HL Deb 12 December 1996 vol 576 cc1200-10

4.12 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Protection of broiler chickens]:

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 11, leave out ("seven birds") and insert ("21 kilogrammes").

The noble Lord said: Since the Second Reading of the Bill I have met the British Poultry Meat Federation which represents the industry. It continues to be opposed to the Bill on the basis that what the Bill provides is already covered by legislation and that the federation's members administer the industry with the utmost kindness. The fact that the industry is covered by a code of practice which is unenforceable does not mean that it is covered by legislation. Admittedly, there is the general animal cruelty legislation, but the trouble there is that it is largely unenforceable since the rearing of broiler fowls happens very much in private—in sheds to which the public do not, on the whole, have access. I continue to maintain that, of all the factory farming practices, broiler rearing is the only one that is not governed by specific legislation.

I pay tribute to the improvement in the industry and I have no doubt that it will continue. But if all is sweetness and light in this field, there can be no objection to a failsafe Bill which will no doubt ensure that it does continue. Nothing reinforces virtue more than a certain amount of legislation. Where there is money to be made there is always the risk of reversion. Here the legislation can serve a very useful purpose.

There are those who say that the animals would not get fat and make money for their owners if they were ill-treated, but I refer them to a former farming correspondent of The Times who countered that argument with the reminiscence that the time in his life when he put on most weight was when he was in the trenches in the First World War. The two do not necessarily go together.

I am most grateful to the Minister for his letter to me and for the information he gave about the present position and the position that he hopes will come about. I received the letter earlier this afternoon just before I came into the Chamber and so I have not been able to incorporate it, so to speak, into what I have to say in moving the first amendment. I know the Minister will realise that I am saving him time and trouble if I quote from it to a certain extent. The letter states: Reports have been published on the Handling and Transport of Poultry (1990) and on the Welfare of Broiler Chickens (1992). This latter report was concerned only with the rearing of birds for meat. A further report on the welfare of breeding birds is expected to he published next year. The Council's reports on rearing and breeding birds will be used to inform our preparation of a new welfare code. At present the codes of welfare recommendations adopted under Section 3 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 deal jointly with all domestic fowl. Our intention is to develop that code into separate measures for broiler chickens and laying hens. As is always the case the revised draft code on broilers will be subject to full consultation and approval by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. The new Code will also take into account—as appropriate—the recommendation on the welfare of domestic fowl adopted last year by the Council of Europe. This recommendation has been endorsed by all the EU member states and so will provide a basis for us to work for EU standards in due course. However, the EU already has a significant amount of important animal welfare work to complete (on transit, veal calves and—very shortly—laying hens). You will appreciate therefore that I am not in a position to predict when there will be space in this schedule to achieve progress on broiler chickens. As I indicated in the course of the debate there is much action that can be taken to promote the welfare of broilers without the need for further legislation. In addition to proceeding with the new broiler code, we are funding research and advisory programmes aimed at identifying and encouraging management techniques which promote good welfare. The industry has also responded to the FAWC's 1992 report and is carrying out a survey to measure the locomotory ability of broiler chickens at or near slaughter weight. The results of this survey—which is still ongoing—will indicate whether the steps taken by the industry to ameliorate the leg problems commented on by FAWC are having the desired effect".

That is all very satisfactory as far as it goes. I congratulate the Government and I thank the Minister for writing to me and assuring me of that. However, for the reasons I have already given, I do not see any reason not to pursue the Bill with its rather modest objective, bearing in mind the limited time remaining for this Parliament and of trying to get a fully considered Bill through your Lordships' House in a form in which it can be picked up, if necessary, in a future Parliament by either the Government, of whatever complexion, or by a Member of another place.

The object of these amendments is to get the Bill into that kind of shape. In the first version of Amendment No. 1, which is before the Committee at the moment. I tabled an amendment to move the density of stocking from seven to 10 birds. It has been pointed out to me that at different stages of the bird's life different densities are better defined by weight because the number of birds per metre will differ depending on whether they are small or large. Defining by weight follows a practice in various European welfare codes. The one recommended here is equivalent to 10 birds per square metre at full growth. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

With this amendment and the later ones that we shall be considering, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is trying to meet some of the points made at Second Reading and in consultations outside the House. I would like to add to the point that he made about the fact that we now have 700 million broiler chickens unprotected by specific regulation and protected only by a voluntary code. I still cannot see why we have to rely on codes and not regulations as for other species of livestock. In the Minister's letter he said, As is always the case the revised draft code on broilers will be subject to full consultation and approval by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force". It has to be approved as a code, so what is the argument for not doing this by regulation, which would take the same amount of parliamentary time and which would give the matter the full force of law in place of the voluntary code that we have at the moment?

