HC Deb 06 December 1977 vol 940 cc1336-46

1.24 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 5 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to sheep, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 41 thereof. Hon. Members will know that this code is the latest in a series. Codes numbered 1–4 relate respectively to cattle, pigs, domestic fowls, and turkeys. With the addition of this code for sheep, the main species of livestock kept commercially in Great Britain will be covered by a code.

Perhaps I might first of all remind the House of the status of this code. We have included in the preface an explanation of how the code fits in with Part 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, under which it is made, and we have quoted Sections 1(1) and 3(4) from the Act. It is not of itself an offence to fail to observe a provision in a welfare code, but such a failure may be relied upon by the prosecution as tending to establish the guilt of any person charged under Section 1(1) of the Act with the offence of causing unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to livestock. The code is therefore not mandatory. Its main purpose is to serve as a means of promoting livestock welfare by making an authoritative body of welfare advice available to farmers and stockmen. Its secondary purpose, as the Act explains, is to provide supportive evidence in a prosecution case.

Over the years since the passing of the Act of 1968, the policy in relation to livestock welfare has been to start from the premise that the British farmer and his work people have a very real concern for the welfare of the livestock in their care. We believe that our farmers and workers have in good measure the skill or art of stockmanship upon which welfare so much depends. Accordingly, we have considered it appropriate that satisfactory standards of welfare should, so far as is possible, be secured and maintained through a policy of advice and encouragement. Our experience in the case of cattle, pigs and poultry, for which welfare codes already exist, has been that this is the right way to proceed. It is therefore our intention to use the code for sheep in the same way once it has been approved and issued.

My right hon. Friends have been advised on the content of the code for sheep by the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. From a careful reading of the code, it is plain to see that the committee has given considerable thought to the form of the recommendations. The existing codes, upon which previous Ministers were advised by this same committee, have proved to be extremely useful documents, both to the farmer and to the adviser. As we fully expected, the advisory committee has made a workmanlike job of this new code for sheep, on which I am sure the House will agree it is to be congratulated.

Turning now to the code itself, hon. Members will perhaps appreciate that sheep are a species of livestock for which the drafting of a welfare code is not an easy task. Sheep husbandry is carried on in a great variety of ways, on many different types and qualities of land, and with numerous breeds and crosses of sheep. Groups of animals often start life under one husbandry system and continue under another. For example, a cross-bred lamb born in a hill flock may be fattened on a lowland farm. Sheep rearing is essentially an outdoor form of husbandry, usually extensive in character. It is the exception rather than the rule for sheep to be housed. When this is done, it is normally for only part of the year during winter or during a limited period of the animal's life, for example, when lambs are being artificially reared. Consequently, the code is to a large extent concerned with extensive husbandry, and in this area it is neither practicable nor necessary for the recommendations in the code to include detailed advice.

The precautions that are necessary to ensure welfare are therefore set out in broad terms in the code, and specific requirements are given only when there is clear evidence that anything else is likely to lead to trouble. Thus, in paragraph 9 the code states that colostrum is vital to the newly-born lamb.

Some hon. Members may feel inclined to doubt the value of a code which deals with welfare in such general terms. They may even feel that there is little point in including in the code recommendations which no flock master or shepherd could possibly fail to observe. The proficient farmer or stockman can certainly be expected to practise what the code preaches. But we see merit in reminding even the most skilled and attractive of the need to consider the welfare implications of what they are about. As for those with less skill or experience, we consider that the code contains sound welfare guidance on the avoidance of welfare problems.

The official advisory services will be able to give detailed guidance on the application of the code in individual circumstances. The House will note that annexed to the code is a selctive list of advisory publications. This is an innovation and, I think, a most useful one. The information in these publications reinforces and amplifies the advice given in the code, and we hope it will prove useful to farmers and stockmen to have this list of references.

If the code is approved, which I sincerely hope will be the case, it will be printed and a copy will be sent free of charge to every farmer in Great Britain whose most recent agricultural census return included sheep. It is our aim to make sure that the advice the code contains is available wherever it can be put to good use in the interests of livestock welfare. We therefore also intend to send copies to veterinary surgeons in private practice and to make the code available in agricultural education and training establishments, and in university departments of agriculture.

