| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, surely it is not a matter of a welfare problem; it is a matter of sheer inhumanity.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I disagree. I do not think that there is any indication that chickens raised in such conditions are unhappy or are cruelly treated. I was brought up on a farm and have raised chickens myself. They ran around the garden. That is how I like to see chickens. But that does not exactly produce cheap meat for the people of this country. Enormous additional expenditure would be required if chickens were to run around our gardens. We must strike a reasonable balance. We must not treat chickens cruelly--nor must we impose enormous costs on people merely from sentiment unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested, people wish to pay that price, in which case it should be made possible for them to do so. If people can afford the price, chickens can then be raised in the conditions that people would wish.
The second suggestion in the Bill relates to flock size. The reasons for that proposal entirely escape me. It seems merely a pointless inconvenience. Again, I am not aware of any science which suggests that current flock sizes are a problem. Looking at the first two proposals together, we reckon that the cost to the industry--obviously one expects further mark-ups down the line--might be of the order of £150 million per year.
The next matter raised in the Bill is the hunger of broiler breeders. I believe that the situation here is analogous to that of a pet dog. If one allowed one's pet dog to eat everything that it wanted, it would become fat. That would be cruel. Indeed, it causes me great pain to see such dogs. Broiler breeders, like dogs, are animals which do not limit their appetite to what they need to be healthy and fit. Broiler breeders are kept in such a condition that they are, by definition, in peak breeding condition. Anyone who has kept wild animals knows that if an animal is in breeding condition, it is in good
condition. Therefore, it seems a denial of good sense that an animal which is in good breeding condition can in any way be subject to cruelty in the matter of hunger. If the animal was under-fed, or even over-fed, it would not be in good breeding condition.I turn now to the area of leg problems, about which concerns have been long acknowledged. I should emphasise that they are being addressed by both Government and industry. The Ministry's research programme in this area stands at nearly £½ million in the current financial year. Results have led to changes in feeding and lighting programmes used by the industry which are already improving welfare. The broiler bloodstock industry is doing excellent work in improving the genetic basis for leg strength. All this is hardly surprising: a chicken with leg problems is not only a miserable bird but a serious financial loss in a low margin industry. All this has happened without the need for more legislation. The same applies to other problems such as ascites. If a bird dies, particularly after one has fed it a good quantity of feed and looked after it for a long while, that causes a financial loss. Such things are not tolerated for long in an industry which is largely highly professional and well organised.
I turn now to the veterinary proposals. We find them unreal. A quick costing of them suggests that the industry would face £400 million per year in increased veterinary fees. The noble Lord grew up on a farm and he knows as well as I do what he would have done with a sick chicken: he would have put it out of its misery quickly. That is what is done in the industry. That is the right way to deal with chickens. There is no way in which one can afford vet's fees of £45 per hour in any sensible economy. I do not suppose that even my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam would wish to pay vet's fees on his free-range birds--
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, my noble friend is mistaken.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to learn that I am mistaken; but what the noble Lord said has surprised me. It is right that the flock should be inspected and that appropriate action should be taken to deal with those birds who are injured and diseased. On a well-run farm this will be done several times a day. To do less is to invite the spread of disease. Legislation already requires that livestock kept in intensive systems must be inspected at least once each day and appropriate action must be taken if they are found not to be in a state of well-being.
I turn to the proposals on litter. If one does not look after one's litter properly one gets hockburn, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said. The birds are downgraded and the farm loses money. The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 require that poultry kept indoors should have well maintained litter or a well drained area for resting. We do not feel that further legislation is required. This is already a matter on which the industry is focused and conditions are greatly improved--and not surprisingly.
I turn to transport. The catching and handling of broilers is covered by the existing welfare code. Failure to do this properly could give rise to a prosecution for causing unnecessary pain or distress. Problems identified at the slaughterhouse are picked up by the State Veterinary Service and taken back to the farm. They will also be the subject of prosecution. In addition, they give rise to financial loss, because birds that are dead or severely damaged on arrival at the slaughterhouse will not provide the producer with any revenue.
Two other questions were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to antibiotics and growth promoters. This is a well-known subject but it is rather outside the scope of this particular Bill. Clearly, there are a number of controls and a good deal of research in this area. We are satisfied that the current use of these substances is properly controlled, and that they are no danger to humans. However, given the potential for the development of resistant strains, we keep our eyes well open. But these substances have beneficial effects. To forbid their use unilaterally will place our producers at a very severe disadvantage. It is not a matter that we wish to see incorporated in a Bill of this kind.
So far as concerns the Which? report on salmonella and campylobacter, I confess that I first saw it five minutes ago. I do not feel that it is a matter to which I should give an off-the-cuff reply, but I shall write to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening with a considered answer.
In conclusion, while the aspirations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and others enjoy a great measure of Government support, this Bill does not.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, on a quick calculation the additional cost to the industry that he outlines amounts to about 50p per bird. Even if the entire cost is passed on to the consumer, does he believe that that is a price worth paying?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, for the improvements proposed in this Bill, no.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly all those who, with the exception of the Government spokesman, have supported it in one way or another. However, I note the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher.
The Minister accused me of taking the point of view of the chicken rather than the human. What I believe we should do, what I hope your Lordships want to do, what the noble Baroness suggested we should do and what I hope the Minister will, on consideration, feel should be done, is to take both points of view, balance them and take note of the responsibility that we have for the animals that we use for our own purposes.
We are told that there are sufficient regulations to ensure that cruelty does not occur, but in this field cruelty is well documented. There are good practitioners
and rearers who do not practise cruelty and look after their flocks with care, but there are plenty of others who do not. When we get to Committee stage--I hope that your Lordships will ensure that we do--I shall ask the Minister how many prosecutions have been brought in the field of broilers under the laws that he says are sufficient. I am delighted to hear that there are new and updated codes. The suggested changes in this Bill are not out of context. I refer to the suggestion that there should be seven hens per square metre. One can see what a square metre is. It is approximately the distance between the end of this Bench and the Woolsack or between the Judges' Bench and the Table. I would have thought it perfectly reasonable that farmers and breeders of these animals should provide that amount of space. I would have thought that any greater concentration would cause cruelty.It is said that the people of this country want cheap meat. I believe that they rely on the law of the land to ensure that in the production of their food there is no cruelty. If they were aware that cruelty occurred, I do not believe that they would hesitate to pay more for their food. Unlike, apparently, the noble Lord, I believe that the people of this country do not approve of cruelty to animals. The noble Lord does not believe that there is any cruelty, but if it did occur the people of this country would not want it. I am sure they would be prepared to pay more for the absence of cruelty.
Broiler breeders do not limit their appetites. The noble Lord said that if they went on eating they would be treated rather like fat labradors. If they continued to eat one would just put them on a diet. These birds are bred specifically not to temper their appetites. They are bred in order that they shall eat as much as possible. Equally, it has been said that breeding animals are healthy animals. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. Your Lordships will recall the debates that have been held on the topic of battery hens. It is accepted by everyone that the battery hen system at its worst produces a lot of eggs with a lot of cruelty. An animal can breed and be cruelly treated. A lot of animals breed when they are being cruelly treated.
I do not believe that the Minister has made a case against the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord who spoke from the Labour Front Bench put a very reasonable case, which I totally accept, that time should be taken over this Bill, that consultations with the industry should go further than they have so far and that a situation should be arrived at in which agreed regulations are produced. Whatever the Minister may say, at the moment enforceable regulations do not exist. It is time that they did.
I ask that noble Lords give this Bill a Second Reading tonight so that the case can be examined rather more deeply. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
- House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eight o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |