HL Deb 14 October 1969 vol 304 cc1313-32

2.56 p.m.

Lord BESWICK

I rise to move that this House approves each of the Codes, entitled "Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock", copies of which were laid before the House on the 26th June. There are four Codes referring respectively to Cattle, Pigs, Domestic Fowls and Turkeys. I assume that they will be put separately for decision, but my understanding is that it would be for the general convenience of the House if we discussed them together.

The Codes stem from the Report of a Technical Committee set up in 1964 under the Chairmanship of Professor Rogers Brambell. That Committee did valuable pioneering work in this field. The Government accepted the principle of the Committee's recommendation that new animal welfare legislation was required and that a Standing Advisory Committee on animal welfare matters should be appointed. In their Report the Committee recognised the inadequacy of scientific knowledge relating to animal behaviour, and made clear that the standards they recommended were based on subjective judgments not backed by scientific findings. The Government did not feel justified, therefore, except where they agreed that the Committee had made a case for them, in laying down mandatory standards. They proposed the more flexible approach, which we embodied in Part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which was discussed at some length in this House and eventually agreed.

As noble Lords will recall, Section 1 of the 1968 Act makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any farm animals, whether kept under intensive systems or not. That is now the law of this land; and has been the law since that Act was passed in 1968. Section 3 of the Act provides that Ministers may prepare codes of recommendations for the welfare of farm animals for the guidance of persons concerned with livestock. These codes must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they are issued. At the same time, the Act provided powers to give advice to farmers on all matters affecting farm animal welfare and these powers, I may say, are now being used most constructively.

The status of the Codes is made clear in Section 3 (4") of the Act. It is similar to that of the Highway Code. A motorist who, for example, failed to give a proper signal would not be prosecuted just because he had failed to do so. But if his failure caused an accident and he were prosecuted, his failure to observe a provision in the Highway Code would be evidence against him. These Codes are much the same. A farmer who pus his pigs into a badly drained pen would on that account alone commit no penal offence: but if the pigs were found to be suffering for that reason he could be prosecuted for causing unnecessary pain or distress to the pigs, and the failure to observe the relevant recommendation in the Code could be used in court as tending to establish his guilt on that charge. The Codes, then, are really a set of guide lines for the stockman on how to avoid causing unnecessary pain or distress to the livestock under his charge. The advice given on farm animal welfare by the State Veterinary Service and other advisory services of the Agricultural Departments will take fully into account the recommendations contained in these Codes.

The Codes that I am asking your Lordships to approve were prepared by an independent Standing Committee, appointed, as I have said, following a recommendation of the Brambell Committee. I have heard it alleged that this Committee was "packed". Nothing could be more unfair or inaccurate. The Chairman is Professor Hewer, Professor of Zoology at the Imperial College. Its members included scientists from the Agricultural Research Council, Poultry Research Centre, the Cambridge School of Veterinary Medicine, and the Medical Research Council, as well as four members with special interest in animal welfare, four farmers, a practising veterinary surgeon, a landowner and an official of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. There is no Department official on this Committee.

The Committee, then, embraces a very wide range of expertise. The members have performed an enormous amount of work to which I should like to pay a tribute. They have gathered information first hand at livestock units and research institutes; they have visited and studied various systems of husbandry and management. They have, in fact carried their inquiries much further and more deeply than was possible for the Brambell Committee. After they had prepared draft Codes they circulated them to interested organisations for comment, and a great volume of observations was received. The Committee studied all this and invited a number of organisations to give oral evidence. In the light of all this comment a number of amendments to their earlier drafts were made by the Committee. It can be seen therefore—and I hope we shall all agree this—that the Codes we are considering represent the opinion of an authoritative, independent, hard-working and conscientious Committee. My right honourable friends have accepted their recommendations in their entirety.

