Examination of Witness (Questions 119
- 139)
TUESDAY 5 NOVEMBER 2002
MR PETER
STEVENSON
Chairman
119. Mr Stevenson, you are the policy and legal
director of Compassion in World Farming?
(Mr Stevenson) Political and legal director.
120. That is what I have down here, as a matter
of fact. And your concerns are animal welfare?
(Mr Stevenson) That is correct.
121. And you state that "the decoupled
farm income payment will be conditional on the respect of statutory
animal health and welfare standards", and the Commission
welcomes that. You then go on to say that you would like to see
cross-compliance at a higher level than current welfare legislation.
Would you like to explain what you mean by that and how you would
justify it in the light of the constant argument about the international
competitive position of British farmers?
(Mr Stevenson) Can I start by saying that I welcome
really all the various proposals that the Commission have made
in their paper about animal welfare, both the general statement
that farm animal welfare should be fully integrated into the CAP—to
me that is a huge step forward—but also the three specific
areas where they are suggesting it should be taken into account,
of which as you rightly say the first one is that anyone receiving
direct payments, coupled or uncoupled, there should be a cross-compliance
requirement for. Chairman, I am a bit torn on this myself. If
all that were achieved is that there would be a cross-compliance
requirement as regards animal welfare in terms of what is statutory
and what is legislation, of course that would be a big step forward;
it would help enforcement and monitoring considerably. The reason
I would like to explore the possibility of going further is twofold:
firstly, there are certain areas where there is very little legislation—indeed,
no species specific legislation. That is if one takes cattle,
both beef and dairy, and sheep, neither at UK nor at EU level,
either as detailed requirements in the way that we have for pigs,
laying hens and calves. There are, of course, the broad provisions
of the 1968 Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and certain
broad provisions of the 2000 Regulations which would apply to
any animal, but since one would have to ask what one is cross-complying
with, one might have to for cattle and sheep create something
that is at the moment not there. Now, we may decide that should
be Council of Europe recommendations or DEFRA codes. So firstly,
in some places, there just is not any detailed law. Secondly,
and I will try to indicate one example, I would be unhappy, I
think many people would, to see CAP payments, not necessarily
animal welfare ones but agri-environment ones, which very probably
inadvertently are leading to a deterioration in animal welfare
standards. I gave one example in my submission which I noticed
in the farming press at the beginning of the year, and I cannot
give exact details but it seemed that a particular farmer, in
order to benefit perfectly properly from agri-environment payments
possibly to make more land available for an agri environment scheme,
had brought his sheep, previously reared in the normal way outdoors,
indoors and was rearing them throughout their lives indoors on
concentrates, and I think most people would accept that is not
a good way of rearing sheep. Inadvertently the CAP had encouraged
that, it would appear, and therefore, again, I would like to see
some standards for cross-compliance which avoided that danger
of animal welfare standards being damaged by a particular scheme.
122. The instrument of cross-compliance in the
Commission's proposal is the farm audit.
(Mr Stevenson) Yes.
123. What needs to be done to the farm audit
to make it into an efficient instrument of compliance, and how
would you respond to that old British complaint that we do more
of it than anybody else and that, in practice, there will be differential
compliance and, however much the Commission throws the book at
people who do not comply, it takes an awful long time for the
book to land?
(Mr Stevenson) Firstly I think the farm audit scheme,
at least as envisaged in the Commission paper, is meant to in
some ways simplify the monitoring and controls over a whole range
of areas, not just animal welfare but environment, food safety
and occupational health and safety, and if done well could bring
under one auditing scheme a range of monitoring and controls which
are burdensome to farmers. It could, and I would welcome this,
simplify things. Going on to your other point that British farmers
may find themselves more rigorously audited and monitored than
others, clearly this is a problem. We do a lot of work; we put
a lot of pressure on the Commission and the Member States to try
and get better enforcement of welfare standards in all fifteen
countries, not just on farm but transport and slaughter. It is
a very slow and at times depressing process but I do think slowly
things are happening in other countries. I do not think we should
despair long term. I think there is a significant shift including
in southern Europe into taking these issues more seriously, but
there is a long way still to go.