If one reads back through speeches on the Second Reading, and particularly as regards this and the other amendments, it appears that the problem for the broiler industry is that the margins are slim so through-put is all-important. Indeed, the broiler industry is a sort of agricultural version of the saying by Jack Cohen of Tesco, "stack'em high and sell'em cheap". I remember many years ago discussing this with a leading broiler keeper when I remarked on the very slim margins that were earned per bird. He said, "Yes, but we find the volume quite fascinating".

That is the problem. There are very low margins on broilers. We have seen how the industry has developed to achieve fast through-put, with all the problems that have occurred in the past and which still occur in certain areas of the industry. One result of the stocking rate and the health of the birds generally is the effect on human health. There are the problems of salmonella and campylobacter mentioned at Second Reading. I do not believe that those were answered by the Minister at Second Reading.

The change that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is suggesting to 21 kilogrammes is equivalent to about 10 birds per square metre, when they are slaughtered. That means that as the birds grow they will have slightly more room. We know that it is only a period of six weeks before the birds reach slaughter weight, when there will be pressure for room.

Instead of having to deal with the point in relation to all the other amendments, perhaps I may say that besides the voluntary code there are welfare standards for chickens introduced by Freedom Food and the RSPCA. I received information on these this morning. When the Government come to consider the revision of the voluntary code—if that is the route that they intend to use, which clearly seems to be the case—will they take a look at the welfare standards which Freedom Food have produced? I shall not read out all of them. There are five standards relating to feeding and six to buildings. These are all individual recommendations, and I believe that they are out for consultation at the moment. There are also four standards as regards health and veterinary care. The standards deal with inspection, transportation, handling and slaughter. I wonder whether the Minister has seen these. Perhaps he can say whether the Government intend to take them into account when they come to redraft the voluntary code.

The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is suggesting—I am not sure that he is going to press it to a Division—brings home the important point about the stocking rate. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a constructive answer and, particularly, deal with the point as to why we have to rely on a voluntary code for this important industry and not on regulation.

Baroness Nicol

I apologise for being 30 seconds late. It means that I must ask whether or not we are speaking to all three amendments at once.

Lord Carter

No, we are speaking just to Amendment No. 1.

Baroness Nicol

I would like to say in general that I am rather disappointed to see these amendments being tabled. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has retreated before he was even seriously attacked. His original Bill was very good as it stood and I do not wish to see him retreat from it. However, it is his Bill and I do not propose to war with him over it.

As regards Amendment No. 1, it seems that seven birds per square metre, or the equivalent in weight, would have been a much more humane and better target to aim for. But this is not the amendment on which I wish to say most. I simply record the fact that I am disappointed that the noble Lord has seen fit to retreat from his original figure. Perhaps I may endorse what my noble friend Lord Carter has just said about a code as against regulations. I believe that regulations would be much more appropriate, given the wide range of people who are involved in this kind of production and the need to keep them in line.

Lord Forbes

If stocking density is to be determined, surely it is very much easier to count the birds rather than to weigh them.

The Earl of Clanwilliam

Perhaps I may make a quick intervention here. The noble Lord's amendments are intended to reduce intensive farming. If I appear to be going slightly into a Second Reading speech I hope that the Committee will forgive me. The object of this Bill is to reduce intensive farming. We know that it is damaging to the health and wealth of the nation and we are all trying to reduce it. In fact, the whole tenor of the reduction in the effects of the CAP is to that end.

The other side of that coin is that if we reduce the level of intensive farming we shall increase the level of employment. If that is done, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, the industry will destroy itself. It is a very important industry and it should not be allowed to do so. The industry is bound by the price war among the supermarkets. They drive prices down, demand cheap food and invite poor quality. It is they who are at fault here. We do not want to see the industry decimated by the introduction of an enormous level of imports because of increased costs. This Bill is unlikely to work.

