| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister allow that that is a very particular interpretation of the Family Expenditure Survey figures? What he is describing is the absolute amount spent, which is not meaningful. If he would quote to the House the percentages of income spent, as I quoted, from exactly that survey, he would see that poor families spend nearly twice as much in percentage terms. Of course they spend less in absolute terms, but that is not meaningful.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord is important; however, it was not clear from the contribution that he made. It is estimated that the average household, according to the Family Expenditure Survey figures, spends something like £2.30, £2.40 or £2.50 a week on the lottery. That must be set against, for example, an average expenditure of £5 a week on cigarettes or £12 on alcohol. The important consideration is whether it is the Government's business to tell people how to spend their money? We do not believe that it is the Government's business. The amount of money spent on the lottery by people in exercising their choice is as I have described it. Indeed, I go further. Even if it were thought that the Government should tell people how to spend their money, given the figures I have described, would the lottery be the right place to start? It would not be.
I emphasise again some of the beneficial effects which we believe the lottery is having in this country. The lottery is helping urban regeneration and providing employment. These things matter, not only to local and central government but perhaps most of all to the people who will gain work and benefit. It is bringing benefits to rural communities. In addition to the flagship projects about which one can read frequently in the national newspapers, a trawl through any of the local newspapers in this country shows how much of an impact some of the smaller projects, with which one is possibly not so familiar, are having throughout the country. These things are important and must not be overlooked in the context of the impact of this very recent development in our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a short point about what is apparently a better manner of distributing lottery funds in Wales as opposed to distribution in England. As the noble Lord knows, the structure of sport in Wales is somewhat different from that in England. The reason why the procedures are slightly different,
I understand, goes back to that. However, I assure the noble Lord that, so far as the Sports Council is concerned, it consults local authorities in order to receive a view from the people on the ground.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I will willingly take the point up with the noble Lord outside the Chamber if that is helpful.
The lottery is encouraging people to take part. It is creating facilities for people to take part in sport, for example, or providing musical instruments. In turn, that helps the cohesion of local communities. It is improving access to information. It is helping developments in the countryside, in tourism and in the leisure industry. Many of the lottery projects that are going forward are positively and deliberately environmentally beneficial--for example, the millennium forest in Scotland or the Sustrans national cycleway.
The department is continuously reviewing the way in which the lottery works in order that we can achieve the best results. It is still young. The Government recognise that it must evolve if it is to be effective in the public interest in the areas where it is needed most.
We shall continue to assess the impact that the lottery is having, both on the sectors representing the good causes and more widely, including the charitable and voluntary sectors. It is still a little too early to identify exactly what its overall impact might be, although that will clearly affect our thoughts on what might be done to make lottery funding even more accessible and more beneficial.
In conclusion, I hope that I may have allayed your Lordships' fears over some of the consequences and perceived consequences which the introduction of a second weekly draw might have. I should like to remind your Lordships of the great things that have already been achieved with lottery funds and the even greater things that I am confident will be achieved in the months and years ahead.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am most grateful to all Members of the House who have taken part in this debate. It is certainly important to those of us who have spoken. I am glad to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on a striking maiden speech, particularly as he was able to bring experience of an organisation like the British Legion. As we have seen, it relies enormously on people collecting on street corners, in factories and in shops for the legion's wonderful appeal.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Donoughue that we have heard tonight from every speaker except the Minister a catalogue of potential disaster. That was underlined by the many diverse interests whose representatives spoke in the debate. It would be wrong and invidious to attempt to mention them all. Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go down the road of talking about football clubs, the sport and arts foundation, as well as racing. That is horse racing and
dog racing, and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, that dog racing ought to be on equal terms with horse racing or any other interest.I thank the Minister for giving us such a courteous, well thought out and reasoned speech, as he always does, even if we do not entirely agree with his remarks. On this occasion, I thought he put up a noble effort in defending the impossible. When the whole House is united in its indignation and concern, it takes great courage for the Minister to speak.
However, in his speech I detected some strands of hope. Even at this late hour, with the Budget only days away, I hope that he will draw attention to the remarks of noble Lords because he has an opportunity to act in some areas, and that is important. It is odd that the Minister should tell us that there were reasons for believing that we had the most successful lottery in the world; but he then went on to say that as yet it was impossible to draw conclusions about charity giving. I agree that we cannot draw conclusions yet. But what on earth is he doing, in advance of those conclusions being drawn, authorising a second weekly lottery? It seems to me to undermine the Government's case.
He said, "We can't interfere with people's right to choose how they spend their money". Of course; it is not the Government's duty. But the Government's duty is to hold the balance and ensure justice and fairness between one activity and other activities which might be affected by it. Although he said that it had nothing to do with the Government, he sought to defend their actions by saying that the Secretary of State had relied on Section 4 of the Act to draw the attention of the regulator to how he should conduct his business. If it is not the Government's duty to tell people how to spend their money, I am glad it is the Government's duty to tell the regulator how he should behave in connection with spending the money.
In thanking everyone, I wish to make one last point. Before he sat down, the Minister told us that all these matters would be reviewed in the year 2001. That is far too late to review some of the difficulties that have been outlined in the House. I ask the Government to think again about it. That leads me to express the hope that if they do not do so, then long before 2001 another set of Ministers will carry out their duty to the nation and to the industries concerned.
I thank noble Lords for the pleasant way in which they have received the debate and beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Welfare of Broiler Chickens Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the third Bill which I have had the privilege of introducing into your Lordships' House. The first was a Bill for the protection of wild plants. Your Lordships gave it a second reading and it was subsequently
incorporated into a much larger Bill which reached the statute book. The second was on returnable bottles. It ran into considerable opposition from the industries concerned, and while I cannot pretend that the situation in that field is now satisfactory, I can, I think, justifiably claim that the much more enlightened attitude of the same industries today owes something to the pressure which those of your Lordships who supported me then brought to bear on them.This, my third Bill, is, as your Lordships will observe, in the same green field. But it concerns me far more deeply, as it bears on our treatment of sentient animals. It was introduced into another place by Mr. Alan Meales as a ten-minute rule Bill. Mr. Alan Meales will be known to a number of your Lordships as the president of the Westminster Beer Club, of which I am proud to wear the tie tonight while giving this speech. It was drafted by Compassion in World Farming, an admirable charity.
Its aims have attracted considerable cross-party support in successive early-day Motions in another place. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will feel that it should either become law as soon as possible or, at the very least, that it should be discussed fully and sufficiently amended, if necessary, so that it can be re-introduced into Parliament, preferably by Government in a Session longer than we shall be able to enjoy this year.
The Bill clears up a serious gap in the law in that it introduces for the first time provisions designed to protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems.
I should stress that the UK chicken flock comprises two totally separate flocks. One is kept to lay eggs. Most of these birds are kept in battery cages and their welfare problems are relatively well known. In the other, much larger flock, chickens--called broilers--are reared for their meat.
We rear over 700 million broilers in the UK each year. Yet broiler chickens are the only one of the UK's major factory farmed animals to have no specific laws to protect them. The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 contain detailed provisions on pigs, calves and battery hens. On broiler chickens, however, the law is largely silent, despite the severity of the health and welfare problems encountered by these birds.
The vast majority of broilers are reared intensively indoors. They are kept in huge windowless sheds, often holding around 30,000 birds. These sheds are so overcrowded that as the birds grow bigger one can barely see the floor, so thickly is it carpeted with chickens. There are fears that the maximum stocking density recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture in its welfare code is frequently exceeded. To solve this problem, in its 1992 report on broilers the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that the maximum stocking density should be laid down in legally binding regulations rather than, as at present, being left to an unenforceable welfare code. To date, the Ministry of Agriculture has failed to act on the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendation. No maximum stocking density is laid down by law; my Bill remedies that omission.