124. Do you regard membership of an assurance
scheme as evidence of adequate compliance with animal welfare
conditions? There is a big drive to get people to sign up to an
assurance scheme. Do you believe that constitutes sufficient evidence?
(Mr Stevenson) The short answer is no and I will try
to elaborate on this. I am aware that one of the Commission's
proposals is that there should be in Pillar II a new food quality
chapter which I welcome where one of the ways in which farmers
could be helped is when they are adhering to a quality assurance
scheme they would receive some sort of payment; also there would
be financial assistance for the promotion of such schemes. In
that wider context, if we just step back for a moment, I think
I would feel and I think many people would agree that over the
last twelve years, both in this country and in the EU as a whole,
significant strides to better animal welfare have been made. I
think we also might agree, although probably disagreeing about
the details, that there is a fair way still to go—perhaps
we are halfway there. Therefore, if we are looking at that overall
strategy about how one drives welfare standards upwards, I think
quality assurance schemes have got a vital role to play—really
vital. At the moment, though, if you actually analyse the terms
of most of the schemes operating in this country, they really
are not good on welfare. I am disappointed that there is a significant
gap between the welfare rhetoric often in the introduction in
which they are saying—sometimes directly sometimes implying—"Look,
public, you can trust us; we are assuring good welfare",
and yet when one analyses those schemes often they are doing little
more, no more, than saying to the members, "You must obey
the law and you must observe DEFRA codes". Well, yes, of
course they must—all farmers even outside the assurance
scheme must do that. If the assurance schemes are playing a role,
just as cross-compliance under the CAP might, in really making
sure the law is complied with, that is of value, but I am very
disappointed with the standards because they imply they are ensuring
good welfare but if you look at the schemes, just to give some
examples of the kind of things that are allowed, pigs—and
I am talking now about pigs bred for their meat or other breeding
sows—can be kept indoors throughout their lives without
any straw; they can be tail docked; teeth clipped; the farrowing
crate can be used for sows. If you look at laying hens the battery
cage can be used under the assurance scheme. If you look at the
meat chicken, the broiler scheme, they permit a stocking density
way above what science says you should not go beyond. The schemes
allow the use of the very fast growing broilers where one gets
such a high incidence of leg disorders and heart failure; they
allow the use of high yielding dairy cows where again, just a
few days ago, it was revealed that every year about 70 per cent
of dairy cows are possibly going lame; 45-50 per cent get mastitis,
yet those high yielding breeds are used. There are restrictive
feeding regimes for breeding sows and broiler breeders which lead,
according to science, to chronic long-term hunger, so there is
a range which I think do not from my point of view constitute
good welfare and which are permitted by the schemes, and I believe
I am accurate. Indeed, we published a report earlier this year,
Compassion in World Farming Trust, analysing these schemes and
summarising this by saying that quality assurance schemes could
play a very important role in driving welfare standards forward
and upward, but at present they are failing to do so because of
low standards.
Mr Lepper
125. You have already mentioned some of the
thirteen key animal welfare determinants that you say a farmer
should satisfy or adhere to in order to receive payments. From
your point of view, is that a definitive list? Is it susceptible
to change over the years? How did you arrive at those thirteen?
You have given us some examples.