I must also inform the House that when Professor Hewer sent the Ministers his Committee's recommendations he said in his covering letter that while he had hoped that complete unanimity would be achieved, in the event, some members had felt that they could not agree with certain of the recommendations, which, though very few in number, they held to be important. On the other hand, none of the dissenting members advocated that the Codes should be rejected as a whole. That was the position when the Chairman submitted the recommendations in May. More recently—October 9, I believe, to be precise—three of the ladies on the Committee appear to have changed their minds and, in a further letter to the Chairman, have suggested that the Codes be withdrawn in view, as they put it, of the expressions of public opinion. Well, my Lords, I submit to you that it will be for the two Houses of Parliament to take public opinion into account on these matters and it will be for the two Houses to assess the expressions of opinion that have been made.

What about the Codes themselves? They set out detailed recommendations covering factors which affect the welfare of animals—housing, space allowances, food and water and general handling and management. Whatever argument there may be about some of these recommendations, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Codes as a whole constitute an advance, a valuable advance, in this field of animal welfare. Of course, they are not the last word on the subject. We need to know far more about what causes stress and suffering in animals before we can be confident that we have found all the answers. If continued study shows that amendments are asked for, amendments can be made.

Your Lordships will be aware of the criticism that has been expressed in a quite elaborately conducted campaign. Her Majesty's Government respect the motives of the bodies and individuals behind this campaign and accept the sincerity of their feelings. In matters of welfare, however, there is room for more than one opinion. My right honourable friends believe that the Codes prepared by the Advisory Commitee represent the greatest advance that can now be made in the light of present knowledge and practical experience.

The main criticisms relate to the recommendations regarding space allowances for poultry and calves and the feeding of calves. It is alleged that the Codes "go back on Brambell". In the first place these Codes are advisory, not mandatory as the Brambell Committee suggested, and the guiding principles formulated in Chapter 4 of the Brambell Report have in fact been accepted by the Advisory Committee and are set out in the preamble to each Code. Possibly, my Lords, I may be allowed to read out the preamble. It is as follows: The basic requirements for the welfare of livestock are: the provision of readily accessible fresh water and nutritionally adequate food as required; the provision of adequate ventilation and a suitable environmental temperature; adequate freedom of movement and ability to stretch limbs; sufficient light for satisfactory inspection; the rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury and disease; emergency provision in the event of a breakdown of essential mechanical equipment; flooring which neither harms nor causes undue strain; and the avoidance of unnecessary mutilation. This Code is based on these requirements, and takes account of available scientific knowledge and current farming practice". My Lords, some people do not understand why this important statement of principles is included in a preface which is stated to be "not part of the Code". The reason is that the detailed provisions of the Code give effect to those principles.

Now let me say a word about the differences between the Codes and the Brambell recommendations. The Brambell recommendations would have required palatable roughage to be made available to calves at all ages from a week after birth; but the Cattle Code requires all calves to have access to roughage at the end of the second week unless they are being fed to appetite on a liquid diet that is complete in all known nutrients required by the calf. On this issue the Advisory Committee took into account a great deal of evidence given to them and have consulted leading scientific authorities on animal physiology and nutrition, before reaching their conclusion. The Brambell Committee referred also to the importance of iron as a constituent in the diet of calves. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce a regulation to govern the level of iron in animal calf foods and the Minister has asked the Advisory Committee to address themselves particularly to this problem. In the meantime, the recommendation in the Code about diets containing all known nutrients the calf requires will apply to iron as to any other constituent of the diet.

As regards the space allowances for calves the Brambell recommendation was: Individual pens for calves should be of a sufficient size to allow the calf freedom of movement including the ability to turn round, and those for calves of 200 to 300 lb live-weight should measure at least 5 ft. by 3 ft. 6 in. As will be seen, paragraph 20 of the Cattle Code states: All cattle, whether tethered or in pens, should have sufficient freedom of sideways movement to be able to groom themselves without difficulty and, if in a pen, sufficient room to lie down on their sides and extend their legs within its confines". I invite the House to compare this requirement with allegations that the Codes would permit calves to be housed in pens that give them hardly any room to move.