The worst welfare problems, however, stem from the broiler industry's use of selective breeding methods and rich diets to get chickens to reach their slaughter weight in literally double quick time. Today's broilers have been bred to reach their slaughter weight in just six weeks. That is twice as fast as 30 years ago. What grows quickly is the muscle, which is eaten as the meat. The legs, however, fail to keep pace and cannot properly support the overgrown body. As a result, each year millions of chickens suffer from painful, sometimes crippling, leg disorders. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's working group found leg problems of varying degrees of severity on nearly every farm that they visited.
Academic research which assessed the walking ability of broilers has suggested that as many as 180 million chickens a year could be suffering from those painful problems. There has of late perhaps been some improvement in the position because the industry, to do it justice, has been to a certain extent putting its house in order. But I fear that every year tens of millions of birds continue to be afflicted by painful leg disorders.
In the worst cases, chickens are incapable of sustained walking and can only move with the help of their wings or by crawling on their shanks. Professor John Webster, head of the Veterinary School at the University of Bristol, describes broilers as suffering from a long and painful list of bone and joint disorders. Broilers are growing too fast, not only for their legs but also for their heart and lungs. Many birds develop congestive heart failure which causes ascites. Those noble Lords with a classical education will know that that means a wine skin and it describes a situation in which the abdomen fills with body fluids. Around 7 million broilers die of ascites each year before reaching their slaughter age of six weeks. Professor Webster has said:
- "It is absolutely not right that animals in the first weeks of their life should be experiencing heart disease; it is absolutely not right that animals in the first weeks of their life should be crippled".
I am sure your Lordships will all agree with that.
A significant number of broilers also suffer from painful breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Such injuries arise because, owing to leg weakness, many birds spend long periods squatting on the litter. Wood shavings is the material most commonly used for litter in broiler sheds and in most cases the litter is never cleaned or changed throughout the birds' life. As the weeks go by, it can become increasingly contaminated with poultry manure. Prolonged contact with such litter can lead to breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Improved litter management is a key factor in reducing the incidence of these painful injuries. My Bill includes a requirement that litter is kept clean and dry.
I should add that keeping broilers in poor condition not only inflicts suffering on the birds but also poses serious threats to human health. Earlier this year a report by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food found that one in three broilers are infected with salmonella and even more--44 per cent.--are contaminated with campylobacter. Salmonella and campylobacter are the main sources of food poisoning in humans. Last month (October 1996), Which? magazine examined a number of whole chickens and chicken
portions bought from a range of supermarkets. It found 32 out of 90 to be unfit for human consumption. In a second sample of fresh and frozen broilers, 50 per cent. were found to be infected with salmonella or campylobacter.Regular inspections are essential if acceptable standards of broiler health and welfare are to be achieved. Indeed the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that a law should be brought in requiring all flocks to be inspected twice a day. My Bill includes such a requirement. I fear that at present the absence of adequate inspections means that many diseased, injured or dying birds are not being identified as such and as a result are given no appropriate attention or treatment. So extreme are the health problems of today's broilers that if, instead of being slaughtered at six weeks they were allowed to live on, 80 per cent. of them would die before reaching the age of puberty at 18 weeks.
That, indeed, presents a massive problem to one particular sector of the broiler industry. We have already differentiated between the battery hens and the broiler flock. Now, within the broiler flock there is a sub-division, between broilers who will end up on our tables and the broiler birds who lay the eggs which produce the next generation of broiler birds--the breeders. If they were fed as the others are fed, many would die before reaching puberty. Those that survive would suffer reduced fertility.
To address those problems, the parent stock--the breeders--are fed on restricted rations to slow down their growth. One study found that broiler breeders ate only a quarter to half of what they would have eaten if given free access to food, remembering that they are bred to eat large quantities of food. The researchers concluded that restricted fed broiler breeders are "chronically hungry, frustrated and stressed". I believe that there can be no proper justification for keeping birds in a state of constant hunger. My Bill requires broilers to be given sufficient food to prevent hunger.
Further problems arise during what the industry calls "harvesting", which is when the birds are removed from the sheds and packed into crates ready for the journey to the slaughterhouse. Teams of catchers empty the sheds at great speed, carrying four or even more chickens in each hand. The birds are held by just one leg, with rough handling being commonplace. The extent of the brutality involved in the catching process was highlighted by a Bristol University study which examined the cause of death in broilers that were dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse. Just over half had died from heart failure, to which, as I said, their overfeeding makes them prone. The researchers presumed that for those birds the stress of catching, loading and transporting had been simply too much for them to cope with.
