|Previous Section||Home Page|
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames) : I beg to move, That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
How appropriate that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, should be in the Chair for this debate on animal welfare. The main purpose of the measure is to implement European directives and our commitments to the Council of Europe in respect of animal welfare. It is being introduced after full consultation with the industry, welfare organisations and other interested parties.
Although the size of the document may appear daunting, that is principally because, as well as making the necessary changes to the legislation, we have taken the opportunity to consolidate five existing statutory instruments. The House will note that there are four schedules to the regulations, relating to battery hens, calves, pigs and other livestock. Previously, anyone trying to establish the welfare requirements relating to pigs would have had to consult three separate statutory instruments, as opposed to the single schedule in the draft regulations.
I will now explain the main changes that we are proposing. First, I should draw the House's attention to the inclusion of a provision in the main body of the regulations which implements an important recommendation made by the admirable Farm Animal Welfare Council, to whose work I am sure the House will want to pay a warm tribute. The council was concerned that wording used in some welfare legislation could militate against a successful prosecution, particularly where a defendant denied knowledge of an animal's condition.
The draft regulation makes it clear that references to a person "knowingly permitting livestock to be kept"
also encompass those circumstances where a person might reasonably be expected to know how that livestock is kept.
Schedule 1 on battery hens updates the previous Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987, which implement the Community directive of 1986 setting minimum standards for battery hens.
I must now explain a complex problem which arose when the 1987 regulations were made. I hope that the House will enjoy the exceptional clarity of my explanation. The EC directive requires 450 sq cm of floor space for each hen--that is the minimum cage area. Normally, hens are kept four or five to a cage, giving as a minimum an overall cage size of 1,800 to 2,250 sq cm. This gives the birds some flexibility as to the use of space.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) rose
Some cages exist in which three, two or one birds are housed. Clearly, 450 sq cm per bird is quite inappropriate
Column 994when such small numbers are considered, because the birds cannot share space as they can in the larger cages. Our domestic legislation therefore requires 550 sq cm per bird for three-bird cages, 750 sq cm per bird for two-bird cages and 1,000 sq cm for single- bird cages. Now for the complication. The height of the cage is regulated by reference to the minimum cage area. Although certain three, two or one- bird cages--mainly those known as A-frame cages--meet the requirements in all other respects, their height in relation to the overall floor area will be just short of the minimum required when the minimum area is the higher area specified in United Kingdom law. I know that my hon. Friends are following this closely.
We accepted arguments put forward by the industry to the effect that it would be unreasonable to make such cages illegal from 1995. The change in the regulations before the House will thus ensure that the cage height requirement refers to the minimum cage area set in the directive--450 sq cm per bird--and not that in our domestic legislation, thus permitting continued use of these cages.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : We do, indeed, appreciate the exceptional clarity of my hon. Friend's explanation. Does he agree that there is a small trend away from using battery cages, and that that is to be encouraged ? I for one welcome it.
Mr. Soames : Any trends in modern farming in favour of more natural systems are to be welcomed. But there will always be a place for battery cages ; they represent a big business. The House should be very careful before pontificating about other systems which are often even less satisfactory than battery cages--but I certainly take my hon. Friend's point.
The measure that we are introducing will, we estimate, save the industry £9 million at current prices without adversely affecting the welfare of the birds concerned.
I will take the schedules relating to calves and pigs together, as the changes proposed to existing requirements are similar. In November 1991, the Council of Ministers adopted Community directives laying down minimum standards for the welfare of calves and pigs. We are, of course, required to implement those directives and are somewhat overdue in doing so.
In addition to setting new space requirements for calves and weaner pigs, the regulations implement, from 1 July 15, a ban on the pig-rearing systems commonly known as sweat boxes. They also introduce certain new provisions which, although numerous, can be summarised as relating to the maintenance of good husbandry. There are two important respects in which the requirements in these regulations go further than those in the directives. I refer, of course, to the ban on the use of veal crates and the phasing out of close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs.
The phase-out of stalls and tethers was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who has a most distinguished record in this field. It was introduced by the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991,
Column 995which allowed an eight-year phase-in period to the end of 1998--unlike the directive, which requires the phasing out of systems using tethers by the end of 2005 and allows the use of close confinement stalls to continue.
