Jonathan
Shaw: I have heard that about imports, but does the hon.
Gentleman have any specific examples, particularly in the EU? If he
has, we would want to take them
up.
Mr.
Williams: Certainly, the examples would relate to pigs.
The introduction of improved animal welfare has been delayed in Europe,
whereas it has been implemented almost immediately in this country. As
a result of that, 70 per cent. of pigmeat imports into this country
come from animals that have been kept in welfare conditions that are
significantly worse than those on English and other UK farms. A recent
visit to Brazil by a group of Irish farmers identified practices that
would not be allowed in this country on farms that were certainly
exporting beef from Brazil to be imported into this
country. The way to
exert pressure to encourage good animal welfare right across the world
is to introduce animal welfare conditions into World Trade Organisation
negotiations. That would really put pressure on those countries that
wish to export to this country to up their game and lead to huge
improvements in animal welfare across the
world. The Minister
and the hon. Member for Leominster mentioned that the regulations would
extend the duty to people who keep livestock on common land. That is
welcomed as well. However, I hope that in drawing up the codes and
regulations the Minister will take into account the difficulty of
achieving the same level there as in respect of animals that are kept
either in housed conditions or on enclosed land. Often, tracts of
common land can extend for 30 miles or more in both directions and
thousands of animals, with a number of different owners, can be on
those commons. In the days when daily shepherding took place, there was
close contact between the people responsible and their animals.
Unfortunately, however, due to the economics of farming, daily
shepherding cannot be carried out now in the way that it was in
previous times. The
Minister should say what kind of temporary structures would be allowed
on commons to house animals in need of veterinary treatment. Also, in
relation to the Commons Act 2006, will the Minister consider what
temporary structures or even permanent fencing could be allowed on
commons to improve the management of livestock? That issue was taken up
during the 2006 Act, but the changes that are now in place and the duty
on farmers to abide by these regulations brings that into much closer
focus. There is also a
duty in the regulations to protect animals from predators. Will the
Minister say what actions farmers should take to protect their
animals—lambs and other such livestock—from predators?
What action could farmers take and what excuse could they give if they
were caught carrying out certain actions?
The hon. Member for Leominster
has talked about improvement notices, and they have worked in some
instances. I believe that almost all farmers wish to look after their
animals. Intentional cruelty is very rare indeed. I do not think that
anyone makes any money out of abusing or committing cruelty to animals.
However, from time to time, some people will neglect their animals and
not look after them properly, often through circumstances beyond their
control. In many ways, I think that they need support through
improvement notices rather than prosecution.
I urge the Minister to ensure
that, if anyone looks after their animals inadequately, any notice that
says that they should not keep animals in the future is implemented far
more rigorously than in the past. There have been a number of occasions
on which people have been ordered by the courts not to keep animals.
For some reason, that order has not been implemented or, over the
years, it has been forgotten about. The person has kept animals again
and gone on to neglect them. That is not
acceptable. The hon.
Member for Leominster has gone into great detail about the familiarity
clause. I, too, ask the Minister to comment on that. I also press the
Minister about farm inspections, which cause a huge burden for farmers
and should be better co-ordinated. The Minister should work with DEFRA,
Animal Health—the overarching body that looks after the state
veterinary service—the Environment Agency and all those other
agencies that have the power to inspect farms. They should co-ordinate
inspections, plan their programmes in advance and ensure that the
burden of inspection is kept as light as possible and proportionate to
the risk that the farming business might present. I am not against
inspections taking place on an ad hoc or reactionary basis. However, if
they are done as a matter of sequence, they should be co-ordinated to
reduce the pressure on farmers.
In general, we welcome the
regulations. Nothing will do British agriculture more good than the
acknowledgement that farmers look after the animals well and that our
customers can be assured that food is produced in this country under
the very best animal welfare
conditions. 2.59
pm Rob
Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): It is a pleasure
to appear before you, Lady Winterton.
I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his well-deserved promotion
and the Government on the regulations. I agree with the hon. Member for
Brecon and Radnorshire about the desirability of including animal
welfare in World Trade Organisation negotiations. Perhaps a logical
follow on to that would be to look at using labels that include the
geographic origin of farm produce, as well as the conditions under
which it was produced.
My hon. Friend the Minister
will be surprised that I have one or two technical questions to ask
him. In regulation 5(1)(b), the protection for poultry will not apply
if someone is keeping fewer than 350 hens. Someone could deliberately
or inadvertently do a lot of damage to 349 hens, which would not have
specific protection under the regulations other than general
protection, in contradistinction to the protection provided under
schedules 2, 3, 4 and 5.
I am an urban
MP and I do not have a great deal of farming knowledge, particularly
about poultry farming. However, it seems surprising that, under
schedule 2(2)(c), which deals with nests for laying hens in non-cage
systems, there must be
“at least 1 m2 of nest
space for a maximum of 120
hens”. That is a large
number of hens for only 1 sq m of space.
