HL Deb 18 November 1981 vol 425 cc549-60

5.58 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they concur with the Report of the European Community Committee on Poultry Meat Hygiene (35th Report 1980–81 H.L. 248).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it proper to draw the attention of this House to this report on Poultry Meat Hygiene in view of its public interest and importance, and to seek the Government's reaction to it. I should also like to thank all those who helped to produce the report, including the members of Sub-Committee D and the witnesses, both oral and in writing, whose names we see in the report.

There was a good deal of general agreement about the new directive among the witnesses, and the conclusions of the committee reflect a greater degree of harmony than is sometimes found in the Community itself. The directive seeks to amend an earlier directive on poultry hygiene which was already in operation when we entered the Community in 1973. This country adopted the procedure and we have been carrying it out for nearly five years now.

The Commission, however, have been looking at the practical application of the procedures in 1979 and 1980. They concluded that there were differences in practice and in performance between member states which in their opinion called for further harmonisation. The new directive therefore contains their proposals. Implementing these proposals would not be a small matter because they would apply to about 400 million birds eaten annually in this country and their implications would therefore be substantial. Our task as a committee was to consider whether the change was justified. We sought to look at it from all points of view—the consumer, the producer, local and central governments and the various experts, including the veterinary surgeons.

The House will know that the existing régime is described in paragraphs 5 to 10 and the Commission's new proposals are in paragraphs 11 to 15 of the report. At present veterinary surgeons have overall responsibility for the control of poultry slaughterhouses. They are appointed by district councils in England and Wales from a Ministry list. Councils also arrange for poultry meat inspectors to work—and I quote— under the supervision and responsibility of the official veterinary surgeon in carrying out their duties". It should be noted from the evidence that almost ail the district councils employ full-time inspectors and most rely on part-time employment of official vets. They are not required to be in attendance throughout the time poultry are being slaughtered, and the Ministry said in evidence that a vet is in attendance for 50 per cent. of the time on average. Councils can make a charge for inspection but the British Poultry Federation has been operating an equalisation scheme to spread the costs more fairly among producers. Unhappily, this scheme came to an end on 31st August last. I would also draw attention to paragraph 10, which deals with eviscerated poultry and says that evisceration must be carried out immediately, with certain exemptions which the House will know.

What then do the Commission now propose? First, they lay down revised requirements for the post-mortem inspection of poultry. For example, they specify a limit on the number of birds per inspector: namely, 1,200 per hour in the case of table chickens and 600 per hour in the case of laying hens, geese, turkeys and ducks. Secondly, they say that an official veterinary surgeon must be present in the slaughterhouse—and I quote— at least while slaughter is taking place", with the reservation mentioned in paragraph 13. Thirdly, they state that all costs resulting from inspections and health control—and I quote— shall be charged at a standard rate to the product without reimbursement from public funds". Fourthly and finally, the draft extends for five years until 5th August 1986 the derogation allowing poultry not to be eviscerated immediately after slaughter. The aim is to end derogation by this date.

The evidence we heard showed that there is great discontent with the existing rules about inspection—that is, the rules we inherited when we entered the Community in 1973. There is even greater discontent about the new proposals. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us that this is due to the fact that the present system is not being implemented throughout the Community with any measure of uniformity and that only Denmark and possibly Germany have inspection levels equal to ours in this country, while in Denmark the state pays the cost. The Association of District Councils also held that the present regime has substantially increased costs without significantly improving public health protection, and the National Farmers' Union share that view.

The committee was concerned to find out whether inspection is in fact effective. Our witnesses, including the Consumers' Association, said that while postmortem poultry inspection should eliminate at least obviously diseased birds it will not identify the presence of salmonella bacteria, which are the commonest form of food poisoning.