(Mr Stevenson) Of course I would imagine this is a
list one can keep thinking about. The reason I produced it was—and
can I just clarify, we have moved through your question from that
first area the Commission looked at which is saying, "Look,
if you are receiving direct payments there is going to be a cross-compliance"
to looking at the two other areas which I am very interested in,
one of which is the new "meeting standards" chapter
where farmers would get some payment if they met certain standards—and,
again, Chairman, I am aware there is a big question about what
those standards are. Is it just the law or something higher than
the law, and I know you may challenge me again as to why I would
want it to go beyond the statutory requirement, and indeed those
thirteen determinants that you refer to I set out when looking
at the third of the Commission's proposals, which is that animal
welfare should be brought into the agri environment chapter. This
was yet another tier of possible payments which I think is very
much in the Commission's mind, and certainly in my mind, and designed
for farmers who have gone way beyond the statutory minimum really
to the very best kind of schemes. No, of course, this is not meant
to be a set-in-stone list. I was trying to say that I applaud
what the Commission has suggested but we all need to begin to
think what standards are we talking about. I could have taken
the approach of saying well, for pigs I believe these are the
standards; for laying hens these are the standards and so on,
and I felt this would be far too detailed at this point in the
debate and that one ought to look at the determinants, the principles,
and if one agreed those principles one said, "Right, bearing
those in mind, what are the kind of standards one would set?",
but if I can give some examples, looking at specific species for
this third tier of payments, the very best—which go, you
could say, very considerably beyond the statutory minimum. Imagine,
for example, if you look at pigs, one would be looking at a system
where the animals were free range—not just the breeding
sows which is becoming increasingly commonplace but the pigs which
are reared for their meat, because remember in many free range
systems the sows are outdoors but as soon as they are weaned the
piglets are brought indoors. I would be looking at a system where
they are kept free range, or if they were indoors one would be
looking to see that there is really no tooth clipping, no tail
docking, no form of mutilation, a good fairly deep bed of straw,
generous space allowances, fresh air, daylight—the very
best of indoor systems. If one was looking at broiler chickens
I would only be looking for that highest tier of payments for
really good free range systems. Interestingly, Chairman, you asked
me earlier about the discrepancy between UK and continental standards.
We have recently been to about six Member States in addition to
the UK looking at free range broilers, at examples of things that
are actually on the ground, working and are commercially successful.
I have to say the best we found were in Portugal and France. So
sometimes other Member States, even the ones we do not associate
with good welfare, can do really good systems. Those are the kind
of systems that would fall within those welfare determinants.
They were not just outdoors but they had a lot of tree cover which
is what chickens really like; they were in very small groups—about
300; the indoor accommodation was good—they were only being
stocked at about 8 or 9 birds per square metre. This was the very
highest of standards for that tier.
126. From what you have said, you feel that
those standards are standards that would be acceptable as the
highest level of standards throughout the European Union, not
just throughout the European Commission zone?
(Mr Stevenson) Yes. Clearly there would have to be
the same standards in all Member States.
127. And you envisage, do you, farmers who meet
those standards being compensated, as it were, through the rural
development regulation?
(Mr Stevenson) Yes. I believe that when farmers are
achieving those highest of standards, the addition of animal welfare
to the agri environment chapter, they should be receiving some
real reward that helps with the capital costs of change and possibly
at least for a limited period with some of the extra running costs.
128. And the meat, let's say, from the pigs
would still be on sale in the market place at a similar price
to other pig meat which did not meet the same standards?
(Mr Stevenson) Well, in some but not all cases those
higher standards would lead to higher production costs and therefore
the retail price would have to be higher, and therefore it may
never reach a mass market, but I think it is important to encourage.
I am always torn between what I ideally would like and what I
believe is realistic, and I recognise that for the foreseeable
future there will continue to be some fairly intensive livestock
rearing but I would like to see schemes like this encourage a
greater take-up of the best of standards, and it can be done.
Just to give one example where there are discrepancies—and,
again, interestingly we do not come out the better in this one—I
suspect probably no more than 1 per cent of British broilers are
kept free range whereas in the French broiler industry, which
is a similar size, 15-20 per cent are free range, and often very
good free range. A scheme like this could help us and other countries
to create a larger proportion of our broiler or pig industry in
really the best of standards.
129. Generally, people when they are buying
their chicken or their eggs or pork who are concerned about these
issues of animal welfare and high standards are willing to pay
a bit more. Why should we, the taxpayers, be compensating farmers
for producing meat of that high standard when people are quite
prepared to pay for it in the market place?