Lord Lucas

With the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the Second Reading questions first, as it were. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is seeking to rephrase his amendment in terms of kilogrammes rather than numbers. That certainly addresses one practical problem. It is easier to count numbers, but when the birds are small the chicks are confined to a small area so that they can keep warm. Therefore, one would not want such a low density specified in the Bill. So it is a question of rearing practices. I agree that measuring that in practice would be more difficult. But generally we do know on any given day roughly the weight of the birds.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and others on the contamination of chicken meat by bacteria, which was raised at Second Reading. All raw meat tends to have its surface contaminated by bacteria. Different animals harbour different bacteria. Cattle tend to be contaminated with E. coli; chicken with salmonella and campylobacter. That has been known for a long time. For many generations governments have advised people on handling raw meat and cooking it properly to take that into account. There is nothing new about this. Given people's common sense there is nothing to be too concerned about.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others were concerned that we should be providing these measures by way of regulations rather than by a code. Perhaps I may first defend a code. It is not something that I would understand as a totally voluntary measure because it is allowable in evidence. In other words, if someone has committed an offence and transgressed the code, that transgression is evidence of the fact that they have committed an offence. But we are reluctant to put the matter in formal, specific regulations as we have the power to do until that is taken up by Europe as a whole. We do not want to put our producers in a position where they are unable to compete with Europe. We want to take forward European standards as a whole.

We do not believe that the position at the moment is that unsatisfactory. Broilers are covered by legislation specific to the welfare of livestock on a farm. Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 contains detailed provisions. Therefore, all intensively farmed livestock, other than battery hens, cows and pigs which have their own separate schedules, is covered by those regulations.

To deal with the particular amendment, we recognise that stocking density is critical to the health, welfare and production of broilers. If it is too high, the birds will not have sufficient space for movement and rest. Access to feed and drink becomes limited, and there is a high risk of poor quality litter and other consequences that are of no benefit either to bird or producer. If it is too low, good environmental conditions, especially warmth, are very difficult to maintain. Litter quality becomes poor and low ventilation rates can lead to a build-up of pathogenic micro-organisms. All of these factors are recognised in the welfare code recommendations for broilers either explicitly or implicitly, and the dangers of overcrowding are emphasised.

At the current recommended stocking density of 34 kilogrammes per square metre, birds generally still have enough space to meet their physiological and behavioural needs. They can exercise, dust bathe and move to different parts of the broiler house, for example to feed. It is axiomatic that satisfactory management and stockmanship are important to maintain good welfare, but this is the case in any system of animal production. The figure of 34 kilogrammes per square metre has been arrived at on the basis of inspection of birds in the practical situation of real broiler houses. It is not based upon an exact science, but nor is the suggestion of the noble Lord that it should be lower. Based on the collective experience of the industry in looking at broiler houses, there is great doubt whether the reduction in stocking density proposed by the noble Lord will bring much benefit to chickens. But it will certainly result in a substantial disbenefit to humans. We estimate that the cost of the noble Lord's amendment will still be of the order of 23 pence per bird. That may not sound much, but when viewed in terms of supermarket mark-ups it may represent up to £150 million a year to the consumer. We do not view that as necessarily a good thing to do. We disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that to achieve a mild and possibly negligible benefit to chickens is worth that disbenefit to humans.

Therefore, while we shall not oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, we do not believe that it makes the Bill any more satisfactory.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Carter

Before noble Lords decide what to do with this amendment, I should like to raise a question about Freedom Foods. In the redrafting of the voluntary code will the Government take account of the recommendations of the RSPCA?

Lord Lucas

Over the past year or so I have become accustomed to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, being ahead of me in knowing what is going on in the world of agriculture. I am aware that the Freedom Food initiative exists but I have not seen it. We will take into account all information, including what emerges from that initiative, in drafting the new code. The RSPCA and other interested parties will have an opportunity to comment before the code is finalised. However, without seeing the particular document to which the noble Lord refers, I do not believe that I can go any further today.

Baroness Nicol

Perhaps I am being very naive. The Minister quoted the figure of 23 pence per bird as the possible cost. Even if 100 per cent. of that cost is passed on to the consumer, how can it be more than 23 pence in the supermarket? I do not understand the economics of it. If it is to remain at an increase of 23 pence, there are very few consumers who would be unwilling to pay that. Most of them would not notice it.