The United Kingdom requirements were in place before the directives were adopted and both were introduced for the soundest reasons of animal welfare. We do not consider, therefore, that, in implementing these directives, we should take a step backwards from our own hard-won and high standards of animal welfare. We voted against the two directives precisely because we were convinced that they did not go far enough, and we shall continue to press for their amendment. The schedule concerning the welfare of other livestock brings together the requirements contained in the Welfare of Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978 and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990. The intensive units regulations were introduced in 1978 as a result of our commitment to implement the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. That convention has now been amended, requiring contracting parties to amend the definition of intensive farming in their law. The old definition assumed that intensive livestock farming meant the farming of animals in environmentally controlled buildings and required that they be attended on a daily basis to ensure their welfare. The convention now acknowledges that, particularly in the southern states of Europe, farming systems which are not in buildings may be equally intensive, and that the animals concerned may equally require daily attention if they are not to suffer. Although the change will be of little consequence to farmers in Britain-- unless the present warm weather continues--it is necessary to enable us to ratify the amendment to the convention.
By way of clarification, I should explain that the requirements in the schedule are not applied to battery hens, calves and pigs, because, as I explained at the beginning of my speech, those have been catered for in the schedules relating to them.
The regulations maintain our reputation for standards of animal welfare which are among the highest in Europe. Some hon. Members will no doubt be disappointed that we have not taken the opportunity to go further than the directive and impose new requirements for battery cages. I make no apology for that. The decision was an entirely deliberate one on our part.
The way forward, as my colleagues and I have stated on many occasions, is to seek to persuade our European partners of the importance of achieving satisfactory controls on a Community-wide basis.
It may be necessary from time to time for the United Kingdom, in the most honourable manner, to take a lead in that regard. We await the Commission's proposals for amendments to the battery hens directive and will be pressing hard for improved standards. It will be clear from my remarks that we believe that the Community still has some way to go in establishing satisfactory farm animal welfare standards and that we are
Column 996ahead of the game in some respects. The ban on veal crates and the impending ban on stalls and tethers provide two examples. I recognise, as will anyone who has anything to do with farming, that the measures impose extra costs on our farmers which the producers of imported meat do not have to bear. It is only right that those extra burdens should also provide, as I am sure they will, a marketing advantage.
I hope that the welfare organisations will use some of their well-developed publicity skills to emphasise to consumers that they can give real help to the welfare cause by insisting on food produced to the highest welfare standards when they shop or order in restaurants.
Mr. Pike : I should like to press the Minister on one point. I know that he is sympathetic on these issues. Can he assure us that these standards will be observed in the importation of livestock from outside the European Union ? The hon. Gentleman says that, in some cases, the standards are still not up to those that we in Britain would want. But we know for a fact that, outside the European Union, standards are even worse than those in other parts of the European Union.
Mr. Soames : It is not possible for me to give that assurance. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make the point. The standards for livestock in third countries--not third-world countries--are certainly not those that we would wish to see applied. Britain has an enormous amount to do to lead opinion in Europe on this matter. Our record is not blameless-- of course it is not--but we have higher standards than anywhere else in Europe. Welfare organisations must work for change in the wider Europe, not simply concentrate their fire power and money-raising activities here. They should use their hard-won skills to influence the Governments of countries whose standards and cultural and attitudinal realities are not those of this country.
I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that we truly appreciate the concerns that have been expressed on behalf of those who are at the sharp end of the legislation--the hard-pressed British farmers. Statutory controls are truly an essential part of our programme for the protection of animal welfare. The requirements set out in many pages of the document, a number of which are new to our legislation, may appear onerous. But those who already respect and care for their animals--and that includes the greatest possible proportion of those in Britain concerned with livestock : the vast majority --have nothing to fear from them. I warmly commend them to the House.
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : It was Ghandi who said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which it treats its animals. This is one of the few areas in which the European Union has something to learn from Britain about our standards of husbandry and the regulations that we have introduced. I welcome the regulations which consolidate a number of measures and bring about a few improvements in terms of stock densities and the keeping of animals.
That is not to say, however, that Britain should not constantly be looking at ways of improving the welfare of animals and the way in which we treat them, or that we should not constantly be pressing within the European Union for the sort of improvements that we know the
Column 997public, the Labour party and the Government wish to see. Many farmers are constantly striving for such improvements, and their work should be recognised.