Thirty-five per cent. had died from traumatic injuries, with a dislocated hip being the most common injury. That was associated with profuse haemorrhaging, and in around one third of the cases the femur, a major bone, had been forced into the chicken's abdominal cavity. The researchers suggested that catching and carrying large birds by one leg is conducive to dislocation of the
hip. Clearly, the catching process is not just stressful and frightening for the chickens, but in many cases leads to injury and even death. My Bill requires catching to be carried out in such a manner as to avoid injury to the birds.I believe that if people knew of the suffering experienced by broiler chickens there would be a public outcry no less strong and even more justified than that occasioned by the live export trade, of which other noble Lords who will speak this evening have some experience. Urgent reforms are needed to address the very serious health and welfare problems experienced by broilers. My Bill will require the broiler industry to take a much more responsible approach in the rearing of its chickens.
I do not pretend that the Bill is in a perfect state and I am more than ready to listen to your Lordships' ideas for amendment at Committee stage if noble Lords consent to give it a Second Reading today. In particular, I should be happy to entertain a longer period for the industry to adapt to the Bill, if that were thought right.
Like many of your Lordships, I was brought up on a farm. We treated our animals with decency, and although there has always been a certain amount of callousness in agriculture, the infliction of downright cruelty has always been anathema to the overwhelming majority of British farmers. There are laws against it in every other branch of the industry. Let us put our house in order here too.
I live in Clapham. When William Wilberforce had succeeded in abolishing the slave trade through these two Houses, he held a party. At the party was Henry Thornton, who lived at the bottom of my road. As they were congratulating themselves, William Wilberforce said to Henry Thornton, "Henry, what shall we abolish next?" and Henry said, "The national lottery". They did abolish the national lottery then. Much to my dismay, we cannot abolish the National Lottery today. But we can abolish or at least regulate the appalling cruelty which has gone on in this industry despite the efforts of some people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
7.40 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. This is a much needed Bill. It is unacceptable to me and I am sure to most other noble Lords that we in this country, which has traditionally had a national concern for the welfare of animals--look how we cherish our dogs, cats and horses--should pay little or no attention to farm animals. Broiler chickens are one glaring example of that neglect.
Broiler chickens are raised in this country annually to the tune of 700 million and yet they are the only creatures among the UK's major factory-farmed farm animals which have no specific law to protect them. Pigs, cows and battery hens are all taken care of by the
Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994. But on broilers the law is silent, despite the severity of the health and welfare problems suffered by those birds.The main problems are overcrowding--highly common in broiler sheds--and a high incidence of painful leg disorders. This Bill aims to establish improved health and welfare standards for broilers reared indoors. In particular, if it becomes law, it will end the factory farming of broilers and restrict selective breeding for rapid growth, which leads to serious health problems for millions of broilers.
The majority of the chickens are kept in huge, windowless sheds in which the birds are so overcrowded that it is hard to see the floor. Under those conditions it is difficult for the stockman to inspect the birds properly and the result is that each year millions of broilers become diseased, injured or die from untreated diseases.
The worst welfare problems arise from the use in the broiler industry of selective breeding to bring the birds to their slaughter weight as quickly as possible. Modern broilers are bred to reach their slaughter weight in only six weeks; 30 years ago that period was 12 weeks, twice as long--all in the interests of profit.
The muscle is the part that grows most quickly and is the part that we eat. However, the leg cannot keep pace and cannot properly support the body and therefore millions of broilers suffer from painful and crippling leg disorders, sometimes to the extent that they cannot walk and move by crawling on their shanks. Rapid body growth also puts heavy strain on the heart and lungs, resulting in several million chicks dying each year of heart disease before they reach their slaughter weight at six weeks. Many broilers also suffer from painful breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Owing to leg weakness, many of them spend long periods squatting in the litter, generally wood shavings, that covers the floors of broiler sheds. The litter is rarely changed throughout the lives of the birds and becomes increasingly fouled by poultry manure.