The Earl of SELKIRK

My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord a question? The wording in paragraph 20 is very curious and I wonder whether he could make clear what he really means. Is this particular paragraph intended to convey that when a calf is lying on its side it has room to extend its legs to the full extent?

Lord BESWICK

My Lords, the paragraph says what it means and means what it says. A calf should have the ability to extend its legs within the confines of the pen. I was going on to say that I just cannot reconcile that paragraph of the Code with some of the propaganda pictures that have been circulated to your Lordships, nor do I recognise at all the maximum space permitted for calves which Mrs. Harrison gave in the Observer article. Nothing is said in the Code about the number of inches. It is laid down in the Code that calves should be kept in pens that enable them to groom themselves without difficulty and give sufficient room for them to lie down on their sides and extend their legs within the confines of their pens.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I do not want to be a nuisance because I am going to speak later; but the noble Lord's remarks do not mean what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has just said. If the pen is too small to allow the beast to extend its legs to their full extent, it will have extended them within the limits of the confines but not to their full extent.

Lord BESWICK

My Lords, I must get a lawyer to go into this. I am much more simple and do not try to read anything more into the English. My understanding is that a calf must be able to lie down in the pen and stretch its legs. That is simple enough and I do not see why noble Lords opposite should exercise themselves, as some of them have done, about what this limitation implies. I was going on to say one further thing. It is also said that the animal should have room to turn round, but all those with experience in this matter say that it is a mixed blessing for an animal to be able to turn and lie down in its own dirt. Hygienic considerations suggest that it should nto be able to turn round but should have one end of its pen which is clean and does not give rise to the dancers associated with the other practice. As for the ability to extend its legs, that is laid down in the Code as clearly as I should think the Queen's English would permit.

As regards space allowances for poultry, the Codes emphasise that the welfare of the birds can be at risk in intensive systems even at low stocking densities. The Advisory Committee therefore felt that it would be wrong to recommend a maximum density, as this would imply that below it all would be well, but to go above it would automatically mean suffering. Instead the Codes indicate the densities above which the highest standards of stockmanship are vital, if welfare is to be safeguarded. In reaching their conclusions, the Advisory Committee considered scientific evidence on the correlation between protein synthesis and observed stress. They also took into account analyses of a great volume of observational data not available to the Brambell Committee. The majority of the Committee are confident that the recommendations they have made, coupled with a satisfactory standard of management—and I emphasise this, because all else goes unless the standard of management is enforced—will allow compliance with the basic requirement regarding freedom of movement which is included in paragraph 24 of the Code. With poultry, the question of management is crucial, and compliance with these recommendations will not safeguard a farmer if his birds suffer unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress, however they are housed.

On tethering, too, the Committee have departed from the Brambell recommendations, which would have done away with close tethering altogether except for specific purposes for short periods. They are satisfied that cattle can be kept tethered, as they have been for a very long time in many parts of the country, without being caused pain or distress and that there is no need on welfare grounds to disturb this long-established method of husbandry. There are also some differences regarding the use of slatted floors and certain practices affecting poultry.

On many welfare matters, both of principle and of detail, the Advisory Committee have found themselves in full agreement with the Report of the Brambell Committee. Moreover, the Advisory Committee have dealt with several important matters which the Brambell Report did not touch upon—for example, for cattle, the provision of a dry bed, methods of marking for identification, docking, and feeding space allowance in group housing. For pigs, there are references to fallowing quarters and to accommodation for boars. For poultry there are references to de-winging, to the disposal of unwanted day-old birds and hatchery waste, and to the handling and transport of birds on the farm. All the Codes include references to fire precautions and those for cattle and pigs deal in addition with escape routines and emergency procedures. The variations or additions to the Brambell recommendations, whether tightening or relaxing provisions—and there are more which tighten than relax—are all the result of further observation and information.