Let me deal first with battery cages. The Minister explained with some clarity the complicated change in cage height to no less than 40 cm, which is compulsory for only 60 per cent. of the first 450 cu m. All cage heights after that can be as low as the producer wishes. That may be an improvement but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, we are still talking about an area no bigger than a sheet of A4 paper.
Battery hens do not constitute a satisfactory method of egg production. All the research on battery cages confirms that. As early as 1985, a study by M. S. Dawkins entitled "Cage Height Preference and Use in Battery-Kept Hens" shows that 25 per cent. of hens' head movements take place at a height above 40 cm. By reducing that height, one is affecting the hens' behaviour. As the Minister will be aware, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which does an excellent job and provides impartial and professional advice to the Government, has laid down five freedoms, one of which is the freedom to exhibit natural behaviour. Battery cages do not meet that criterion. A recent study by Dr. Baxter, published in The Veterinary Record , concluded :
"The scientific evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that battery cages cause suffering in laying hens in at least seven different ways."
I shall not quote further. Suffice it to say that that is a carefully researched paper which will be endorsed by many people of an independent scientific mind.
I recognise the point made by the Minister and the Select Committee on Agriculture in its recent report that battery cages cannot be banned overnight. That must be done over a phased period, and the case for it argued through the European Union.
The Labour party recognises that it is of no advantage to animal welfare for Britain to ban battery cages if, because of the Single European Act, we cannot stop eggs that have been produced in the very same battery cages that we have banned flooding on to our market. We should like to see the phasing out of battery cages, but we recognise that that would have to be done in conjunction with the industry and the Council of Ministers so that similar measures can be introduced within the European Community.
There are many alternative methods of egg production--some of them extremely efficient and semi-automated--that give hens a chance to behave in more natural ways. As we move towards the ban, I hope that the Minister will consider various cage-enrichment measures, work on which has been undertaken in respect of many different animals in recent years. For hens, such measures can include perches, scratching pads and dust baths. We want more research and development in that regard.
I appreciate that one cannot ban battery systems overnight, and that improvements must be argued throughout Europe, but Sweden is phasing out battery cages and Switzerland has already banned them. Sweden may become a member of the European Union, so I hope that the Government will seek its support in persuading other member states to move in the right direction.
As to schedule 2, it is a matter of pride for Britain that veal crates have rightly been banned, but this country has
Column 998a huge export trade in veal calves, which will be put in the same crates that are banned here. It is imperative that Britain argues in the Council of Ministers for similar standards to apply. We could do more than we do positively to reinforce our own producers in banning veal crates in the economics of veal production.
In this country, veal is produced much more humanely than on the continent, yet British veal is not marketed there as being humanely produced. No resources appear to be devoted to that through the Meat and Livestock Commission or Food from Britain, to give British producers some support and advantage to reward the high standards that they encourage.
We welcome paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of schedule 2, which make it clear that there is no possibility of reintroducing restrictive crating of the kind banned in this country. My only concern is that schedule 2 still permits tethering--although it rightly specifies that the calf must be able to stand, turn around, lie down, rest and groom itself without hindrance. There appears to be some contradiction, so I would welcome the Minister's comments.
Schedule 3 relates to sow stalls and tethers, and I place on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who introduced the measure with all-party support. I am grateful, too, for the Government's support in announcing that sow stalls and tethers will be phased out by 1 January 1999.
Hon. Members may have received a brief from the British Pig Association, and I recognise its concern that the British pig industry will be disadvantaged because the European Union has announced that tethers will be banned. That will not occur until the year 2006. The Minister will be aware that the pig industry goes through particular cycles, and it is currently experiencing a difficult time.
There is evidence that some of Britain's main competitors are expanding pig production. Figures from the BPA suggest an increase in slaughtering of 54 per cent. in Denmark. In Spain, slaughtering has increased 24 per cent. and in France, 28 per cent. In the Netherlands, slaughtering has increased 97.3 per cent., while in the United Kingdom it has declined 5.1 per cent.