Keeping broilers under such conditions cannot fail to produce a serious threat to human health. Only this year a report by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food found that one in three broilers is infected with salmonella and 44 per cent. are contaminated with campylobacter. Those are the main causes of food poisoning in humans. In October of this year, Which? magazine did a survey of whole chickens and chicken portions bought from supermarkets. It found 32 out of 90 to be unfit for human consumption. In a second sample of fresh and frozen chickens, 50 per cent. were found to be contaminated with salmonella and campylobacter. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on bringing this Bill forward. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say. I hope that the Government will take careful note of what has been said this evening and give the Bill a fair wind.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his Bill and hope that the House will continue to give him support. He gave us a great number of details about the injuries suffered by broiler chickens under factory farm conditions and I shall therefore not cover that ground again. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, also added to the list. I should like to concentrate on the possible dangers to human health.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned the presence of salmonella and campylobacter. But there is a more serious side to this situation. Antibiotics are routinely fed to the majority of broilers to fight the diseases which are inevitable in intensive farming. That does not encourage one to the view that such products are healthy or wise. The practice encourages the production of bacteria which are resistant not only to the antibiotics used in animal feed but also to some of those used to treat serious bacterial infections in humans.
We heard recently of the worries expressed by the medical profession in relation to the increasing incidence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics used in medicine, both in general practice and in hospitals. The routine use of antibiotics in broiler houses must be a contributing factor.
I do not support the proposition that animals have rights on a par with humans. I am probably inviting trouble by saying that, but that is my view. But we have assumed control of the production of animals for our own uses and with that power comes responsibility. We have a duty of care to the creatures in our control. Respect for life in all its forms is embodied in many cultures, including our own, and the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, referred to the fact that many farmers have a care for their animals. I believe they always have had and to this day many farmers still have that care. But factory farming, especially of chickens, has left that care behind.
The other kinds of factory farming, as we heard, are protected by rules and regulations. This specific branch has none. If we abandon the respect we should have for living creatures we diminish ourselves. For those who do not find that philosophy appealing, I offer the economic argument. Good animal husbandry always has been and still is good business, even more so these days as the consumer begins to pay more attention to the means by which food arrives in the supermarket. If any good can be said to have come from the BSE fiasco, it may be found in the increasing public awareness of the peculiar practices which have crept into food production.
There is evidence among consumers of a desire for food to be produced by more environmentally friendly means. That public demand will grow. I understand that there is already a demand for organic produce which cannot be met by British farmers and a demand for free range hens which cannot be met. In supermarkets I notice as I watch carefully that they sell out quickly. I also notice, on a more serious note, that, if one looks along the racks of broiler chickens for sale in
supermarkets, one often sees deformed bodies. That is extremely unattractive. I certainly would not buy them and I am sure that many other consumers feel the same.I believe the public demand for better quality food will grow. Sooner or later it will conflict with the accountant-led factory farming ethic. I believe that this small Bill is a step in the right direction and that the industry and the Government will do well to support it.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I rise to make a short intervention in this debate on a matter of good farming practice. Common humanity alone seems to be the principle at stake here, which has been clearly demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who introduced the Bill so excellently and clearly and with such force, demonstrating the clear inhumanity demonstrated by human beings towards these poor, unfortunate creatures.
This Bill will not affect the traditional farmer-stockman who tends his flock with the best standards of animal husbandry. He is being replaced in this sector of the market by the agri-economist whose methods are derived entirely from that usually most proper perspective, the profit margin. That profit can only be obtained through the supermarket chains. They are interested only in cheap food, which means low quality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out, the demand for organic chickens, eggs and farm products generally is increasing incrementally.
The supermarkets themselves are involved in bitter price wars. On that basis alone, the inhumanity of the broilerhouse is inevitable and, unfortunately, a natural reaction to untethered market forces. This might come strangely from someone speaking from this side of the House, but I have to admit it. There are limits to the call of market forces where our duties and responsibilities to the animal kingdom come into conflict not only with the profit margin, but also with the health of the nation. This is where we have reached that limit. The overwhelming desire to create a profit margin drives the need to farm intensively. We have experience only too close to home to warn us of the dangers in the direction of intensive farming. I shall say no more.
