HC Deb 27 March 1974 vol 871 cc590-600

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)

I am glad that the House has this opportunity to consider EEC directive 71/118 which deals with the future of the trade in fresh, processed, uneviscerated poultry. I had not given very great consideration to this matter until I began to receive communications on the subject from my constituents. Some of these communications were written in their own handwriting, but others came to me on small printed forms. If I receive a small printed form torn from another document, I do not tend to pay as much attention to it as I do to a letter that is handwritten by a constituent. I selected one of the letters I received from a constituent, written in his own handwriting, to send to the Minister when asking for the Department's views about the EEC directive—a directive agreed by the EEC before we joined the Community, to come into force in February 1976. I received a reply which I forwarded to my constituent, and I should like to put his reactions to the Minister.

To put the matter in perspective, I should like to quote from the explanation which I was given by the Department: The Directive, which had already been accepted by the Community when we joined … requires poultry to be slaughtered on approved premises and to be subject to ante-and post-mortem inspection by inspectors working under the supervision of an official veterinarian. Each bird must he eviscerated immediately after slaughter so that post-mortem inspection can include examination of the viscera for disease conditions which would indicate that the meat was unfit for human consumption. This requirement, as it stands at present, means that fresh uneviscerated poultry should not be sold after February 1976, apart from sales made direct from a farm to a consumer. It will not, however, deprive the housewife of her freedom of choice between fresh and frozen birds as it will not mean an end to fresh poultry sales. Several big multiples sell fresh eviscerated poultry at the moment and there is no reason why this trade should not be carried on by any retailer who is able to hold the birds under chilled (not frozen) conditions until sale". That was contained in the information which I passed on to one of my constituents who wrote to me about the letter which I had received from the Ministry. He said: In your covering note of 17th January you say you hope it will be reassuring and that it will appear to be quite reasonable. To the comparatively small producer of fresh poultry (we sold some 46,000 to local shops in this way last year), and I believe to the small shop retailer also, it is so far from being either that it is difficult to see how anyone without an interest in ending this sort of trade can believe it to be so … To begin with, inspection—the benefits of which are in any case highly dubious—the mere mechanics of 100 per cent. pre- and post-mortem inspection would drive us out of business. To achieve our constant supply of fresh killed birds to our customers we normally pluck on three mornings a week but when demand is high do so at other times at short notice. It is certain that no inspector would be available for this length of time for our small production unless permanently attached to our staff: no doubt the industry will be expected to bear the cost which would be prohibitive. As to immediate evisceration, I have always supposed it to be incontrovertible that (a) a drawn bird does not keep as well as a whole one and (b) that this practice detracts considerably from the flavour. It seems that officialdom is only now, reluctantly, recognising the truth of the former and is, I suppose quite uninterested in the latter. I have taken up these points with the best expert I know in these matters, who is my wife. She tells me that both points are absolutely valid and that if a chicken is dealt with in both those ways precisely the results that my constituent has alleged follow.

That is one reason why I want to put the matter directly to the Minister so that we may have a considered view from him.

Mr. Robert Redmond (Bolton, West)

I had this same problem brought to my notice by a constituent some months ago, and I was not satisfied with the reply that I. received from the Ministry of Agriculture. I took it up with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who is a member of the European Parliament. He sent me a very satisfactory answer saying that we had won that one and that the whole thing had been put back seven years.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine

I hope that I receive as satisfactory an answer tonight. Until now, I had approached only the Ministry, and I have been quoting the advice that I received. If we have won it, the sooner that the Minister says so the better it will be for us all.

I have also made a point of discussing the matter with the national organisations and with various other members of the trade in my constituency, and they take a similar view.