I was surprised to learn from a written answer that export refunds and private storage aid, which is available to all member states, totalled 2.6 million ecu for British producers in the provisional figures for 1993. Compare that with France, at 6.1 million ecu, and Germany, which received an incredible 33 million ecu. That shows that continental competitors are receiving a great deal of European funding. I hope that the Minister will explore ways of giving some support to the British pig industry in the move to alternative pig-rearing methods.
In my own constituency, which is a centre of the British pig industry, there has been a dramatic move towards field systems. A paper by Mike Varley at the department of animal physiology and nutrition of Leeds university estimated a 40 per cent. move towards field systems. The
Column 999same paper demonstrates some of the problems. The number of farms with pigs has declined dramatically, having almost halved in the past two years from 22,000 farms to 12,000--but the average herd size increased. That for sows has risen from 37 to 62.
Concentrated animal rearing brings problems that the regulations address, including tail docking and tooth clipping. I appreciate that the industry wants the right to dock tails and clip teeth for welfare reasons. If those practices are supported by veterinary opinion, there is no reason why they should not be allowed--but they must not be viewed as the norm. Such practices should be adopted on an individual basis, depending on welfare reasons.
One cause of tail chewing is intensive rearing systems. If stocking is reduced, so is tail chewing. Some field systems have reduced welfare problems--although I accept that different systems bring their own problems and challenges.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the age limit on piglets for teeth clipping. Organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals hold that clipping should be done within three days.
We welcome and endorse the prohibition on pig sweat boxes after 1 July 1995, and I am sure that the industry knows that that must come. There is also a regulation on pig weaning, which we also welcome. However, that largely endorses existing intensive practice, and there may be a case for reviewing the weaning age on the basis that the current limit in the regulations is on the low side.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be no going back on the time scale for banning tethering and stalls, although I have some sympathy with the British pig industry's position. The industry is largely unsubsidised, competes commercially, receives little support and has great regard for animal welfare. That is certainly the impression that I receive when visiting pig farmers in my constituency. The BPA's brief takes a somewhat defeatist attitude to welfare marketing. The BPA considered that a premium price could not be obtained for pork produced from pigs bred in fields where high welfare standards applied, but I am not sure that I agree. I do not underestimate the difficulty of marketing food produced in such conditions, however : we need measures to make the system work effectively.
The association raised some points that I think the Minister should consider sympathetically. For instance, it called for research into alternative ways of rearing pigs more humanely. I know that a great deal of work has been done on the idea of farrowing crates designed to minimise the stress suffered by farrowing sows. The pig industry would like more support for training to establish a high standard of stock keeping--perhaps we should reconsider the qualifications involved--and the development of skills. I think that Government have a role in that regard, through the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and other organisations.
Then there is the question of capital investment. Those investing in agricultural machinery can claim tax relief on some 25 per cent. of the investment, but I understand that investors in new buildings in which to rear animals can claim only 3 per cent. Could our laws, or European Community laws, allow 25 per cent. relief on animal rearing systems intended to meet new welfare standards ? The Minister may wish to discuss that with his Treasury colleagues. Such action might encourage those in the
Column 1000industry who have made the reasonable point that it is unfair for them to be improving welfare standards in isolation, while their competitors do nothing. Although that should not be used as an excuse for failing to aim for the highest possible welfare standards, consideration should be given to the pressure that is put on producers.
As I have said, Labour welcomes the regulations in general. However, we want improvements in training and clarification of enforcement issues, and some related issues need to be resolved in the European Union. The treaty of Rome, for instance, defines animals as agricultural products, which we see as one of the problems of the attitude of some southern European states in particular to animal welfare standards. We want the definition to be changed to "sentient animals", which would imply a recognition that animals feel, suffer and need to be kept properly.
This country does not compare favourably with others when it comes to marketing and adding value, especially when high welfare standards are involved. The aspiration of many farmers is simply to export live animals to the continent, where they are slaughtered and value is added at the slaughterhouses. That is not good enough. Given all the welfare problems of animal transport, the loss of jobs in our slaughter industry and the implications for our balance of trade, it makes no sense : we need more support for marketing and this country's high production standards. The Government could perform such a role through organisations such as Food From Britain and the Meat and Livestock Commission.