I must draw particular attention to salmonella disease in view of its implications for the general public. The House will note in particular the evidence of Mr. R. H. Goodhead of the Ministry of Agriculture and of Dr. R. H. G. Charles, Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health. We are informed that salmonella bacteria can cause disease in animals and food poisoning in man; that poultry may be carriers although they show no sign of the disease themselves; and that salmonella contamination of poultry meat and other fresh meat is in fact very common. Let me give a few figures: in the United Kingdom 7,000 to 8,000 cases of salmonella poisoning are reported annually, of which some 60 to 70 per cent. are attributable to poultry.

However, I cannot stress too strongly that the evidence also made plain that all these cases could be prevented if poultry were properly cooked—which in the case of frozen birds means properly thawed as well—and also if contamination of cooked birds by raw birds were prevented. It was further strongly held that contamination of poultry by salmonella should be eliminated as far as possible and that the problem is best tackled on the farm by preventing salmonella getting into a flock of birds or spreading within it.

The role of the veterinary surgeon is discussed in paragraphs 22 to 27, and I should mention that both the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons support the Commission's new proposal, to which I have already referred; namely, that vets should always be present when slaughtering is taking place. They argue that decisions need to be taken rapidly and that inspectors lack the expertise and authority to fulfil all aspects of the task. All other bodies which gave evidence took a contrary view, as the House will note.

If the committee could not on this occasion agree wholeheartedly with the veterinary surgeons on this point, they do respect and admire the high standards and work of the veterinary profession of the United Kingdom. We owe them our gratitude in so many ways. I think, for example, of their work on international certification. We owe a great debt to the vets and are proud of the standards they display and of their international reputation.

On the rates of inspection there was some difference of opinion. For example, the Ministry thought that the Commission's proposals on this point were reasonable but the British Poultry Federation were again critical.

To come to our conclusions, I have already referred to salmonella and would merely repeat the committee's earnest warning that the simple but essential precautions should be taken by people in the industry and by the housewife in the kitchen. On inspection, we recommend to the Commission that a study into the effectiveness of poultry meat inspection as it is now should be conducted by the Commission before any new proposals are called for or implemented.

The committee gave very careful consideration to the proposal that a vet should always been on duty during slaughter, but we are not convinced of its justification. While the official vet's supervision is essential, the committee think that the speed of the operation is such that he could not examine every bird in detail even if he were present throughout. A 50 per cent. average presence would appear to be reasonable in all the circumstances, and I shall be interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, about this when he replies.

I understand that the Commission last month issued a further directive (9247/81) proposing that environmental health officers in the United Kingdom should be enabled to carry out supervisory duties in— cutting and storage premises separated from abattoirs". That proposal does not affect our conclusion as we were dealing with hygiene at point of slaughter, but it does imply a greater appreciation of the high standards of environmental health officers in this country. The committee are in general agreement with the Commission's views on the rate of inspection but, as paragraph 43 explains, we see the possibility of making some savings although alternative schemes need very creful study.

We have a saying in Welsh "Diwedd y gan yw y geiniog", which, roughly translated, means that some one has to pay the piper after he has played his tune. We considered the cost of the operation and concluded that it should not be met from public funds, while agreeing, nevertheless, that if other member states take a different view, then we should fall into line so as not to disadvantage our own producers as against their competitors in the rest of the Community.

Finally, the committee support the derogation of New York dressed poultry—this is discussed in detail in paragraphs 35 to 37—on the home market, but are opposed to the phasing-out over a five-year period. I note that the National Farmers' Union take a similar view. They say there is no proof that there is any additional health risk to the consumer. I have tended to compress an important and rather complex subject into a very short speech, and I apologise if I have left out anything of substance. But the House will note that the committee are not entirely enamoured of the proposals, and believe that efforts should be made to make the existing ones work in the first place. I shall be very glad to hear the Minister's views in response.

6.11 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I am very happy to be able to agree on this occasion with every word that my chairman has said about this Commission directive. It is one of those directives that will produce a little common sense in this country, and we should fight very hard for it. We heard a lot of evidence from a great many distinguished and practical people, but, at the end of the day, what it boiled down to was that inspection could not detect the only serious killer, which is salmonella bacteria, and that no matter how fast or how slow the inspection it could not detect it. It really depended on the common sense of the housewife in cooking the chicken properly, which would kill the infection.