The advisory and inspection responsibilities for which provision is made in the Act have been placed on the State Veterinary Service, whose officers have discussed welfare on many of the farms they have visited since the Act came into operation in September last year. If they are approved, the Codes will form the framework within which the Service will guide farmers and stockmen on how to safeguard the welfare of the stock. In their Foreword to each of the four Codes my right honourable friends have stated their conviction that most farmers and stockmen have a very real regard for the well-being of their animals, and it is not their intention to secure compliance with the Act by putting the farmer into the dock whenever they can. Rather they will proceed by means of advice and encouragement and reserve the ultimate sanction of prosecution for those cases where other means of inducing a livestock owner to protect the welfare of his animals have failed.

If the Codes are approved, the Advisory Committee will next turn their attention to other species of livestock and make an early start on the production of a Code dealing with sheep. I understand, too, that they are considering whether it will be necessary to produce Codes to deal with other species. Another task to which they will give a high degree of priority will be that of advising Ministers on the need for regulations under the Act to deal with certain aspects of welfare for which they may consider a mandatory control is desirable. Possible subjects for regulations which were announced in the 1966 Statement are the provision of lighting for routine inspection purposes in pig and poultry houses, control on the docking of pigs, and, as already mentioned, provision to specify minimum iron content in manufactured calf feeds. No one is more conscious than the Chairman and members of the Advisory Committee, or than my right honourable friends, that this work is being done against a very thin background of scientific knowledge, particularly on the question of stress. The Committee have already established a Research Sub-Committee and this is at work reviewing the whole field of what requires to be done.

I should like to refer to the question of imports, though I seem already to have taken over-much time. The Brambell Committee expressed concern that steps should be taken to see that action on their Report was not prejudiced by imports of food produced under unacceptable conditions. The fanning industry, too, has been and is worried about the question of such imports. After careful consideration, the Government have concluded that the Codes in their present form do not appear to call for action as regards imports, either generally or in any particular case. They are supported in this conclusion by two considerations. One is that the National Farmers' Union, who are naturally sensitive on this question of unfair com petition, appear to feel that before they press the point they will see how matters work out under the Codes.

Let me say again that the present Codes are by no means the last word or livestock welfare. The Advisory Committee will keep them under review, and should my right honourable friends decide at any time that new scientific knowledge makes their alteration desirable amendments can be made. In appropriate cases they can make a regulation to replace a Code recommendation. They will continue to keep in close touch with the organisations who have been commenting on the draft Codes.

If earlier in my speech I laid too much stress on the criticisms which have been made, I should like to correct the balance by making it clear that not all of the comments have been negative. Some were very constructive and forward-looking, and we take great heart from the fact that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the B.V.A., organisations representing the profession which will be most closely concerned in future developments, have both given their support to the Codes as a starting point for future work on farm animal welfare.

My Lords, from all I have said I am sure that the House will realise and appreciate the considerable amount of thought and effort which has gone into the production of the documents now before us. They are a foundation on which we can build as our knowledge enables us so to do. So far as we know, Britain is the only country which has produced Codes of this kind, and, even with the imperfections some people see in them, they represent a major advancement of the cause of animal welfare. Amidst all the understandable concern expressed by some individuals about these proposals there should be clear recognition of the progress which our country has made in animal welfare matters.

Intensive livestock husbandry is of comparatively recent development. I suppose it was Mrs. Harrison's book, Animal Machines, which aroused widespread interest in what was going on. In 1964, responding to the interest shown the Technical Committee under Processor Brambell was established. In 1966 the Minister of the day was able to give the Government's decisions. By 1968 there had been legislation. Following that legislation Professor Hewer's Standing Advisory Committee was set up. They have carried investigations further, and these Codes are the result. My Lords, I hope we can ensure that in 1969 the Codes are approved. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House approves Code No. 1 (Cattle) of the "Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock".—(Lord Beswick.)

3.24 p.m.