That will work, however, only if food is labelled properly to facilitate consumer choice. The Minister made a fair point when he spoke of the lobbying and campaigning power of animal welfare organisations. That power should also be directed at supermarkets and other retailers, which should be encouraged to sell British goods whose production has involved high standards and to label them in a way that enables consumers to opt for them. Clear labelling would greatly benefit British producers, because consumers would then be on their side, using their buying power to reward good producers and penalise those in other countries whose standards are lower. So far, we are making little progress in that regard.
I know that animal transport is not covered in the regulations, and I do not intend to go into detail ; but it is important that we aim for high standards and try to minimise--or, preferably, eliminate--live transport for slaughter, especially where calves are concerned. There is no sense in it. Last week, at the Council of Ministers, the Government performed a dramatic U-turn, shifting from the so-called Greek compromise and backing the more progressive European member states. I hope that that attitude will continue, and that the Government will work alongside the countries-- Germany, Holland and Denmark--which argue for higher welfare standards.
Above all, I hope that the Government will appreciate that all the improvements that we have discussed--which I suspect hon. Members on both sides of the House support--must be implemented, through Europe in many cases. That will require the support and co-operation of other member states. What this country must not do is continually isolate itself, thus forfeiting the help that we need to make such advances.
Column 10017.6 pm
Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : I shall try not to be repetitious, although inevitably I shall repeat a little of what was said by the the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I was slightly saddened by some of his closing remarks ; until then, I intended to say that most of what he had said--as a prominent member of the all-party animal welfare group--was extremely generous and well informed. I associate myself with nearly all of it ; I approved especially of what he said about the need for the best possible veterinary advice on matters such as the docking of pigs' tails. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned advertising. I should record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the stand that she took in Luxembourg over the transport of live animals. It is a great pity that before her negotiations she was subjected to personal attacks in the press ; I find that especially disturbing because, when my hon. Friend the Minister was generous enough to find time to see me with representatives of some animal welfare organsations, he made it abundantly clear that our right hon. Friend would negotiate. It is on that small issue that I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman.
There was no U-turn. My right hon. Friend went to Luxembourg to secure the best deal that she could in the circumstances. As it turned out, she was able to secure every modest improvement that was on the table ; they were indeed modest--we acknowledge that. Moreover, she managed to secure the United Kingdom's unique privilege of maintaining minimum values in regard to the export of live horses, which is invaluable. Most important of all, she managed to keep the door open for negotiations to continue under the German presidency. It is a great shame that the animal welfare organisations which have told me that they wrote privately to thank my right hon. Friend for the stand that she took did not have the courage to make those thanks public. I am afraid that, with some cynicism, I have to conclude that there are perhaps more fund-raising possibilities and more bequests are available from shock-horror advertising than from saying thank you.
I am chairman of the all-party animal welfare group which has been determined to campaign responsibly in the way that you taught us, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you chaired the group. We shall go on doing that and it is important that we do so. It is important that, when progress is made, it is recognised by us. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well, however, that will not stop us fighting fiercely for future progress. However, we are grateful for the stand that my right hon. Friend the Minister took.
Like my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, I pay tribute to the Farm Animal Welfare Council for the enormous contribution that it has made and continues to make to farm animal welfare. I will remind the House of the council's freedoms. They include freedom from hunger, freedom from thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, freedom from injury and disease, freedom from fear, freedom from distress and--this is most important--freedom to express normal behaviour. While wishing to be generous, I must say that by those standards the regulations fail, in many cases lamentably.
Any improvement in the welfare of battery hens is
Column 1002welcome, but the changes are minimal. It is now widely accepted that the battery cage is no longer acceptable as a means of production. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe referred to Dr. Mike Baxter's article in The Veterinary Record . Dr. Baxter is a foremost authority on the subject. In an extremely erudite paper, he has set out clearly the differences between the life style of hens in battery cages and those in percheries.
The House must draw a clear distinction between what are known as free range chickens--subject to all the disease, discomfort and predators that are found, literally, free range and in the open--and chickens in a perchery. Those of us who have taken a keen interest in the issue generally accept that, although percheries may not be ideal, they are the best way forward.
The battery cage does not allow for normal behaviour. It does not allow for wing flapping, perching, nesting, preening and dust bathing. Battery cages lead to brittle bones and leg injuries. The spaces referred to in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 are inadequate for birds to perform their natural behaviour. Assuming that we have to maintain battery cages, for groups of four or more hens, a space allowance of at least 650 sq cm is essential. That would allow colony housing systems to be at least commercially competitive.