Lord Lucas

It is a matter of common experience that supermarkets tend to make mark-ups in relation to prices rather than absolute amounts. If one raises the value of an item they increase their mark-up in proportion. One would expect that 23 pence per bird at the producer level would be magnified down the chain. One cannot be specific about it. If we thought that that amount was necessary to pay for a major improvement in the welfare of chickens and that it was required because chickens were in a state of distress, we might consider it worthwhile. However, we do not see that it offers any worthwhile benefit to chickens. We agree that we have no research to show that it does not, but the noble Lord does not have any research to show that it does. From our practical experience we believe that chickens are well off as they are.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. In particular, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which was very helpful. I am extremely sorry that I have disappointed the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I usually find myself on exactly the same side as the noble Baroness in almost all subjects in this area. I look forward with some trepidation to the amendments about which she says she will have more to say and criticise. Nevertheless, in trying to achieve a balanced and workable Bill I believe that this amendment is a good thing. I agree entirely with the noble Lord who said that it was much easier to count birds than to measure their weight. However, if one has a pocket calculator and picks up one bird each day one can discover the weight of that individual bird and probably work out the stocking density pretty quickly.

I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, has been persuaded that the Bill may mean the destruction of the industry. I do not believe that that is so. The Bill is part of a proceeding that applies pressure to the industry to provide better welfare. It also puts pressure on the Government to achieve something through the European network. I do not believe that we should give up hope of achieving agreement on this matter throughout Europe. It may take some time, but this is only the first stage.

Mention has been made of supermarket prices. I accept what the Government have said about the usual practice. But supermarkets are getting better in this area, and some are better than others. There is a definite tendency to try to meet the wishes of the thinking and caring consumer. More and more consumers are thinking and caring. I do not doubt that eventually we will manage to achieve a result whereby supermarkets in Europe and the UK can find agreement on something that benefits the welfare of these birds. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 12, leave out ("3,000") and insert ("5,000").

The noble Lord said: Here I am on much more dicey ground. The amendment is concerned with flock size. I confess that I do not entirely understand how a flock should be defined for the purposes of legislation. It has been put to me that it can be better done by sub-dividing enormous flocks in large areas into smaller areas. But the purpose of the exercise is to have a flock the size of which can be inspected by eye once or twice a day. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of counting animals, whether they be sheep in a field, hounds going through a gate or whatever it may be, know how extremely difficult it is. The objective is not for the person who is inspecting to pick up every bird and examine it. That would be ridiculous and bad for the birds. The objective is that the inspector's eye should pass over every bird every time. There must be a limit on the size of flock in order to ensure that that happens and we believe that 5,000 is manageable. The 3,000 in the Bill might be too ambitious an objective. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

I am sure that the amendment is desirable but I believe that the Minister will say that it would be expensive. If he has the figures, it would be interesting if he could give an indication of the cost of such a restriction on flock size. I do not have the statistics and I am not sure whether they are collected. On the whole major broiler producers keep birds in much larger flocks than the amendment proposes. This relates to the previous amendment on which we mentioned Europe. Our producers could be placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other producers, both inside and outside Europe, if, as the Minister said in his letter, we had to wait for Europe. It would be a long drawn out process before we could bring in such a restriction on flock size throughout Europe. That is an important consideration.

Reference has been made to the role of the major supermarkets and retailers. From memory, I believe that the five major supermarket chains buy 60 per cent. of the fresh produce. In the case of broiler meat, they must be by far the largest buyers. They are big and are powerful agents for improvement and change. A voluntary code for producers, the major supermarkets and retailers could be the way to achieve an improvement in the operation of the broiler industry that was at least as effective as regulations.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

I was advised by a good Irishman that the best way to count a flock of sheep was to count the legs and divide by four. However, in this case, it might not work. On the previous amendment I said that I did not approve of Amendment No. 2. Even 3,000 birds could be considered too high a figure. If a person wishes to raise an organic flock, the Soil Association will require him to keep no more than 500 birds in a house. Thus we can see the wide difference in standards applied to them. It seems a good argument for looking hard at the figures.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is interested in keeping to European standards and will be aware that the absolute maximum under those standards for birds labelled free range is 4,800 during the time they are in the broiler house. The poor unfortunate birds in the Bill are in the broiler house 24 hours a day; free range birds, for a good part of the day, are outside. The difference implies a degree of cruelty. If the maximum for part-time prisoners is 4,800, then 5,000 must surely be far too high a figure for full-time prisoners. I do not wish to prolong the debate more than necessary, but I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to go ahead with the amendment.