(Mr Stevenson) I suspect neither here or in other
Member States are enough people willing. If by giving some financial
help under the CAP to the farmer one can bring the retail price
down because some of the extra costs will be met through the CAP
then a larger proportion of the public may be drawn to buying
meat reaching these high standards. I accept that your question
still remains, "Why should we pay for it?", and I think
in a sense there are two answers to that. I think the timing may
be difficult to see but I think, however slowly and unsteadily,
the CAP is going to shift from Pillar 1 type subsidies to Pillar
2 if only because it is being pushed in that direction by the
WTO, and therefore if the EU, including ourselves, wants to continue
helping farmers and they have to do it under more Pillar 2 type
schemes, then animal welfare seems a very legitimate thing to
do. But responding to the Chairman, I think Chairman you rightly
said that farmers are under enormous pressure at this point. I
think the pressure is partly coming internally from supermarkets
who ever more want to drive down the farm gate price and I totally
sympathise with farmers' predicament there, and the pressures
are coming more globally from the WTO which is in effect saying,
"Fine if you want to have higher animal welfare standards
but you cannot in any way restrict the import of cheaper welfare
products which could undermine our farmers". So if as a society
we are saying we want better farm animal welfare, we have to devise
a strategy which makes that better welfare economically viable.
I have no desire to see farmers, British or European, go out of
business. I think that strategy has a number of limbs, but I think
one important limb is support from the CAP. I do not think support
from the CAP can solve all the problems. It is one of half a dozen
strategies which can help our society create decent animal welfare
standards in an economically viable manner.
Mr Jack
130. One of the things I am struggling with
is that, with your emphasis on bringing all species within the
proposals to take animal welfare into further thinking about the
development of the CAP, currently hens and pigs and calves do
not get any money and one of the theses which the mid-term reform
is supposed to be addressing is the decoupling of payments associated
with production. Now, some outside the EU might look at payments
for higher welfare standards as a production aid because effectively
what you are saying is to achieve the standards that you have
delineated requires expenditure or less income than a more intensive
system. How would we cope with that if we were to come under attack
from outside for bringing into the CAP payment structure species
which currently do not receive any money?
(Mr Stevenson) I first ought to clarify that the first
of these three ways in which the Commission is trying to bring
animal welfare in cross-compliance is only for people receiving
direct payments, coupled or uncoupled, and therefore in practice
one is not looking at pigs and poultry there but more beef, dairy
and sheep. But with the other two ways, the meeting standards
and these very highest of standards that I have just been talking
about, you are quite right. I think what the Commission has in
mind and certainly what I would want to see is pigs and poultry,
which is after all where many of the intensive problems come,
being brought in and then it would be very much pig and poultry
farmers who would benefit from that. To try and answer your point,
yes, we could clearly come under attack from our WTO partners
that we are giving production-related aid. All I can say to that
is that in the EU's formal negotiating brief for the current on-going
WTO round, they have proposed three ways of trying to address
the damage being done by WTO to animal welfare in EU farms, one
of which is a recognition that animal welfare payments be brought
in the green box—ie, that they are WTO acceptable. So I
think the EU is trying to address this.
131. One of the things in your evidence that
you say you fully support is the Commission's statement, "Animal
welfare concerns must be fully integrated within the CAP".
I am still struggling, following the line of questioning of colleagues,
to understand—notwithstanding your own I think quite optimistic
hope that there could be some (a) growing appreciation within
the EU of animal welfare standards as an issue but also (b) still
a very different appreciation of what this concept of animal welfare
means—how we are going to get some kind of uniform standard
or, if you like, baseline from which you could then build the
hierarchy of conditions, because you have described your thirteen,
if you like, Stevenson ideal circumstances, but this term "animal
welfare concerns must be fully integrated" is not exactly
a precision definition of saying, "We will attempt to define
species by species some minimum standards, notwithstanding what
we already have in terms of our rules, which will be recognised
as an improvement on what we already have in welfare of the way
that animals are reared for human consumption or their products
for human use", and then on top of that we might have a hierarchy
of things we would like to see happen. I struggle to understand
how this is going to be defined and negotiated. Have you had some
comfort from somebody in the Commission that this situation which
has so far eluded us can be achieved?