The Earl of SELKIRK rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all words after "House" and insert: "declines to approve Code No. 1 (Cattle) of the "Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock" because it does not adequately reflect the recommendations of the Brambell Committee". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I do this because it is quite impossible to amend these Codes in detail. There is no alternative to one who disagrees with any part of them. The course that I am taking here is the only course open to me. I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss all four Amendments at the same time. They raise different issues, but they can be broadly covered in the same kind of way.

The four Codes include many recommendations which are ordinary common sense. They are no doubt the sort of thing that any good husbandman has been doing for years, covering matters on which information has been issued to farmers by the Ministry of Agriculture from time to time. The Ministry do not need the affirmative assent of Parliament to issue common-sense statements, and this they have done in the past. But, as the noble Lord has said, these are not the things which are interesting: we accept that they are in many ways a step forward. What I am concerned about, however, is the way in which the recommendations of the Brambell Committee have been handled.

I should like to remind the House where we stand. Domestic animals have been handled by man since long before history was written. It is really only in the last fifteen years that a new type of factory husbandry has started. It is quite a new thing here, and indeed in the world generally. As the noble Lord has said, in the early 'sixties there was considerable concern as to how this was being conducted, and the Minister of Agriculture at that time, Mr. Christopher Soames, was I think absolutely right to ask a first-class Committee to go into the subject, restore public confidence and tell the country just what was happening. It was by any standards a strong Committee, and no-one has imputed its scientific ability or its common sense and broad practical experience.

What has happened? Let me here quote the words of the Financial Times of September 4. It said: Nothing positive is going to be done to implement the proposals contained in the Brambell Report on Animal Welfare". This is really the crux of the matter: that nothing positive is going to be done on the Report. Then Professor Brambell himself, in a letter to The Times, I think in June, expressed great disappointment that his recommendations were not being taken carefully into consideration. He went on to say that he would like at least something to be said to indicate broadly the basis on which the Minister was working.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has made a great deal of the Advisory Standing Committee which has been set up The truth is that this Committee was sharply divided on these Codes. I think that, of 14 members, 5 voted against them.

Lord BESWICK

Perhaps I may make this clear. They did not vote against the Codes. In different measure they were against eight clauses of some 200 clauses.

The Earl of SELKIRK

That is true; and we are in the same position. There are many passages in the Codes which I would say are wholly admirable, and at which I should not for a moment cavil. But I have only one alternative. This is what the Standing Committee said in recommending the Codes to the Minister.

In the second place, the Minister, as I understand, has a secret source of information which has not been disclosed either to the Committee or to anybody else. I do not know what that is, and if the noble Lord can say if this is going to be revealed, I should be obliged. It is quite certain that Professor Brambell, later on, said that he knew of no new scientific evidence which was not before his Committee when it reported. I do not know what it was that the Minister had in mind. I hope, in any case, that we may see it, because this is not a matter of State secrecy, but is one on which we should be as fully informed as we can be.

Lord BESWICK

The noble Earl has asked a specific question, and I will answer it. He asks: What sources of information were available to the Minister? The answer is: simply the Report of the Committee which was set up on the recommendation of the Brambell Committee; namely, this Advisory Committee of which I have given details. It is the Advisory Committee's recommendations which have been accepted in their entirety by the Minister.

The Earl of SELKIRK

I appreciate that point. I would add that one of the members of the Committee, Major Scott, has, I understand, resigned. He said: The Codes represent a compromise approximating to existing practice for which no case other than commercial expediency exists. That is what he reports, and the Farming leader says that it represents common practice. All I am saying is that there has been no change, or very slight change indeed. I believe that the Government are quite correct, if I may say so, in making this a Code and in not defining, or attempting to define, any new criminal practice. I think that is the correct procedure. I would not challenge their judgment in doing that at all, for I dislike the increasing number of crimes committed in this world.