Lord Lucas

I appreciate what the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Beaumont, said about the power of the supermarkets. They certainly have power which they used to exercise. When the price went up as a result, they would buy products from elsewhere. However, they are now developing a more co-operative, one might say Japanese-model, relationship with suppliers. That should enable progress to be made so that what the consumer wants can be translated into what is happening on the farm without the need for heavy-handed regulation.

Turning to the amendment, I now understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, what is being aimed at. I have always had a problem in understanding how small flock size with essentially juvenile birds within the first six weeks of life is a relevant factor. The difference between 5,000 birds and the industry standard which may be five times as great is merely that the shed is bigger. The environment for the individual bird is made up of its immediate neighbours. It does not matter whether 20 yards away there is another group of chickens; it is more a question of the economics of the industry. If the sheds are too large the producer is taking too much of a risk with infection or some other problem, perhaps with the feeding mechanism, which may knock the shed out. The producer does not want all his eggs in one basket, but if the numbers are too small, costs are increased. It seems that 25,000 is the figure on which the industry settled.

I do not know the organic regulation to which the noble Baroness referred, I imagine it refers to older birds, particularly those outside, which may have developed a social structure. My experience with chickens is that they develop quite complex social structures and if they are in too large groups they will become stressed and find life difficult.

Baroness Nicol

No, I referred to organically reared broilers which would not have a life much longer than the birds we are talking about.

Lord Lucas

As usual, it is a case of my ignorance in not knowing the basis for the regulation. I am not aware of any problems which arise in practice from commercial flock sizes. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is aiming more at the way in which the flock is supervised and individual birds looked after. The method used is that someone will walk through the houses; as they do so, the chickens will move away from them. Those birds which are not so good at moving away will become noticeable. Again, I do not feel that the flock size makes any difference to that. It is more a question of the frequency of inspection and how good the method is of detecting the chickens in need of attention.

I think that the method used at the moment, with a sensible rate of inspection of perhaps up to half a dozen times a day, would be reasonable. If a disease problem develops in a house, it develops fast and therefore it is in the interests of good management to inspect the birds frequently. The method of walking through a house will enable the birds in trouble to be picked up at an early stage and dealt with appropriately. I do not believe that any concept of flock size would help. We shall not oppose the noble Lord's amendment if he wishes to press it, but we do not feel that it makes a difference to the Bill or a useful difference in practice.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

Once again I thank Members of the Committee for their contributions. It seems to me that the amendment is on slightly dicey ground because of the definition of a flock on which no Member has commented. I put the amendment forward rather tentatively and as no one seems to be much in favour of it and at least one Member is against it I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 11, leave out ("one year") and insert ("three years").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is obvious. It is right that we should give an industry the time that it needs to adjust to various changes. I have already said that I hope that there will be a coming together of how other countries in Europe and the shops react to these changes, to the threat of these changes, and, eventually, to the changes when they happen. If there is that coming together, one should give the maximum of leeway to putting the Bill into practice. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

The only point I wish to make is that because of the structure of the broiler industry three years may not be long enough for the adjustments required.

Baroness Nicol

Perhaps I may ask a question on this amendment. When a farmer is given notice to leave his farm, for whatever reason, I believe he is given two years in which he can reap any crops that he has to reap, and so forth. In the case of broiler chickens, the harvest, if one cares to put it that way, is every two months. What, therefore, is the reason for wishing to extend the period beyond what is said in the original Bill. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, or my noble friend Lord Carter explained why the period should be three years.

Lord Lucas

There are obviously some changes proposed in the Bill which would not require much time at all to put into effect, if one chose to do so. However, there are others—particularly those which relate to the amount of space which would be required—which might, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intimated, take considerably longer. If one is moving to something where one requires a 50 per cent. expansion in broiler capacity because of lower stocking densities, or whatever, there may be a problem in obtaining the sites and planning permission. Planning permission is extremely difficult to obtain for these enterprises now. That might well take more than the three years.

Three years would be a tight timetable to which to keep, if we take all the provisions in the Bill together. Indeed, looking at the details, it might well not be possible to do it. It is not a proposal that we are against, because I believe that it improves the Bill. It does not address the problems which lie at an earlier stage in the Bill which to our mind make the whole enterprise too impractical to wish to take forward.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I endeavour to be a reasonable man. It seems to me that the amendment makes the Bill more reasonable for all those who have something to do with it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.