(Mr Stevenson) Certainly when I have talked to the
principal official in the Commission dealing with this the Commission
is clearly very positive about this, and that comes through from
their paper. Animal welfare is referred to on many occasions,
not just a couple of times. Again, can I just reiterate that these
thirteen what I call animal welfare determinants were suggestions
for that very highest tier, where it is absolutely clear that
what the Commission has in mind is that these are payments for
people going significantly beyond legislative standards.
132. How do we define the baseline, because
from that everything else would follow? How can you get some kind
of universal appreciation of what is a good standard for animal
welfare which, by definition, must be an improvement on what we
have at the moment?
(Mr Stevenson) I think clearly, like any of the animal
welfare directives, they would have to be negotiated. I am just
trying to set the ball rolling with some preliminary thinking.
These determinants would have to be negotiated and I recognise
those negotiations will be difficult because there are different
cultural values on animal welfare between the Member States, but
hopefully out of that negotiation would come some agreement on
what sort of standards we are talking about. Again, things have
moved on in Europe. If I can give two examples, last year a pigs
directive was agreed when, in fact, the southern countries had
quite enough votes to block it if they had wanted to, and that
directive does not just ban sow stalls but requires all pigs to
have a certain amount of straw or similar manipulable material;
it brings in a much tighter ban on routine tail docking than before—this
was agreed probably with no great joy but nonetheless by countries
like France. I think Spain did vote against it but on their own
they did not have enough votes to do anything about it. Just moving
off on-farm issues for a moment, at the Agricultural Council meeting
in September nine of the fifteen Member States—and we were
just one out of nine—voted to say there should be a maximum
limit on animal transport for slaughter or fattening of eight
hours or 500 kms. Things are moving, and I am not saying that
the fifteen Member States would somehow simply just rubber-stamp
my thirteen determinants, but I am sure eventually something could
be negotiated. Going back to the Chairman's very first question,
of course I try to say what I would at the best and ideally like
but let me be clear, in terms of political reality, going to the
first of the things the Commission proposes, the cross-compliance,
it will end up as you suggested—that the cross-compliance
will simply be with the law—whatever the law might be at
a particular point. If I am being honest, I wish it would go beyond
that. If you look at the middle of the things they talked about,
this meeting standards chapter where you would specifically get
a payment to help you meet new statutory requirements, again it
may well be that the political reality is that you will not have
to go beyond the legal requirement. Now, I have indicated in the
paper they are nothing like as demanding as the thirteen determinants
and I feel you should go a bit beyond it, and I elaborate on that.
I think it is only with the last of them, this bringing animal
welfare into the agri environment chapter where I brought in these
thirteen very high standard determinants, where clearly a farmer
to get that payment would have to go way beyond the legislative
requirement because that is the whole point of this extra payment—it
is for people going significantly beyond the law. I recognise,
however, that with the first two I might struggle in terms of
political reality to see it going beyond the requirement to adhere
to the law.
Mr Borrow
133. I want to come back to this idea of payments
for improved animal welfare standards. I can understand the theory
of it and I understand there is a demand out there, because it
is quite clearly there now, where people are prepared to pay a
premium for agricultural animal products if they can be assured
that those animals have been brought up to certain standards.
If we have an EU scheme using the reformed CAP to give extra payments
to farmers to enhance the animal welfare conditions, that will
have the effect maybe of reducing the price that these premium
products will come to the market at, and therefore expand the
number of people who could afford to pay the premium. Am I right
in thinking that that is the assumption, rather than bringing
animal welfare products to the market at the same price as those
products where animal welfare has not been a big issue?