That brings me to the point that the vast output of this industry provides a stable diet in every household in the land. The broiler chicken goes into the cheapest pies that one can find. They are just as dangerous as the other pies which we have been warned quite recently not to eat. Thereby, being part of the staple diet in every household in the land, it directly affects the health of the nation. It has been shown that nearly 80 per cent. of the protein value of a chicken is generated in the fat of the bird. If your Lordships will forgive the pun, that gets gravely reduced in the cooking process so that the energy delivered in eating the bird is minimal.
It will not surprise your Lordships that I hold the view, supported by laboratory evidence, that the free-range bird offers the opposite protein benefit to the broilerhouse bird. At least it can walk on its own two feet, unlike its broilerhouse cousin, which has been deliberately bred with weak legs. It has been
deliberately bred. Can noble Lords believe that? The more that can be done to improve the lot of that badly misused hen will have my full support. This is intensive farming par excellence. It is factory farming carried to the extreme limit of common sense and has no place in our modern society.I hope that this Bill, so ably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and which has the benefit of brevity, will be accepted by my noble friend on the Front Bench and given a rapid and fair wind through Parliament.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the clear manner in which he described his Bill and acknowledged its importance both from the point of view of parliamentary procedure and the substance matter that it contains. He reminded us that a Bill in similar terms was given a First Reading in another place on 12th March 1996 under the 10 Minute Rule. That Bill did not make progress in the last Session. Doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is to reply for the Government this evening, will tell us the reason for that and, in particular, the response of the Government to the Bill.
We believe that this is a complex area of undoubted importance to United Kingdom consumers and producers. Our first query is whether a measure of this importance should be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill and whether there has been much consultation, with producers in particular, about its terms. In particular, is the Bill's proposed stocking density, which makes it an offence to exceed seven birds per square metre, based on scientific analysis? A similar query arises on the Bill's permitted flock size, which has a limitation of 3,000 broiler chickens. How will these provisions affect our current producers?
I am informed that broiler chicken production is controlled by legislation and a code of practice and that these are reviewed and updated by government. The code of practice is currently being reviewed. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say a word about this? The Farm Animal Welfare Council, already referred to this evening and whose distinguished chairman is Professor Sir Colin Spedding, also reports to MAFF on areas of farm animal welfare. The council reported in 1992 on the welfare of broiler chickens. It suggested areas of improvement which, we are told, have been addressed by breeders, researchers and flock owners. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is to speak for the Ministry tonight, say what is the current welfare position of broilers and whether the Farm Animal Welfare Council has any current or prospective remit in this manner?
The European Union has an interest in these questions, having already addressed the question of egg-laying chicks. It is thus appropriate to ask if Community harmonisation measures are likely or will follow if tonight's Bill as it stands becomes law? While one would not expect critics of the broiler industry to be satisfied with its current state in the United Kingdom,
we are told that progress has been made in areas such as the condition of broilers' legs, particularly as regards leg strength. I understand that this progress has lately been acknowledged by Professor Webster of Bristol University, an authority on animal welfare to whom reference has already been made.We are in sympathy with what the Bill seeks to do, even if we believe that both the nature and terms of the Bill may not be the most appropriate way of dealing with the matter. Household consumption of uncooked poultry is now 16 per cent. higher in Great Britain than it was 10 years ago. Advice on safe handling and preparing poultry is readily available. No doubt the Minister will have something to say about the suggestion that poultry is in some respects not safe at the present time.
By comparison with the figures that I have given for poultry, the household consumption of carcase meat--that is to say, beef, veal, mutton, lamb and pork--fell by nearly one-third between 1985 and 1994, with further decreases being recorded in 1995. These figures, taken from the National Food Survey, are indicative of the importance of poultry to both the budget and the diet of consumers. Bad welfare conditions will not produce good chickens, as my noble friend Lady Nicol said, but consultation with all interested parties is an essential ingredient for improvement. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is very much a consultation-minded body and we believe that its good offices should be used again on this important matter.