Paragraph 9 states :
"The flock or group of laying hens shall be inspected thoroughly at least once a day."
That is restated in the welfare codes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is impossible in a battery system which may contain as many as 40,000 birds. I am told that to remove each bird in a system of that size would take three days. As a welfare requirement it is totally impractical.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe about marketing and, particularly, labelling. I believe that many housewives, househusbands and shoppers who purchase eggs labelled "new laid" or "farm fresh" in pretty boxes with pictures of wide open fields with sunshine and grass genuinely believe that the product is from free range hens, whatever that might mean to the purchaser. In fact, that is not so at all : "fresh" means battery farm fresh--we must get that message across.
More can be done. I know that there has been some criticism of the standards that will be set, but I am pleased to learn that later this year the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is to launch its freedom food campaign. Under the RSPCA freedom food label, which will be marketed in at least two chains of supermarkets, it is designed to make it clear that the product will be of a high welfare standard--not so high as I or the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe would like, but infinitely better and more clearly marked than anything currently available to the housewife.
I hope that, when that campaign is launched the purchaser will use the power of the marketplace to begin to dictate high welfare standards. If the purchaser determines to buy only humanely produced products, the producers will quickly realise that it is in their interests to go down that road. That will happen not just in the United Kingdom, but--this is what we seriously wish to
achieve--throughout the European Union.
Column 1003such campaigns would not be possible if the level of welfare for pigs, calves and hens was not already higher than in most of Europe ? The campaigners therefore have a solid base from which to start.
Mr. Gale : I agree entirely that, by and large, the United Kingdom has higher farm animal welfare standards than anywhere else in Europe. That is something of which we can be justly proud, but it is not something about which we can be complacent.
I have indicated at some length my concern about battery hens. When eggs become available under the freedom food label they will certainly not come from battery cages. There is a great deal of progress still to be made, but my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) is right that the marketing campaign would not be possible were there not at least some supplies of well-produced food.
I am proud of the fact that we have banned the use of the veal crate in the United Kingdom. I know that there are those who feel that in doing so we have placed United Kingdom producers at a disadvantage to those throughout the European Union who still use veal crates. I do not believe that that is a reason for the United Kingdom not to take a lead. We should take pride in that. However, it would be foolish not to recognise that in one sense it has been a pyrrhic victory, as some 450,000 veal calves are exported each year to be put into veal crates and subject to even worse conditions on the continent than they would have been in the same veal crates in the United Kingdom. In fact, if veal calves are to be in crates at all, I would have preferred them to be in veal crates here where we can inspect and monitor them rather than on the continent. On marketing, I was pleased and reassured to learn when I questioned the House of Commons Catering Department that the veal sold in this establishment is all United Kingdom produced. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members and how many people who may read or listen to this debate can put hand on heart and say that every time they go into an Italian restaurant or a butcher's shop they ask where the veal was produced. We know that frequently that veal will have been produced under conditions elsewhere in the European Union that we have said are unacceptable. We have the power to change that through the money in our pockets and the manner in which we spend it.
On advertising, I hope that we shall learn from some of the mistakes that have been made in recent weeks and that the animal welfare organisations which spend considerable sums on advertising will target some of that money and advertising on campaigns of education in the hope and expectation that the consumer will exercise the power of the bank balance and buy only humanely produced food. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) went into great detail about pigs, boars, sows and gilts, which form the bulk of the third schedule. I shall not repeat his argument, but I associate myself with all his remarks. It is particularly relevant that we should pay great attention to the best possible veterinary advice. There are genuine difficulties--it is not easy to strike a balance of welfare between sows and piglets while maintaining humane conditions. Matters of genuine debate and concern must be resolved. I still feel that perhaps the directive's provisions for space and bedding are less than adequate, but I am certain that we shall be able to make progress together on that.
Column 1004I accept entirely that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take these matters extremely seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley said, the United Kingdom has the highest standards of any European Union country. We look to Ministers not only to promote our best standards throughout the European Union but to raise them, particularly in egg production.
I hope that we can make real progress on labelling so that those who want to buy humanely produced food can do so. If the housewife dictates the market, we shall raise farm animal welfare standards not only in the United Kingdom but much more quickly throughout the European Union.