The House will appreciate that the livestock welfare provisions in Part I of the Act of 1968 apply just as much to livestock species for which there is no welfare code as they do to species in respect of which a code has already been issued. Consequently, throughout the years since the Act came into operation, the veterinary staff of the Ministry have been visiting sheep farms to check on observance of the Act. In addition, they have maintained a general oversight of livestock welfare standards when visiting sheep farms in connection with any other aspect of their official duties.

In the period since the 1968 Act came into operation, our veterinary staff have observed welfare conditions on more than 4,000 premises in Great Britain where sheep are kept. On only about 15 of those premises were some of the sheep considered to be suffering unnecessary pain or distress. Official welfare advice was given in all these cases, and in over two-thirds of them the welfare problems were speedily resolved. Prosecutions were taken in the remaining cases.

I think that that is a very clear indication that our sheep farmers and their stockmen generally exercise a high standard of management and stockmanship. I submit, too, that it amply justified our policy of seeking to achieve and maintain satisfactory standards of livestock welfare by advice and encouragement.

We shall continue to rely upon the veterinary officers in the State service to exercise surveillance over the welfare of sheep, using this new code as an advisory tool. In addition, we shall ensure that advice given by others in the official advisory services is in line with the code.

I hope that the House will approve the code.

1.31 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

We are grateful to the Minister for coming here late at night to explain the reasons for the introduction of these codes and something of the detail that is contained in them.

I must begin by declaring my interest as a farmer—as one who does not regularly keep sheep but who does so from time to time. Probably my greater interest in the sheep industry is that I am one of those rather rare English Members who represent more sheep than people, because my constituency is an area where the sheep industry is of immense importance.

This debate has come on late at night, and I am afraid that I cannot apologise to the House for making a speech. I hope that it will not be too long, but there are a number of important matters that ought to be covered because—the Minister referred to this—unless we discuss this code properly farmers might be prosecuted for doing things that they have always done.

I reiterate what I have often said, and what members of my party have often said from this Dispatch Box. We have consistently supported measures that are aimed at avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals. That is a posture that we have always taken and will continue to take. I support what the Minister said, that in 99 cases out of 100 farmers are humane and caring for their livestock, and that fact ought to be recognised in a debate of this sort.

As a background to this matter the Minister referred to the fact that in July 1971 the House agreed to similar codes for cattle, pigs, poultry and turkeys. It is a fact that sheep have had to wait some time for a code of this kind under the provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. I suppose that is because—and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm this—sheep do not tend to be kept in the sort of intensive husbandry conditions in which the other four classifications of livestock tend to be kept.

A very small percentage of sheep are kept in covered housing. It would be interesting to know just what percentage of the sheep population of this country is kept in housing of one sort or another. I suspect that it is a very small figure, because the vast majority of sheep are kept on traditional open air extensive systems of management. My guess is that there is a higher standard of stockmanship in the sheep sector than one finds in any of the other livestock sectors in British agriculture.

I recall that the dean of agriculture at my university used to ask his students what was the most important thing that anyone should remember about sheep. The students would suggest all sorts of things they thought to be crucial, such as selecting the right breed, proper feeding, and having a good dog to look after them. But the old dean always came back to what he regarded as the most important thing in sheep husbandry—to remember that sheep die very easily. That is something that the hon. Gentleman may wish to ponder on.

From the hon. Gentleman's own farming experience, he must remember that sheep have an alarming capacity to die without warning and even with the best stockmanship and management. Therefore, of all the guides produced for farm animals, this one for sheep is perhaps the least needed of all. If the House approves the code, which no doubt it will, when it is circulated it will cause a number of belly-laughs among flock masters and shepherds in some of our upland farms and territories.

Many of them will say "Here again are the Government telling us how we ought to farm our sheep." They may be tempted to feel that the code represents an attempt by the Government to teach grandma to suck eggs. I guess that most of my constituents who keep sheep will feel that they have forgotten more about the art of sheep management than the people who wrote this document have ever known.