Remember, there is a different standard for a code from that which exists for the criminal law. A code is surely something to aim at, whereas a crime is something illegal; there is a standard which you must not fall below. This is where the code falls down. It is to a large extent drawn from the lowest contemporary practice, a practice which would not be tolerated in any zoo in the world, which would not be tolerated in a research laboratory anywhere. I think that the noble Lord must make out a better case than purely the economic considerations for continuing some of the practices which exist at the present time. I do not want to pretend that this is an easy balance: it is a difficult one, and one in which we have to keep a proper sense of reality.

This debate is absolutely No insult to farmers, as some people are only too willing to say. It is said that we are accusing farmers of all sorts of things. We are not. All we are doing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said the other day, is trying to raise the lowest standard, and I am informed that something over three quarters of the farmers generally accept what has been recommended by Professor Brambell. May I look a little closer at what is recommended? I will not say much about the white veal trade. I think it is sad that we should continue selling to the public the meat of anæmic animals, and I doubt whether it has great nutritional value. I am personally sorry that calves may still be tethered. I believe that young animals must have movement if they are to be healthy. While the noble Lord may be correct in his interpretation of the paragraph we were discussing, I have evidence that a different interpretation has been put on it. I hope that the noble Lord will insist that the interpretation which he has given is recognised generally. If he would do that, I should be happy in this respect.

The most important recommendation—one with which I believe your Lordships would generally agree—is that the animals should be able to stand, to lie down, to stretch and to groom themselves. I believe that this is the main item which comes out of this and which is not fully fulfilled in this Code, as it properly could be. In the first place, there is no reference to this in the Code for Pigs. Pigs, like other animals, have to stretch themselves; and, no doubt, to scratch themselves. In the Code for Domestic Fowls, there is a reference to stretching the wings. The dimensions referred to there, are one square foot for 8 pounds, which I take to be two birds. I think that is a contradiction to the earlier paragraph, paragraph 24, which says that the birds should be able "to stand normally, turn round and stretch their wings". I do not believe those two recommendations can be reconciled.

There is much excuse being made; and it is said that we do not know enough, and that knowledge here is subjective. With respect, this is getting almost into the field of metaphysics, and one can quote various things as to what is subjective and as to what is not. The Brambell Report was quite clear about certain things. Over these minima they had no doubt. They admit that we have to learn much. If the noble Lord would agree to look at this matter again it would be no possible inconvenience to any one. We start a new Session in about a fortnight's time, and there will be no difficulty about re-enacting the Code, with slight modifications. I believe that this is important, because I think it is the first Code ever drawn up on this subject, either here or elsewhere. I should like to think that anybody could go to an international conference with a Code of which we can be proud and which stood clearly for certain principles. I beg to move the Amendment in my name to Code No. 1, Cattle.

Amendment moved—

Leave out all words after ("House") and insert ("declines to approve Code No. 1 (Cattle) of the "Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock" because it does not adequately reflect the recommendations of the Brambell Committee") .—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

3.35 p.m.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said, this is indeed a difficult issue. For myself, I would add that we have to try to reconcile the ideal and the practical. I thought my noble friend Lord Selkirk made out a very eloquent case for his point of view with regard to the ideal. I expect most of your Lordships will have received documents from the R.S.P.C.A., putting their point of view, which tell us that these Codes are completely inadequate. Also, I daresay that a number of your Lordships will have received further memoranda from the National farmers' Union, speaking for the farmers, telling us that although in some respects the Codes go too far, nevertheless they would agree to accept them.

I think it is natural for us, on the one hand, to feel that there is a natural repugnance to intensive methods of stock keeping. This is natural probably to everybody. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk observed in his speech, in the past twenty years—and perhaps longer in the United States—there has been a general trend of economic stock-keeping moving towards intensive management of one kind or another. That is happening and has been happening throughout every advanced country in Europe, in the Western World and, indeed, in the Eastern World.