We are, however, not opposed to the Bill being given a Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already expressed his willingness to consider amendments. However, whether the timescale which is available to us between now and the Committee and Report stages of the Bill will allow for the degree of consultation that we believe is necessary for a Bill so sweeping as this one, is another matter. Nevertheless, as I have said, we hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading because it will at least allow the House to further discuss the underlying principles which the Bill contains.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this has been a useful and informative debate. I am pleased--but not at all surprised--to find a large measure of agreement in the House on the need to ensure the proper welfare of broiler chickens. I agree entirely with the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that we have a duty of care.
I am delighted to join the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in praising Compassion in World Farming, which is an excellent organisation. Even if we do not agree with it all the time, I thoroughly approve of the stand that it takes from its own point of view. We would all be the poorer without it. Over time it has achieved a great deal. I also approve of the taste in ties of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I would be happy to join him in a glass afterwards.
I hope that in the course of the next 10 minutes or so I shall be able to convince your Lordships that the changes proposed in the Bill are largely unnecessary and
to some extent undesirable. Given the questions that he raised, I believe that those suspicions are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher.The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave us a fine exposition of his case, but it was a case made out very much from the chickens' point of view rather than the human. As a nation we have benefited greatly from the advances that have been made and from the enormous reduction in the price of chickens. I noted that the election slogan of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, still seemed to be, "A chicken in every pot"; the Liberal Party might want to have, "Another £1 billion" in its election manifesto, because that is what this Bill to benefit chickens might cost. We need a sense of proportion in these matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to consumer pressure. That point was echoed by my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam, who said that free-range and organic chickens were enjoying increasing popularity in the shops. That is a common experience and is entirely the right way for pressure for change to be focused. People may want to pay more--as I have indicated, some of these measures are extremely expensive--and people who do want to pay more will be able to give a happier and longer life to the chickens they eat if that is what they wish to do. For most of us, however, our concern is that broiler chickens live in proper and reasonable conditions and that we are not subjecting them to cruelty.
Broiler chickens have already benefited from the development of the high welfare standards of which we are justifiably proud. The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 makes it an offence to cause or allow livestock on agricultural land to suffer unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress. This, of course, includes broilers. The Act provides for detailed secondary legislation, some of which, as I shall explain later, already applies to the rearing of broiler chickens.
In addition, the Act allows the publication of codes of welfare recommendations. The codes--and there is of course one covering broilers--provide authoritative guidance to farmers to help them to comply with statutory requirements. Furthermore, failure to comply with a code provision may be relied on by the prosecution as tending to establish guilt in proceedings for an alleged offence of causing or allowing unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress. This legislation is enforced by the State Veterinary Service. All complaints, allegations or other evidence of problems are investigated.
We are committed to taking forward the recommendations in the report on the welfare of broilers made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1992. We have already taken account of these in the development of our research and advisory programmes and we will be producing a new updated welfare code for broilers.
Of course, we have to have proper welfare standards for broiler chickens--and we do. Of course, we should seek to keep improving those standards--and we are. But if we are to introduce new standards, as this Bill suggests we should, we must be careful not to put our own producers at a disadvantage. The broiler chicken
business is international and intensely competitive. We need to work with the realities of the industry and not against them.As far as legislative changes are concerned, our policy therefore is to seek to improve farm animal welfare on a Europe-wide basis. We have worked for the new Council of Europe recommendation, providing a basis for us to work for higher EU standards in due course--as has already been achieved for other farm animals.
I turn now to the Bill and its proposals. The Bill proposes halving current stocking densities. That is the way I would read the provision on seven chickens per square metre. House temperatures would fall, increasing feed intake and requiring additional heat. We would need to double the amount of accommodation for rearing chickens. That would present significant problems in terms of obtaining planning permission, to say the least. Other costs such as labour, repairs, maintenance and the like would rise due to reduced economies of scale. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, understands, there is no science to suggest that current stocking densities are in any way a welfare problem.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page