(Mr Stevenson) Sorry—I do not know if I followed
you correctly. Yes, these support payments would, in effect, mean
that the retail price could be lower than otherwise because the
extra production cost would be in part met by the consumer but
in part by these payments. I am hoping because the price can come
down that these will move away from being just niche products
for a few people who choose to pay that extra and cover wider
availability. They may still not be for the mass market: they
still may be at a higher price than the factory farmer.
134. Because there is an issue in addition to
the issue around the WTO and whether this is supporting production
which I think is an issue for politicians, and that is the majority
of poor people in Europe will not pay the extra for a premium
product. Whatever their concerns about animal welfare, if the
poor people are seeking to feed a family, they will go for the
cheapest product.
(Mr Stevenson) Yes.
135. All the statistics and information show
that to be the case and therefore this is an issue around the
CAP reform for politicians. So is it right that taxpayers' money,
including taxpayers' money from poor families, should be used
to subsidise food that is brought principally by better off or
more affluent people who have the financial resources to care
about animal welfare and, in doing that, pay the extra? I think
that is the real dilemma that politicians face, because unless
we can bring the price of meat that is produced by good animal
welfare to a price that everybody can afford, we end up subsidising
that product for the better off at the price of the poor?
(Mr Stevenson) I would hope that in a variety of ways,
including very specifically through the CAP support, the meat
and eggs coming from higher welfare animals could be brought within
the reach of everybody so that, as I said earlier, these would
no longer be just for a niche market but would have a wider availability.
I have to say, if I look at our own supporters, the people who
care about having decent farm animal welfare standards are not
only the people who can afford it. They are not just the wealthier
consumers but also very much the poorer people who would probably
very much welcome it if the price of high welfare meat and eggs
could be brought down within their reach. So this should not become
just subsidising the tastes of the better-off consumer, but I
recognise there is a important question for politicians. As a
society, both British and European, if we want decent standards
of animal welfare, then given the pressures from supermarkets
and given these huge pressures from WTO, we have to devise a strategy
about how we can make that happen of which I think these payments
are one—but only one—part.
136. Moving on, one of the things the Commission
is looking at is to reinforce the conditions and controls into
which export subsidies for live animals can be granted, and obviously
that is something that is of great importance. How do you think
these conditions can be improved?
(Mr Stevenson) Firstly, can I make clear in terms
of live animals the export refunds are available only on the export
of live cattle, and only when they go to third countries. The
UK itself is not involved in that trade; these animals are mainly
coming from Germany, the Republic of Ireland, and France. The
figures exported each year vary but they are in the range of 250,000
live cattle a year. The amount of subsidies given vary year by
year; they have swung in the last few years from between 90 million
and 290 million euro but maybe averaging out round about 100 million
euro a year, so it is a huge subsidy. The fact that this is immensely
cruel live trade has been documented time and again. The suffering
happens both during the long journeys, then at unloading at journey's
end, then at the onward transportation from unloading to the slaughterhouse,
and then at the slaughterhouse, and I could go into more detail
on the cruelty if you wanted me to do so. Having praised the Commission,
one area we are very disappointed is that they have not come out
and said, "Look, export refunds on live cattle exports should
just be abolished". This is not a particularly outrageous
position. In October just a few weeks ago the European Parliament
for the second year running when considering next year's budget
said that export refunds on live cattle exports should be abolished.
A number of Member States want to see them go but there is not
yet a sufficient majority. If they are not to be abolished, of
course I want improved controls. The Commission have had in force
since 1998 a regulation trying to in theory say that you do not
get your export refund if you do not maintain high welfare standards,
not just during the bit of the journey within the EU but for the
whole of the journey. It is in practice almost unenforceable.