As a practical farmer I must declare an interest. I have been a practical farmer for some forty years, and I dare say that my experience in this respect is not untypical. Traditionally on my farm we managed our livestock extensively. We were breeders of poultry and beef cattle, and the poultry were kept in folding units and moved around the fields, in the same way as the cattle. During the 1950s I had the honour to be in office in another place. I had neither the time nor the energy to pay much attention to the farm. When I came out of office in the 1960s I had both the time and the energy to take a long, hard look at the farm. I had observed that we were going down hill financially. When I took a long look I realised that every aspect of our farming operations was losing money, and some of it losing money heavily. Very big changes had taken place, especially in the 1950s, in practically every aspect of livestock keeping. It was quite clear to me that we had a choice; either we must somehow eliminate the loss-making operations and concentrate our attention on operations which could be made profitable, or we would have to wind up the whole farming operation and sell the farm. We could not go on losing money in that way.

The commercial motive has been mentioned as not of great importance, but for me there was more than my financial interest at stake—although that was important. My brother and my nephew also worked on the farm and there were about a dozen families which had made their lives with us. Some of them had been with us thirty or forty years. All of this, I thought, had to be taken into account. So in the event I decided that we must try to make ourselves viable and the farming profitable. This meant that we had to shed the crop husbandry—and unfortunately we live on the very infertile weald clay upon which it is impossible to grow crops nowadays. It meant that we had to shed the beef cattle, which also were very unprofitable and we did not wish to develop them into an intensive unit; and we decided that we would concentrate the whole of our energies on the poultry breeding side. The result is that to-day all our poultry operations are conducted in intensive units. There are three deep-litter breeding units of 10.000 each and an intensive rearing unit, and there is one small laying battery, originally set up for recording purposes and now used to test the stock that we sell to our customers.

Of course, here one has to recognise that the great majority—that is, about 70 per cent.—of all laying birds to-day in this country are kept in batteries. Therefore, we need to know the stock we are selling and how it performs in these conditions.

My instinctive prejudice against intensive methods is probably no less strong than that of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I was most reluctant to start on this path, but it was quite clear to me that, as I say, we had no alternative. I have found in practice that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is absolutely right: that provided the management is exactly right—and that is vital—the birds thrive. In fact, the fertility from our breeding units is far higher than we ever achieved by extensive methods; the egg production is higher, and the mortality is lower. I should say that we include in our management a regular veterinary service from a specialist veterinarian who spends half a day a week with us.

I suggest that when we think about chickens roaming happily about the fields we should remind ourselves of the conditions which, I well remember, we had to contend with in winter, when the fields are very wet and there is mud everywhere, when conditions are freezing and the water is frozen up, and when we have had a heavy fall of snow. The folding units have practically disappeared, and the birds undoubtedly suffer acute discomfort from mud, frost and snow. And let me remind your Lordships that the fowl originated from the jungle, the jungle fowl, and this is not its natural climatic habitat. Taking the year through, there is no doubt at all that the birds are more comfortable in intensive housing conditions.

On our farm, my Lords, our standards of accommodation conform with those laid down in the Code, and from my knowledge of the industry I would confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said: such standards are roughly in line with good commercial practice. I would certainly say that farmers who do not conform to them should be required to come up to them as soon as possible. I would add that of course if you are fully to provide for the health and comfort of the birds the control of temperature and ventilation is, as is said in the preamble, just as vital as the specifications of accommodation itself.

The standards asked for by Brambell are just about double those laid down in the Codes, and if they were put in the Codes, and therefore had the implications of law, or coming law, behind them, they would in fact disqualify every intensive poultry unit in the country. It could not be right to start with something which is a unique development in the field of livestock management by setting up standards as high as that. Surely it must be right to take the best existing commercial standards and start from there.