It may be that they will not fully realise that the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has considerable expertise in animal husbandry. To what extent were there members of that committee with practical experience of sheep husbandry? It would also be helpful to know to what extent there is disagreement about the nature of these codes among the bodies consulted about them. There is a very long list of the bodies consulted before this code was printed for the consideration of the House. If some of them still have strong feelings about what is in or has been left out of the code, it would be helpful to know.

I notice that the Dartmoor National Park Committee was among the bodies consulted, and I have no objection to that. But, if it was asked its opinion, why were not some of the other national park committees? I represent a Lake District constituency. Why was the Lake District National Park Committee not consulted? The hon. Gentleman understands, I know, that that committee has taken a very close interest in the problems of upland farming and upland management experiments. Why was the Dartmoor committee consulted and not some of the others?

I want to voice a criticism which hit me quite hard when I first read the code. I was even more puzzled when I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he did not feel that there was a lot of need in the code for much detailed advice to farmers, because, as he rightly said, the huge majority of those who keep sheep know very well what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there is no need for detailed advice because there is already a good deal of detailed advice in the code.

Paragraph 10 refers to the need for drying off ewes and for there to be no deprivation of food and water for more than 24 hours. Paragraph 18 mentions good pens being available, and says that they should not have sharp edges inside them. Paragraph 41 refers to the need to avoid having dogs which nip the sheep when they are rounded up. These are extremely detailed points of management.

If the code contains matters as detailed as that I am surprised that it contains no reference to the problems of overstocking. From my experience of keeping sheep I should have thought that sheep suffer more from a degree of overstocking than from anything else. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will recall from his youth the old adage that the greatest enemy of a sheep is another sheep.

One of the key aspects of sheep management is to keep them moving on to fresh ground and not to keep them for too long too thick on the ground on one piece of field. I cannot understand why there is no reference in the code to the fact that if sheep stay too long on a highly stocked field they will lose condition. We do not enjoy the conditions obtaining in New Zealand where these things seem possible. In the United Kingdom overstocking is a major source of poor welfare.

Paragraph 8 says that drinking water should be made available at all times. That is not the traditional practice of lowland sheep farming, as I am sure the Minister knows. In the North of England the sheep are folded—that is, put within nets in confined areas of fields. They feed on turnips, sugar beet tops or kale, and it is not the practice, and never has been, to provide fresh water in those circumstances. When water is provided the sheep do not drink it. I considered this matter over the weekend while I was considering the code and I looked up a number of text books on sheep management to see whether my impression of these matters was confirmed. Since then the NFU has taken up the same point and has sent me extracts from some of the learned literature on these matters.

I am satisfied to refer, however, to "Elements of Animal Nutrition", by Ashton, which says, on page 153: The bulk of food consumed by sheep consists of growing crops. These are usually of a succulent nature, e.g., grass, forage crops and roots, containing enough water to meet the needs of sheep. That is a well-known and well-understood practice among shepherds and people concerned with sheep. We should be clear about this because I should hate to think that any farmer in the future was liable to be prosecuted when employing this type of lowland sheep management, for not having fresh water in the sheep fold. It has been made clear and has been understood for generations that, as has been set out in the literature, fresh water is not necessary in these conditions. I hope that the Minister will explain his attitude to this aspect.

My next detailed point relates to paragraph 12, which talks about sheep which are suffering severely and "should be humanely slaugthered". Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to explain exactly what is meant by that, and to what extent a shepherd is to be expected to put sheep in this condition out of their misery. Anyone who has had anything to do with sheep, and has gone to a flock early in the morning and found sheep in great distress, will realise the need to put them out of their misery extremely quickly. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain that a little more and say what is expected of a farmer to ensure that he does not offend against the code. We ought to know where we are on that.

Paragraph 11 speaks of an inspection once a day at least for cases of fly strike under certain conditions. I wonder what systems of management the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind in this regard. Does this cover cases of sheep which are kept out of doors? I can quite understand the need for a daily or more than daily inspection of sheep which are kept indoors, but for sheep kept out of doors I should have thought it was not a practical possibility.