My constituent continues, in his letter: That local butchers are certain of this is evident from those who have come to us for fresh birds since the largest local producer took to supplying only ready-drawn ones. Those who have done so have told me that far too many of these birds are slightly 'off' when they get them and most of my customers say that if this directive is enforced they will deal only in frozen poultry. It is also quite certain that in this neighbourhood the housewives are not going to accept willingly the story that these birds are comparable with those they can buy now. The suggestion that genuine fresh birds will still be obtainable at the farm gate is ludicrous. A producer will not remain in business for this trade only and the average town housewife would not be able to get there if he did. It seems unlikely that many small shops will or could install the capacity to chill perhaps 250 turkeys at Christmas as it would be idle for most of the year. To those with a commonsense (perhaps you would say old-fashioned) attitude to health problems, the whole exercise stinks of the bureaucrat's lust for interference and addiction to empire building, his allies no doubt being those who look forward to a profitable monopoly in the trade. Both I and my customers are perfectly capable of recognising a bird which should not be sold; the exception to this, of course, is the million-to-one-against chance of salmonella. He goes on to say that that requires looking into in a laboratory. He also says that, although he is a supporter of the European Community, if this interference goes on he will not be able to continue with that view.

In view of the advice that I have received from the two sources I have mentioned, I thought it prudent to obtain the Minister's view on this matter. I should be obliged if he would confirm or deny whether what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) has put forward is the position in the Community.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I should like to restate what I said the other day about Adjournment debates. These are debates in which an hon. Member must have adequate time to raise a particular matter and the Minister must have adequate time to reply. If any other hon. Member wishes to intervene, he must arrange with the hon. Member raising the subject and the Minister, and, indeed, the Chair, that there will be time for him. Because I saw the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) taking notes and looking as though he was about to make a speech, I ascertained from the Minister that he wants only ten minutes in which to reply. Therefore, I will call the hon. Member. However, this is a matter which should be arranged not by the Chair but by hon. Members concerned. Mr. David Mitchell.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be of assistance if I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) asked me whether he could have about half a minute.

Mr. Speaker

I shall be very surprised if the hon. Member confines himself to half a minute. He did not say anything to the Minister or to me about it. I am not trying to be difficult, but it is much easier if we know beforehand who wishes to speak and for how long and whether there will be time for the Minister to reply.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your advice. I apologise if I accidentally, but wholly unintentionally, trespass across the traditions in this respect.

I am a supporter of our membership of the Common Market. I have always viewed it as a means of expanding our trade in a broad way and not one in which there was in any sense any detailed bureaucratic interference.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Irvine) has done a service to the House tonight in drawing attention to this matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurance we are seeking.

The kind of detailed bureaucratic interference which I should think would be wholly repugnant to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. Members generally is when the Common Market interferes in patterns of national taste and traditional methods of choosing types of food or the slaughter of animals or fowls for food, or whatever it may be of that nature, which are specific to this country and have traditionally belonged to us for many centuries.

The suggestion in the proposed Common Market regulations for ante and post-mortem inspection, including inspection of the guts of the bird by a veterinary inspector, seems to me to be just the sort of detailed interference which will bring to an end the fresh poultry trade as we know it in this country, unless the Minister goes to Brussels to speak up for the poultry producers—because they have drawn it to our attention—and, much more, for the consumers of this type of product in this country.

It would be extremely unfortunate if fresh-killed poultry—one thinks particularly of the Christmas turkey—were to become a thing of the past and we all had to eat frozen birds and the like. I, therefore, join with my hon. Friend in thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to intervene briefly in this debate to impress upon the Minister the need for him either to give the assurances which have been asked for tonight or to go to Brussels and to make representations which enable him to come back within a relatively short time and give those assurances to the House.

10.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Roland Moyle)

I join the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) in thanking the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Irvine) for the service that he has done the House in raising this matter tonight, because it is of concern to a number of people in this country as, indeed, the forays of the bureaucracy in Brussels often are these days.

I should like to say to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), that the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for the European Parliament or for his own oratory carried him away to some extent. Nothing is ever decided at the European Parliament, and the issue raised by the hon. Member for Rye remains open for consideration and decision. To that extent, I take the hon. Gentleman immediately out of his state of suspense by saying that I am unable to resolve the matter here tonight, other than as the hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested, namely, that I, or someone in my Department, should go to Brussels to discuss the problem with the Commission.