At the same time, we heard that there was a distinct danger from frozen eviscerated chickens not being thawed out properly, and thereby not being cooked properly, because the cooking very often did not get to parts which were still frozen. Therefore, although salmonella is still a killer, because some people die of it every year in this country, eviscerated chickens are a greater danger than those which are not eviscerated because the latter are not frozen and are therefore much easier to cook and thereby kill the salmonella.

Of all our evidence, it appeared that Dr. Charles, the Senior Medical Officer from the Department of Health, gave the vital evidence, which seemed to show that a great deal of the inspection process is not very useful. On the other hand, the people whom we examined and who explained their system to us—such as the public health authorities who train the inspectors—know their jobs. They can train people in a 13-week course to recognise and do what is, after all, a repetitive job, with the chickens whizzing past them on the production line at the rate of about three per second.

Here I would not be quite as kind to our magnificent vets as the chairman of the committee, and they really must have had a slight lapse from their normal high standard of reasoning. If you think that veterinary surgeons, who are trained for seven years, can stand in a line and do a mechanical job like watching chickens racing past any better than someone who has trained for 13 weeks, then it seems not very logical.

We also had evidence from people in the trade which appeared to be perfectly sound. For example there is a factory in one of the Common Market countries—I think, Belgium—where they believe that, due to a total lack of inspection, they are saving the equivalent of £200,000 a year. If we are to have a system of inspection laid down by the Commission, we must see that the rules are enforced in the other countries and that a proper and even system of payment is applied. I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, when he said that if other countries insist on paying for it, then we cannot leave our trade at a tremendous disadvantage. I am sure that we shall get a very sensible and firm reply from the Minister to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name on the list of speakers, but I shall be speaking for only a very short time. I should like to say how much I approved of every single word that our chairman has said tonight. No one could have described this report more accurately and more interestingly. I was present at a good many—though not all—of the interviews which we had. But not being particularly interested in poultry, I am afraid that I did not do as much homework as I might have done on other subjects. However, I am quite sure that the House has had from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, an absolutely first-class description of what happened when we were taking evidence and discussing the matter, and I can add very little to what he has said.

I agree absolutely with our recommendations which appear in paragraph 46 of the report. It seemed to me when I was listening to the evidence that, really and truly, this was designed far more to raise European poultry killing standards. In some countries, the standard is lower than here. It seemed to me that our standards are better than most of what we heard about the European side. Therefore, I entirely agree that it is not up to us to incur greater expense and greater difficulties over here. It is much more the case that the European situation ought to be brought up to the present standard.

I also agree absolutely with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about vets. It seems to me that our veterinary services are first-class. They are greatly in demand for very important veterinary work, and to appear every day, watching hundreds of thousands of hens going along a belt and being slaughtered at an incredibly fast speed, is not the best way to employ our veterinary services. Therefore, I entirely agree that we should not insist that a veterinary representative should be in a slaughterhouse during the whole time when these operations are going on.

Certainly, vets are available and if there are demands on them, or there is a crisis of some kind when something unusual happens, then they should be called in. But I do not see any reason why they should attend every day, which is what we were told by the people who gave evidence and which we agreed in our final report.

This is one of those occasions when we can give a lead. In this country, our services are better than they are in Europe and we should be able not so much to adapt our services, but to get other people to adapt theirs to a higher standard. Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree with this report and give a reply which will encourage the European side, but which will not necessarily put us in the position of undertaking what would be a very expensive operation which, from all the evidence we took, is really not necessary.

6.19 p.m.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, I certainly join with others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on chairing the committee and to the members for their detailed examination, as well as to the way in which my noble friend reported with such clarity on interrelated issues. Having had the honour of representing for 15 years an East Midlands constituency where there were enormous poultry undertakings, and having been a former agriculture Minister myself, I am well aware, as are others, of some of the problems inherent in this report. Although we are discussing higher standards, we are aware of the much higher standards which pertain throughout the country in these enterprises generally. I welcome the report, and also the recommendations where they show what I think is realism in the light of the problems facing our poultry industry. Without going off the subject, we should not lose sight of our perspectives and regard this only as a debate about details such as inspection, who carries it out and who pays for it.

