EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (CHILLED POULTRY) (Hansard, 31 January 1977)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang)
I beg to move, That this House take note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1929/76 and R/89/77, welcomes the progress that has been made towards arrangements for the continued use of the immersion method of chilling poultry, and supports the Government's intention to secure detailed amendements to meet the needs of the UK industry while retaining adequate health safeguards for the consumer. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Commission's proposals on immersion chilling of slaughtered poultry. Let me first briefly trace the history leading to the proposals contained in document R/1929/76.
Before our entry into the Community the Six had legislated to ban the spinchiller process. This was a process for chilling poultry carcases by common immersion in a tank of cooled water. It is perhaps unfortunate that the name "spinchiller" has become loosely attached to all subsequently developed commercial immersion chilling processes because the original spinchiller was demonstrated by experiments carried out in Germany in the early 1960s to be unhygienic. It was on the basis of those experiments that the spinchilling process was originally banned in EEC Directive 71/118, which deals with health problems of trade in fresh poultry meat.
More recently, developed immersion chilling equipment has become widely used in the main areas of poultrymeat production in the United Kingdom, and the ban would have imposed a heavy economic, and in our view unnecessary, burden on our industry. The ban was due to have effect from 1st January 1977, at the latest, but in the negotiations for the amendment of the poultrymeat directive we were instrumental in getting the date deferred to 1st January 1978. At the same time we pressed for an 186 examination of poultry chilling processes. We were not alone in this. For example, Denmark and Holland were also anxious to establish that controlled methods of immersion chilling could be effective and satisfactory in hygiene terms. The outcome was that the deferment of the ban would give time for the Commission to submit a report and recommendations on those processes which should be unaffected by the ban.
With the full co-operation of the trade and using the expertise of the Food Research Institute at Norwich, the United Kingdom co-operated as did some other member states, with the Commission in the practical experiments that preceded the preparation of the Commission's report and proposals now before us.
The report and proposals are welcome, in that they firmly recognise that properly conducted immersion chilling processes are hygienically acceptable.
On the other hand, there are matters of detail on which we feel that adjustment is needed. The report of the Select Committee on whose recommendation we are debating the subject tonight said— The Committee received written evidence about this instrument from the British Poultry Federation, the National Farmers' Union and the EEC Consumers Co-ordinating Group. This evidence welcomed the report's findings that immersion chilling can be hygienically satistactory because that process is of vital interest to the British poultry industry. The Committee's report then went on to refer to specific points of detail, and I now propose to do likewise.
The Commission proposed that all immersion chilling equipment should be of stainless steel. This would have involved replacement of equipment at considerable cost, which, in our view, would be unjustified on grounds of hygiene. Happily, the European Parliament shared this view which it voiced when giving its opinion on the proposal to the Council. In document R/89/77 the Commission has formally amended its original proposal to substitute "non-corrodible material" for "stainless steel". This is an encouraging development and I hope that it will eventually be endorsed by the Council.
There are a number of other areas that we shall pursue in the detailed Council discussions on the Commission's proposals.
187 The proposal for a Council directive states positively in Article 4(a) that: A system whereby the carcases are pushed along by mechanical means through a counter flow of water is acceptable. In the United Kingdom there are many immersion chillers that operate with the birds moving in the same direction as the flow of water. We believe that such processes can be demonstrated to be acceptable from a hygiene point of view and we will be using every effort to secure the positive recognition of such processes.
Another point of importance is that the proposals are framed to apply to all species of poultry that are subject to the basic directive. The scientific work on which the report and proposals were based was confined to chickens. A number of different factors need to be taken into account in legislating for other species, especially turkeys and ducks.
We also believe that there is room for greater flexibility over the specifications of water and carcases temperatures and the volume of water to be used, especially in relation to the spray washing of carcases before they enter the immersion chiller.
I can assure the House that in the negotiations on the Commission's proposals the Government will take account of all these matters and we shall continue to consult with the industry and to draw fully on the expertise of the scientists at the Food Research Institute as the discussions proceed.

§ Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)
This is a more satisfactory situation than the one that we have just debated. I was glad to hear of the Government's total commitment to the principle of immersion spinchilling. That will be welcomed by the poultry industry. The European Parliament, the European Commission and the Commission concerned have also unequivocally accepted that the new and modern techniques may be used throughout the Community.
The Minister went quickly over the various points that have caused anxiety, but perhaps he has ungenerous on one point. There was great anxiety in the industry that stainless steel would have to be used in the spinchilling process. My hon. Friends in the Conservative Group 188 in the European Parliament moved the amendment on this and it was accepted. I am glad that it was also accepted by the Commission. It will make things much easier because it would make things excessively costly and difficult to try to introduce the proposals originally made by the Commission.
I was a little unclear about the position concerning ducks and turkeys, and I am sure that the industry will also be unclear about it. The Minister rightly said that these proposals were meant to concern all poultry, but in fact they refer only to chickens. Larger birds will obviously have to have different temperatures and times for immersion. The proposals are therefore incomplete. I find that strange because the Commission do not normally put forward incomplete proposals, particularly on subjects as sensitive as this one. Can the Minister tell us what timetable there will be for the proposals to deal with ducks and turkeys?
I was glad that the Minister referred to the problems about temperature. There are certain anomalies, and I hope that they will be dealth with. Will there be an opportunity for debating that point here or in the European Parliament?
The same consideration applies to the regulations on water content. I doubt that there will be much difficulty about this, because the Commission is seized of the problems and is prepared to deal with them sensitively. But we have only between now and January 1978 and, judging by the speed with which the Government deals with such matters, one must doubt whether it can be done in that time.
If the Minister wishes to seek concessions from the Commission he must remember that the Government have just about used up all their credit on concessions. He must work in the context of what went on and the way that Ministers behaved before we took over the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers. We have just about bankrupted the tolerance of our fellow members. Ministers may not get the full brunt of this feeling, but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I in the European Parliament know that there has been a marked decline in the acceptability of the British point of view because of the way the Government have behaved. I only hope that the Minister will be able to work in agreement with 189 other Ministers in dealing with such matters as water, temperature and immersion times for ducks and turkeys.
On the whole, I welcome what is proposed and I hope that it will be accepted by the House.

§ Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)
I also welcome the proposals, which are a different story from the last regulations that we were discussing. The British Poultry Federation tells me that this matter is of vital interest to the poultry-meat processing industry in the United Kingdom because it would have been put in a very serious position unless something had been done.
We are sometimes critical in this House, and it is important that we should pay tribute to the industry for the efficient way in which it produces birds and for the way in which the birds are sold to the consumer, who get a good deal from the poultry industry. We also often criticise the Government and other bodies, and it is right to pay tribute now to the Government and all concerned for bringing about this change within the Community. So much was at stake.
It has been a good exercise; a united front was shown and the Community has seen the wisdom of the arguments presented by the trade, the Ministry and others. We welcome the proposals and congratulate all those involved in their formulation.
However, the federation brief expresses concern that unless everything is signed, sealed and delivered, our export trade could be adversely affected. If the immersion chiller is banned or substantially altered, it could be difficult for our exporters. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on that point. We do not want our export trade to suffer.
I know that the Commission has power to regulate and control the water content in fowl carcases, but this needs to be watched carefully. I welcome the reduction in the permitted allowance of water in such carcases. That is a useful step.
The Commission has not been forthcoming on its research; this should be published. Will the Minister assure us that he will arrange for the trade to be notified of what has gone on and for 190 the research to be published so that it is open to all?
I am sure that the Minister can reassure the industry on these three points—exports, the water content regulations and research—and that the House will speedily approve the motion.

§ Mr. Strang
We have had a fairly useful debate. By and large, it has confirmed that the objectives that the Government are setting for themselves regarding this directive are shared by hon Members on both sides of the House.
I think that I should go over some of the points which have been made. The Government recognise that there will have to be adjustments in the temperatures prescribed. Our view, which is shared by hon. Members, is that additional research work is required for species other than chickens—for example, turkeys and ducks—and that it would be wrong to apply the same criteria to them.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) referred to the water content. I endorse what he said on that matter.
The publishing of research is a matter for the Commission. The Government are urging the Commission to publish the results of the research which has been carried out. However, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that is for the Commission to decide. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will agree that that matter could be pursued to greater effect at the European Parliament.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West was a little ungenerous to the Government in his sweeping reference to our position in the Community. I found relations in recent negotiations in which I have been involved at the Council regarding derogations in relation to animal health quite satisfactory. We got a first-class result in that respect. We also got a first-class deal from the beef regime, which commences in April. I think that that we have some vital interests to defend. One which comes readily to mind is fishing. Our interest there is very different from that of other member States. If the price of securing our interest is a bit of dissension in the short term, it is unavoidable.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of the Government's not 191 being fully committed to the basic aims and objectives of the Community. I hope that the House will be happy to endorse the objectives which the Government are setting themselves in relation to these matters. I am sure that they will meet the legislative needs of our industry.