I should like to give some of the background and history to the problem and some factors on both sides which are likely to affect a decision, so that those concerned will have an idea of what is happening. First, for example in the case of red meat in this country, we have had 100 per cent. post-mortem inspection for a long time. The inspections are operated by local authorities under a system in which all red meat has had to be produced in slaughterhouses for which detailed standards of construction and hygiene are prescribed. In addition, the meat then slaughtered is inspected by qualified inspectors.

I need hardly say that this inspection involves examination of the viscera—"innards" would perhaps be a more readily understood description. There is no such thing as "New York dressed" or "clean plucked beef", terms often applied to uneviscerated poultry of various kinds. All these requirements are covered by the Food and Drugs Act.

At present there are no such detailed requirements for poultry meat in this country. There are requirements in general food hygiene regulations, but there is no specific requirement for inspection and evisceration in respect of poultry as there is in respect of red meat. Over recent years the poultry industry has grown considerably. The present situation was totally defensible when the poultry trade was a luxury trade. Now, however, chicken in particular and most poultry are a common form of diet in Britain. As the industry has grown, some people have increasingly held the view that more detailed controls are needed during slaughter of the birds.

This was the position at the time we joined the Common Market a year ago last January. When we joined, most of the six countries had developed a system of poultry meat hygiene and inspection. Therefore, it is not particularly surprising that when we joined the European Community it already had in operation a directive which was created in 1971—Directive 71/118 for those who like to collect these bureaucratic details. The directive came into operation for trade between Community countries from February 1973—for the original Six, not for Great Britain—and it is due to apply to the domestic trade within the boun- daries of each country from February 1976. The hon. Gentleman was right in his timing.

I wish to make two points without prejudice to the question of the application of the directive in this country. I am seeking to clarify the issues involved, not to create controversy. First—it is becoming a well-recognised feature of Community life—the Community's reason for applying the directive to the home market as well as to the market in the various countries of the European Community is the hope that, once universal standards operate throughout the Community, it should be possible for poultry meat to move freely about and for birds bred in this country to be sold in France and vice versa, and, of course, in other parts of the Community. That is the point to which I think the hon. Member for Basingstoke alluded at one stage in his brief intervention.

The second point is that, whatever we may think about the possible effects of the directive, its basic objective is consumer protection. It is a public health measure designed to ensure that poultry meat is produced and inspected under proper hygienic conditions.

The difficulty arises in trying to apply this policy. The directive requires that all poultry should be eviscerated immediately after slaughter. Unless the viscera can be examined, an inspector cannot be sure of the health of the bird. That is a reasonable proposition. At least the inspector can be more sure of the health of the bird if he has examined the viscera than if he has not. As the viscera can be a potent source of contamination, it is best on the whole that evisceration should take place under controlled hygienic conditions—not, for example, in a variety of hotel kitchens.

That brings me to the point of tonight's debate, because if we are to apply this directive fully, and if all poultry are to be eviscerated immediately after slaughter, we cannot continue to market what is known in the trade as "clean-plucked" or "New York dressed" poultry, which are left with the viscera inside.

There are arguments relating to this matter. First, it has been suggested that the full application of the directive would deprive the housewife of fresh poultry. This is not strictly speaking correct. It would certainly deprive the consumer of fresh uneviscerated poultry. But fresh eviscerated poultry is often sold frozen. There are some firms which market fresh eviscerated poultry and, with modern techniques by which the birds can be held in chilled conditions, this form of marketing will probably grow.

Mr. David Mitchell

Is the Minister saying that a frozen bird is the same as a fresh bird if it has only recently been frozen? I do not think that a housewife would recognise that similarity.

Mr. Moyle

No, I am not saying that they are the same, but they have characteristics in common. It would be incorrect to say specifically that the consumer will be deprived of fresh uneviscerated poultry, as has sometimes been said, for the reasons I have given.