Hygiene is a very important matter. There must be no risks taken, for the effects will be not only harmful for the individual consumers but significant for the future of the poultry industry itself. There are consequences not only for the home market but for our export possibilities as well. I think we should have regard to the background canvas in order to see better the details of the aspects on which our attention is fixed tonight. But we must not get involved in a Parkinson's law situation so that our concern about the bicycle shed tends to make us overlook or even forget the much larger issue of the survival of the industry itself. We cannot discuss the problem in isolation from the overall position which faces the industry—and there are considerable difficulties facing the industry at this time.

In this report the tendency will be for us to discuss who does what and whether or not we need veterinary surgeons for inspection, or environmental health officers. If we look at the inspection methods, what routine is needed to check the thousands of birds for salmonella and other health hazards? It has been agreed and accepted, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos has said, that the accepted method of inspection is to check up to 1,200 birds an hour, which is 20 per minute, or one in three seconds. Many of us wonder how one can do that job adequately in such a short space of time. That surely answers the question as to who should carry out the inspection, for it seems that an environmental health officer's role may be adequate for that job. How much more could a veterinary surgeon see or diagnose in the very short time during which each bird is passing in front of his face—in a matter of three seconds? I am sure that we are all disturbed about whether this is really adequate for the safeguards which are required.

How checks are made is also important. The directive and regulations prescribe the standards of hygiene to be maintained in poultry slaughterhouses and for the ante- and post-mortem health inspections to be carried out. As my noble friend said, the official veterinary surgeons are not at present required to be in attendance all the time while poultry are being slaughtered. It is noticeable that according to MAFF they are present for only 50 per cent. of the time.

Costs are another factor, especially the argument about who will bear those costs. There was a debate in the other place only yesterday regarding the call which is being made for more stringent requirements relating to the housing of birds. This is not a subject to debate today, but we have to bear in mind that demands are being made on the industry in various ways. Therefore we want to make sure that there is adequate hygiene at the lowest possible cost. Although hygiene checks are vital, whatever the economic factors which may exist, costing is essential to the financial health of the industry. The views of the consumers are also important. We should always bear in mind that the consumer is the raison d'étre for the enterprise and that all the other things are means to an end.

There is widespread fear about the possible presence of salmonella in birds and of the consequences to health—as anybody who has had the illness will know. It is also alarming to realise that salmonella and other diseases could be present without being easily detected. However, it is important to remember that there is no one safeguard for these health matters. There are a number of factors which must be taken into account. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has already said, cooking is important. Another factor is that prevention is better than cure. Therefore hygiene should start on the farm itself. Avoidance of the disease in birds and of cross-contamination in slaughterhouses is also vital. So the problem of hygiene needs to be tackled in various ways. The matters we are discussing today are but a few of the safeguards.

With regard to the committee's views, I believe that the committee are right to suggest that any additional requirements are justified by the increased protection for consumers. The Commission should ensure the raising of basic standards in all member states. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. We need also to ensure that there is freedom as to how those standards are attained in the various member countries concerned. There should also be, as the committee requests, an EEC investigation or study into the effectiveness of poultry meat inspection in safeguarding the health of the consumer. There should be flexibility in inspection and of who does it, but safeguards should also ensure adequate cover or monitoring, especially if there is a shortage of inspectors.

On costs and who pays, this may be a matter more for the producer than for the public authority—that is the view taken by the committee—whether at national or local level. What surely matters most is that the poultry industry is able to meet the costs, however levied and met, and that depends on many factors for which the Government must take more responsibility. The industry is facing many difficulties and hardships at the present time. We should see this particular debate against that background and consider whether the industry is able to fulfil needs which must be met because health is concerned.

