| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page