To sum up, we support the motion. I do not think it will do a huge amount of good, because, as I have said already, I believe that the standard of sheep management in this country is higher than for any other class if livestock. Most of our sheep are kept on traditional lines. Good management exists, for without it sheep farming would be totally uneconomic. I suspect that the order has has been brought in rather to tidy things up, as we already have the four other orders. If this is the case, so be it. We do not object to that. A number of the details which I have mentioned need to be cleared up, but provided the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a satisfactory answer, I see no reason why the House should not approve the order tonight.

1.47 a.m.

Mr. Strang

In view of the late hour, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will appreciate it if I reply very briefly to his comments. He has handled the matter in his usual assiduous way, which I presume derives to some extent from his claim that he has more sheep in his constituency than any other Member of Parliament. I am not sure whether it in any way—

Mr. Jopling

I did not actually say that. I said that I was one of the relatively rare Members with more sheep than people in his constituency.

Mr. Strang

I was not sure whether it had anything to do with the hon. Gentleman's electoral success.

Very briefly, on the general points that the hon. Gentleman made, it is obviously true that a very large number of shepherds and farmers, quite naturally, will wonder why on earth the Government are seeking to advise them on the matter on which they are obviously much more knowledgeable, practised and experienced than the Government. But the hon. Gentleman knows that his Government and the present Government have accepted this approach to animal welfare.

It is a fact of life that a very large number of people in the United Kingdom, particularly in England—I do not think it is quite such a Scottish trait—take a very great interest in animal welfare. A significant proportion of the correspondence that I receive from hon. Members derives from complaints which they have received from constituents about animal cruelty or alleged animal cruelty. This is therefore, I think, a sensible and flexible way of going about things. As I said in my opening speech, if there has been cruelty—and there are instances of it in this area as in others—then evidence of a breach of the code tends to reflect guilt and is accepted as such by the courts.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed points. I shall not cover them all tonight. I shall write in more detail on some on which perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like fuller answers.

He was right in his surmise why we had kept sheep to the last. I agree that the number of sheep kept indoors is a very small proportion indeed. I do not know the exact figure, but it is trivial.

The code has been well received. One or two people thought that it was over-simplified, but in the main it has been generally supported by the organisations involved, including the NFU and the British Veterinary Association.

The hon. Gentleman was correct; a number of members of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee have direct experience of sheep. He also referred to the stocking rate. This is mentioned in paragraph 2. My own view is that the code is right to acknowledge that this is a matter which depends very much on the nature of the husbandry being practised at the time. It is true that sheep can survive for a very long time without drinking, but it is also true that it has been found they would prefer to drink regularly. The code therefore recommends that drinking water should be available to all sheep.

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question why his particular park committee was not consulted, but I shall write to him.

Mr. Jopling

I should like to go back to the point about water. This is enormously important. Unless the Minister makes this clear tonight major difficulties could be caused in sections of lowland sheep farming. I looked at a field of sheep yesterday. About 300 sheep were fed by sugar beet tops. No water was available. I have never seen healthier looking sheep in my life. I have never known water being provided for sheep in this condition. But if farmers are to run the risk of prosecution because they do not supply fresh water it becomes a serious matter. I hope that the Minister will say something more to satisfy my concern about this.

Mr. Strang

I shall consider that point. The hon. Gentleman will, however, recognise that the NFU would not lightly agree to this code. I shall certainly pursue this point.

Mr. Jopling

The Minister may recall that I have the Adjournment tonight. In fact, the NFU has drawn my attention to this point and is concerned about it as well.

Mr. Strang

I shall pursue these detailed points, but the general position of the NFU is that it supports the code, as well as the Government's general approach.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a general desire throughout the House that we should bring these proceedings to a fairly rapid close. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him on some of the more detailed points I hope that he will agree to the order being supported tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 5 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to sheep, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 41 thereof.

    c1346
  1. NORTHERN IRELAND 44 words