Another important factor is the unfair competition by other member states. When costs rise, for whatever reason, there will be a temptation to cut corners or to cut costs on such vital aspects as the matters we are considering tonight. But if any member countries are to be leaders in production, let it be those who are most efficient. What worries us in this respect, as with other commodities, is that the least efficient members of the Community are often buttressed with financial and other aid and capture business when they should be either discouraged or should go out of business. It should be the efficient producers, as we are in this country, who are given support to continue proficiently and ensure adequate safeguards for fairly priced products.

These are very important points. Therefore, the committee has done a service by drawing the attention of the Community, and the Government, to the needs of the future. I hope the Government will stand firm and make sure that the future regulations of the Community have in mind some of the points which the industry has put forward and which we are putting forward here tonight. We in Britain have not always a prosperous but at least an efficient industry, and we can give a lead to others when it comes to making the necessary changes.

6.28 p.m.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, I feel that your Lordships' House owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Lord Chairman of Sub-Committee D, for raising this important subject. I would not expect anyone to challenge the assertion that food hygiene is a matter of vital import, but it is a rather unglamorous topic which often fails to receive the attention which it certainly deserves. Our gratitude should of course extend to the Members of the Select Committee on the European Communities whose report on Poultry Meat Hygiene forms the basis of this debate. Many of those members have spoken in the debate. The Select Committee conducted a most thorough and careful inquiry which resulted in a comprehensive and valuable report. Although the report may have failed to make an impact on the best seller lists, it has certainly commanded the attention of those with an active interest in the poultry meat industry.

The background to, and content of, the European Commission's proposals which formed the subject of the Select Committee's scrutiny are fully described in the report, but it may be helpful if I were to remind your Lordships of some of the main points. Council Directive 71/118, which was agreed before United Kingdom accession to the Community, seeks to secure the hygienic production of poultry meat in the Community, whether intended for intra-Community trade or domestic consumption. The directive contains provisions relating to standards for poultry meat processing establishments, hygienic practices in such premises and the inspection of poultry meat by qualified poultry meat inspectors under the supervision of an official veterinary surgeon. The inspection requirements of the directive, and hence our implementing regulations, became compulsory in August 1979. Problems have arisen since then, but it would be wrong to let this blind us to the very real achievements that have been secured in enhancing the hygiene status of this important element of our national diet.

The problems to which I refer stem in the main from the uneven application of the directive by member states of the Community, a fact to which several of your Lordships who have spoken this evening have drawn attention—in terms of degree of implementation and the financing of the costs of inspection. By dint of sustained pressure by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the European Commission prepared a report on the implementation of the directive by member states which confirmed our view that the directive was not being applied evenly and that steps must be taken to rectify the competitive distortions which this created. Consequently, the Commission submitted proposals to the Council of Ministers for amendments to the poultry meat hygiene directive. These ate the proposals which were studied by the Select Committee, to which this Question refers. As the committee's report explains, these proposals seek to achieve equality of treatment by making specific stipulations as to the levels of veterinary attendance in poultry slaughterhouses, inspection rates expressed in numbers of carcases per inspector per hour and the financing of inspection costs.

The Select Committee concluded that in some respects the Commission's proposals represented a very stringent and hence costly interpretation of the directive and that the need for such an interpretation had not been established in terms of hygiene objectives. The real aim is to achieve parity of treatment throughout the Community based on standards consistent with the production of wholesome poultry meat. The Government have not insisted that our Community partners should model their inspection services on prevailing practices in this country. Our policy is simply that the requirements of the directive should be applied in an even-handed manner by all member states, and we have repeatedly made it clear that we are fully prepared to adjust our own arrangements in line with whatever levels all member states agree to abide by.

One of the suggestions that have been made in Brussels is that fixed inspection levels might only be mandatory for intra-Community trade. We would, of course, expect any agreed levels to be both effective in hygiene terms and to be realistically based. We also want them to be applied in practice, and to be seen to be applied, in all member states. I believe that this is a clear and unequivocal position and that it is consistent with the Select Committee's conclusions.