I have dealt with the poultry Code in some detail because I have practical experience of poultry, and I have come to it I think perhaps rather slowly and cautiously and perhaps rather inefficiently but I think it serves to make two points which really apply to all these livestock Codes. The first is that livestock kept, and efficiently kept, in these systems of intensive management, far from showing signs of ill-treatment in these conditions are evidently comfortable and thriving. In passing, although I am certainly not taking up a belligerent attitude, I would say that the implied charge of the campaign (not from my noble friend Lord Selkirk) that farmers, including myself, whose standards do not conform with the Brambell standards are guilty of cruelty to their livestock, is very unpleasant and unfair because it is quite unfounded. Secondly, most livestock farmers cannot survive, as I demonstrated, and continue to make a living unless they turn to intensive methods of management. If they live on a hill farm they get big subsidies and maybe they can do so, but in normal circumstances they are obliged to turn to intensive methods if they are to get a living out of it.

The implication that the livestock farmers' motive of making a profit is irrelevant or sordid really is highly unrealistic. The economy of our agricultural industry is based on an Annual Price Review which, as a matter of policy, under-recoups the industry each year by 25 per cent. of cost increase, and this is done deliberately in order to keep up the maximum pressure on farmers to develop the most efficient low cost methods of farming. For livestock this inevitably means, as I say, intensive methods.

In addition, some sections of the industry have to meet the direct competition of imports coming from the cheapest producers in all parts of the world. I give an example of half the poultry industry, that is the table poultry section, which has no subsidy at all, never has had, and has to meet the competition of imports coming from every part of the world. It is clearly, I would submit, in the national interest to produce the maximum from our farms at the lowest possible price for the benefit of the housewife, and I suggest that it is entirely relevant and entirely respectable that farmers should try to make a profit out of livestock keeping by intensive methods. If they cannot make a profit, production will cease. It is just as simple as that. There is perhaps a related point which is worth mentioning, concerning farm workers' wages. We all know that they are far lower than we should like them to be, and therefore there is an urgent need to increase the output per man in order to raise agricultural wages to close the gap with factory workers. We have this continuing exodus from our farms, putting all production in jeopardy.

I would very much doubt the statement which was given in the R.S.P.C.A. pamphlet, that 75 per cent. of farmers support the Brambell contention. Certainly not 75 per cent. of livestock farmers do so. Indeed, I think we must accept the statements from the National Farmers' Union as they have been indicated, that they will accept the Codes although they are in some respects higher than normal commercial practice, and they will do their best to co-operate with them in the general interest. These comments and general conclusions apply to the other Codes as well; that is, the Codes for cattle, pigs and turkeys. The standards, as the National Farmers' Union indicate, are broadly in line with good commercial practice and, as I say, in some respects go beyond it; and I think that this is the right standard to start with. I was glad to welcome the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that a Code is in course of preparation for sheep. Inevitably, as with the rest of livestock keeping, the intensive keeping of sheep is now developing fast and a Code for sheep should be introduced as well.

In conclusion, let me say that the machinery of the 1968 Act, which I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Selkirk commend, which permits putting the principle into the Act and establishing the Code with the same status as the Highway Code, so that it would therefore be the basis of evidence where there was a contravention of the Code if livestock were suffering, or of a prosecution if such were necessary, seems to be the right kind of machinery to make a start. It gives a certain flexibility. It gives the supervisory veterinary staff a chance of advice and encouragement to try to get the recalcitrants to come into line to start with and to prosecute only if they have to at the end of the day. This is a big step forward. It has not been done by any other country, and it really is something which I think we can all welcome as a great step forward in establishing the kind of high standards of management for intensively-kept livestock which we should all wish to see.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Selkirk, having so ably put his case before the House, will not feel it is necessary to divide on this Motion. It would seem to me to be quite illogical to divide on this issue and to throw out the Codes. We should then have nothing. If we get the Codes we shall have a high standard—as I regard it—of commercial management established. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has told us that as the years go by we shall gather more evidence and get more knowledge about where improvements can be made—and undoubtedly they will be made. But so far as I am concerned at the moment, I support the Orders.