fortune in the Ballot for introducing this useful Bill in advance of legislation on the Brambell Report. He will add a page—I hope that the Bill will soon be on the Statute Book—to the long story of legislation in this House in the cause of animal welfare.

The Bill will cover an important aspect of the mass production of poultry. It safeguards the interest of the small farmer slaughtering birds at home and pays regard to religious susceptibilities. I am grateful to him and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their great courtesy in allowing the Opposition to claim that we have made some improvements to the Bill, because it provides specifically now for consultation with those concerned in the industry before regulations are brought forward and that is an improvement.

The proceedings of the Bill were unique in my experience. It is the only case I know of in which a starred Amendment was followed by a manuscript Amendment in Committee to get the Bill right quickly, and I express my gratitude. The industry wants the Bill and I hope that it will speedily become law.

11.28 a.m.

Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) for the service he has rendered by introducing the Bill and the courtesy he has shown to those who have certain views of a personal nature, as in my case, from my religious standpoint, in taking into consideration the requirements and obligations of members of the Jewish faith. We are grateful to him.

Generally, the Bill will add considerably to the protection of poultry from pain and will do something of a significant nature, although it is a small Bill, towards the prevention of cruelty.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Mackie

This is a necessary Measure which has the full support of the Government. It has become almost a tradition of the House that animal welfare legislation should be introduced by private Members. I am happy to be able to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) in everything he has said and to express the gratitude of the Government for the time and effort he has devoted to bringing the Bill before the House.

There is no doubt about the need to extend provisions for humane slaughter to poultry. Less than 15 years ago poultry was killed by the million each year; now it is killed by the hundreds of millions. I believe that about 180 million are slaughtered every year now.

If the Bill is passed my Department will have to spend time in making the arrangements which are necessary to bring its provisions into operation. Hon. Mem- bers can be assured that we shall do this as speedily as possible, but they must remember that we have promised to consult all the people who are affected.

I have great pleasure in commending the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.