Turning now from the general to certain specific points, I noted with interest that the Select Committee paid particular attention to the role of poultry inspection as regards salmonella food poisoning. Several of your Lordships have referred to and underlined that matter this evening. The committee recognise, quite correctly in my view, that this is a very complex issue which must be tackled on many fronts including the farm, the slaughterhouse, and, by no means least, the kitchen. Several of your Lordships have referred to the latter. A proper inspection service can help to reduce the level of contamination in poultry slaughterhouses and has an important role to play by excluding obviously ailing birds from the premises and by removing diseased carcases from the start of the production line and by reducing the risks of cross-contamination between batches of poultry.

I should also like to make the point here that the intention of inspection is not only to reduce the risk of food poisoning, but also to protect the consumer from other unpleasant conditions which can affect the wholesomeness of poultry meat. As regards the levels of veterinary attendance, the Select Committee endorsed the current practice in this country which is based on a sliding scale according to the scale of operation of the slaughterhouse. The Government believe that this approach is sensible and pragmatic and we shall continue to resist the Commission's proposal that the official veterinarian shall be in full-time attendance in all but the very smallest of slaughterhouses. As for inspection rates, we agree with the committee that the Commission's proposals are broadly correct, although some detailed adjustment is required.

On the vital question of the financing of inspection costs, the Government are again in agreement with the committee, and in this instance the Commission, in believing that the cost of inspection should be a charge on the product and not on public funds. Grants have been made available in the past to assist in the phasing of the hygiene regulations and to support the industry in the face of unfair competition, pending the adoption of satisfactory Community solutions. However, these were short-terms measures and we do not believe that it would be appropriate for such subsidisation to become a permanent feature of our inspection service.

I doubt if it will have escaped your Lordships' notice that the proposals we are discussing were tabled in April of this year and that it is now November. I should like to be able to report that negotiations are rapidly drawing to a satisfactory conclusion, but I am afraid that would be wishful thinking. It became apparent in the early stages of the negotiations that a quick agreement was highly unlikely. For that reason my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food initiated discussions with interested parties in this country to explore the scope for easing the financial burden of inspection on our poultry industry within the context of the directive as it now stands.

The conclusion to these discussions was that the Ministry's guidance to the enforcing local authorities on hours of veterinary attendance and inspection levels could be withdrawn in respect of those plants which elect not to apply the European Community health mark to their products. The intention behind this is to provide local authorities with greater flexibility to adjust their inspection arrangements to the individual circumstances of the plants concerned and thus provide the services required by our national regulations in the most economic way possible while maintaining consumer safeguards, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, would recognise that point. This action was taken at the end of August of this year, and although it is still too early to assess its full impact, the signs are that local authorities are responding positively to the opportunities which these arrangements provide.

Particular attention was drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to the important matter of evisceration. The Government here recognise that the question of derogation which he raised in his speech is of importance to some consumers and processors in this country, although it is of considerably greater relevance to some other member states. There are also hygiene considerations to be taken into account although opinion is divided on this matter. However, it is quite clear that an uneviscerated bird cannot possibly be fully inspected in the slaughterhouse. United Kingdom regulations were amended earlier in the year to remove the 15th August 1981 deadline. No new date has been inserted into our regulations and it is not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration to this position, unless and until a new firm Community deadline is agreed. I hope that will to some extent satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on this important matter.

A question which was also raised by the noble Lord referred to environmental health officers, as did, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. Here Her Majesty's Government agree that environmental health officers have an important role in meat and poultry inspection arrangements in co-operation with veterinarians and we are seeking recognition in Brussels of this possibility. I think this is an important matter to stress in the process of the negotiations now in hand.

My Lords, in this short debate I think it is not possible to do full justice to the subject raised by the noble Lord as the topic this evening. However, I am gratified to have had this opportunity to outline the Government's thinking, and hope that my comments may have served to reassure your Lordships that the Government are firmly resolved to achieve a fair deal for our industry together with proper safeguards for the consumer. These are the objectives which I am sure are shared by this House.