Commission's own figures show that in one 21-month period towards
the end of the 1990s they withdrew the export refunds in respect
of just over 3,000 cattle, and during this period over 500,000
were exported. I do not believe for one minute that only 3,000
of them were transported in very poor conditions so that scheme
is not working at the moment to raise standards. If standards
are to be raised then some of the things we have suggested are
that it should be made clear, because at the moment what the regulation
says is that the welfare during transport directive applies all
the way through to arrival in the third country. The first point
we believe is that it should be made clear that that includes
not just the journey but the unloading; some of the worst problems
happen during unloading. For example, one EU vet—and I do
not mean an official vet but from an animal welfare organisation—saw
the unloading of EU cattle in Egypt about eighteen months ago,
and apart from sheer brutal beating some of the animals were falling
off the gangway into the sea and drowning, so bringing unloading
into it is still a very grey area but I think it would help. Secondly
there needs to be a more significant proportion of the consignments
arriving in third countries which must be inspected. At the moment
under the Commission regulation which tries to control it, it
is actually very few, and I think that should be significantly
increased—indeed, I would like them all to be inspected.
Thirdly, these inspections in third countries are done usually
not by EU officials but by a local approved supervisory agency.
Quite frankly, my impression is they are not doing their job thoroughly
and they should be regularly inspected by the Commission just
as the Member States are to see if they are doing the job properly.
Fourthly, I believe that the export refunds should only be available
if the animal is going to be slaughtered in a slaughterhouse which
adheres to the standards of EU welfare at slaughter legislation,
because what goes on in these slaughterhouse is terrible. I am
not referring to the religious slaughter—I do not like religious
slaughter but I recognise it is permitted by EU law so I am not
entitled to complain about it in third countries—but the
pre slaughter handling is appalling. For example, in one case
we saw EU cattle in a Lebanese abattoir and the way of bringing
the animal to the ground preparing it for throat cutting was for
two men to lie across the animal's back and bounce on it till
it fell to the ground. Recently we saw cattle being, while still
fully conscious, hung upside down from a rail by one leg and then
having their throat cut. Now, for such a heavy animal to be hung
upside down by one leg is painful and frightening, so I would
like to see a requirement that the slaughterhouses used adhere
to EU standards. But above all I would like to see export refunds
abolished. I think that is unacceptable. Going back to the point
about the decisions of how public money is being used, I do not
think public money should be used to foster and encourage a trade
which regularly is inflicting great suffering on animals.
137. So, if I read your views correctly, you
would prefer it to be stopped altogether?
(Mr Stevenson) Yes.
138. And if it is not stopped you have very
little faith that there is any real way in which new regulations
can be brought in by the EU that would be effective because of
the difficulties of enforcement?
(Mr Stevenson) Yes. Though I have suggested four ways
in which they could be strengthened, I do not have a lot of faith
it is going to make all that much difference.
139. Finally, the European Commission have come
up with four possible reforms for the dairy sector. I wonder if
you had any views on the four reforms?
(Mr Stevenson) I am sorry, I have to confess not to
feeling expert on that particular point and I do not want to mislead
the Committee, but I would like to make a broad statement as regards
the dairy sector. I think it has been generally agreed by many
over the years that the quota system has encouraged intensification.
It has made it attractive for farmers to try and maximise yields
per cow leading to high levels of lameness, mastitis and other
problems, and I think, therefore, however the dairy sector goes
forward, again on this principle that animal welfare should be
integrated into the CAP, I would like the animal welfare side
to be looked at in the way payments are made. Again, I would like
some cross-compliance and I would like it to be a requirement,
whatever shape or form this takes, that payments are dependent
on the fact that you implement a veterinary health plan, that
you have agreed as a farmer with your veterinary surgeon to reduce
the incidence of lameness and mastitis and to achieve a high health
and welfare status in the herd. If I could pick up on a point
you raised earlier about my pleasure concerning this principle
that animal welfare should be fully integrated into the CAP, apart
from the three specifics we have discussed, one of the problems
over many years is that when new CAP policies or subsidies are
formulated I do not think anybody has until very recently turned
their minds to what would be the impact on animal welfare, and
will there be, very possibly, inadvertently an animal welfare
downside, and I would like to see a requirement that, before a
new policy or subsidy is introduced, there is an animal welfare
impact assessment: that we do not suddenly find we have a problem
that we do not really want but that we have encouraged through
a particular subsidy.
|