Second, it has been said that a fresh bird with the viscera left in it can be less of a health hazard than a frozen bird. That is a second argument often advanced. If there is contamination and the bird is not completely thawed out before cooking, the argument is that any contamination introduced at the time of slaughter, or before, may persist. There is not sufficient statistical information available about outbreaks of food poisoning induced by eviscerated and uneviscerated birds for one to be able to refute that argument. However, as I said earlier, in order fully to inspect poultry it seems to me that an inspector needs to examine the viscera—he would have a much better idea of the health of the bird if he did so—and second, it is better for poultry to be eviscerated under controlled hygienic conditions.

Third, it has been argued that the apparatus of control which the directive proposes to set up is ineffective because one of the bigger risks at present is from salmonellosis which cannot be detected by visual inspection in a slaughterhouse. I am not a vet, but I am advised that there are conditions of salmonellosis which can be detected by examination of the viscera—there are lesions on the viscera which can be detected by a medically-qualified person.

It is true, however, that the ideal method of controlling salmonellosis is, as it were, at source on the farm, and the attainment of this ideal is still a long way off. None the less, the fact that salmonellosis cannot always be detected in slaughterhouses is not a reason for not seeking a high standard of hygiene and poultry meat inspection in those slaughterhouses.

I have attempted to deal with some of the arguments both for and against the directive which the Common Market has adopted. I now turn to the main issue, that is, the continuation in this country of the trade in "New York dressed" or "clean-plucked" poultry, about which the hon. Member for Rye is concerned.

Basically, the problem is simple enough. As members of the European Community, we are required to conform in due course to Directive 71/118, which requires the establishment of a veterinary supervised poultry meat inspection service. Indeed, as the poultry meat industry has expanded it has become increasingly clear that there may be a need for more detailed regulation of it.

If we impose the full conditions set out in the directive, the ultimate result will be that we shall have to ban the production and sale of poultry with the viscera left in them. The clean plucked poultry trade as we know it will come to an end, and this will have two consequences. First, as has already been pointed out, there will be some denial of consumer choice for those who like their poultry prepared and hung in this way. This is particularly true, at Christmas time, of the turkey trade.

Secondly, a number of producers and traders, particularly small traders, who deal in this kind of poultry will either have to go out of business or, if they can, transfer to the production and sale of oven-ready poultry. Here I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said, that sales of uneviscerated poultry directly at the farm gate to the consumer by the farmer will continue unaffected.

The issue really comes to this: how far should we go in applying the directive if in so doing we shall have to abolish the production of a particular product and deny some consumers the kind of poultry to which they have become accustomed? There are arguments for and against the issue, as hon. Members will realise.

The previous Government had already made representations to Brussels about this matter. It may be this to which the hon. Member for Bolton, West was referring when he mentioned the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West. However, I dealt with that while the hon. Gentleman was discussing certain matters through the Chair.

They were seeking a derogation from the requirements of the directive, in so far as clean plucked poultry are concerned, for a period of years beyond February 1976. Hon. Members will, I am sure, understand when I say that in the short period in which we have been in office we have not had time fully to examine the issue, or to open discussions on it.

Before finally deciding his policy, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consider the problem in detail and discuss it with the industry concerned, so that he will be fully briefed on all the various issues and views of the industry. I hope that will be some encouragement to hon. Members who have their constituents interests so much at heart. It is not a simple matter.

In the meantime, officials of the Ministry will continue the representations that they have been making in Brussels. The debate here tonight has been helpful in illuminating the various facets of the problem.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine

The Minister has dealt with a number of aspects of the matter, but one on which he has not touched is the fact that a comparatively small producer, such as the one I have been speaking about, who is plucking birds on only three mornings a week, will not be able to have an inspector on those three mornings, so he will be put out of business. Will the Minister bear that in mind when these representations are made?

Mr. Moyle

Yes, indeed, Those considerations most certainly will be borne in mind, and it is because we expect to receive representations of that sort that my right hon. Friend is making arrangements to see the trade. I can assure the hon. Member that that sort of problem will be seriously borne in mind before any decision seriously affecting the future of the people in this country is reached.

I thank the hon. Member for Rye for raising the matter and assure him that the points that he raised will be fully and seriously considered by the Government before any decision is reached.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.