Paragraph 6(b) of
schedule 2 sets the headroom figure for laying hens in non-caged
systems at 45 cm. The corresponding figure in paragraph 5 of schedule
3,
which covers laying hens in conventional cages, is 40 cm. What I
take as the corresponding figure in schedule 4(2)(a) is 20 cm. I might
have misread that—perhaps that 20 cm is not a corresponding
figure. However, there seems to be quite a variation between 45 cm, 40
cm and 20 cm, and I am concerned about the effect that that could have
on the welfare of laying hens that are kept in groups of more than
350. Will the Minister explain the
second comparative figure? It may be due to the historic changeover
from conventional cages to so-called enriched cages, but under
paragraph 2 of schedule 3 on conventional cages,
“Cage systems must have
at least 550 cm2 per hen of cage area, measured in a
horizontal plane”. The
corresponding figures that cover enriched cages are in paragraph (2)(a)
of schedule 4, under which laying hens must
have “at least 750
cm2 of cage area per hen, 600 cm2 of which must
be useable”. There is
quite a difference between 550 sq cm, which seems far too small for
conventional cages, and 750 sq cm for enriched cages.
Perhaps I could trespass a
little further on the Minister’s kindness and ask him to explain
the difference drawn in paragraph 2(a) of schedule 4 between
the “750
cm2 of cage area per hen, 600 cm2> of which
must be usable”. I am not
entirely sure where the other 150 sq cm have gone, but it may be to do
with the way in which the calculations are done.
On a general point, I hope that
my hon. Friend will clarify why schedule 3 refers to conventional cages
and why schedule 4 covers so-called enriched cages, because even the
figures for enriched cages seem hardly sufficient to look after the
welfare of poultry kept in flocks of more than
350. 3.4
pm
Jonathan
Shaw: I thank hon. Members for their kind words. I will do
my best to answer the questions they have asked, and if I miss anything
I will reply to them in writing.
The first
question I was asked was whether the codes would be replaced by new
ones. A second commencement order will be made in October to repeal
part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and to
save the codes passed under it.
On access to
the codes, it is important that we concentrate on stock-keepers’
skills. The codes perform several important functions for the owners
and keepers of farmed animals. They provide good husbandry advice to
stock-keepers, taking into account practical experience and the results
of scientific research. They give detailed guidance to the
regulation—in that regard, the Government have received positive
comments from inspectors and the European Commission’s Food and
Veterinary Office. They are used by farm owners and managers as a
training guide for stock-keepers, and they implement Council of Europe
recommendations on specific
species. I was asked
why the codes were reinstated—an important and reasonable
question. The Government reinstated them after several consultees
advanced
compelling arguments for retaining them. They argued that farmed animals
should be treated differently from non-farmed animals, because they are
kept in far larger groups and often in systems that require a much
higher standard of knowledge and husbandry. That is reasonable. In
addition, reinstatement requires keepers to be familiar with the codes,
thus ensuring at least a basic level of training. My hon. Friend the
Member for Wolverhampton, South-West mentioned the numbers of animals;
it is quite a different matter from keeping domestic animals. No
representations have been received in support of removing the
codes. Bill
Wiggin: I am sorry to press the Minister, but paragraph 6
of the regulations
says: “A person
responsible for a farmed animal...must take all reasonable steps
to ensure that a person employed or engaged by him does not attend to
the animal unless that other person...has access to the code while
attending to the
animal.” The
codes—I have one here—are very good to read, but as for
having access to one “while attending an animal”, nobody
who has tried to catch a cow would want to be holding one in their hand
at the time. [Laughter.] I have raised an element of levity, but
my point is absolutely right. If someone does not have a code with
them, they will be committing an offence according to the draft
regulations. I hope that the Minister will allay my fears that that is
the
case.
Jonathan
Shaw: Law is based on what is
reasonable. Would it be reasonable for everyone who works on a farm to
have the code available as the hon. Gentleman described? No, it would
not. The provision is about having access to a copy, whether in an
office or the farm setting. As for whether the code is available to
download on a farmhand’s BlackBerry while they are catching a
cow, we will have to see. It is about what is reasonable and
practicable. I hope that that reassures
him.
Bill
Wiggin: It goes some way. Will the Minister make it clear?
I am the proud possessor of seven Hereford cattle—three bulls
are for sale, if anybody is listening.
[Interruption.] The price depends on how big the
bull is. If an inspector were to turn up, look at my BlackBerry and not
find the right page, would the next step be a warning notice, or would
he have to proceed straight to prosecution according to the letter of
the
regulations?
Jonathan
Shaw: I repeat, it is about what is reasonable. If an
inspector turns up and witnesses cruelty, he will obviously go through
the process. If he says to that person, “You are treating that
animal cruelly. Show me the code,” the person is not likely to
take the code out of his back pocket, but if the inspector returns to
the farm, asks for the code and is told, “The dog ate it, we
haven’t got it,” we would start to build a case. The
requirement for the code to be readily available does not mean that it
must be on the person, but that it must be within the farm
building. Good
farmers would have the literature; they have nothing to fear from the
codes. They are a guide and set out what farmers do 99 per cent. of the
time anyway. If we all believe in good animal welfare, as I am sure we
do, we need the means to prosecute, as the hon. Gentleman said. Having
the codes in the farm
building is entirely reasonable. However, the person who is prosecuted
will probably be the person who does not have the codes, and there will
be other issues as well. It is often not one thing, but a host of
things that leads to a
prosecution. Bill
Wiggin: I flicked open the code of conduct. I say, for the
benefit of the Committee, that it states:
“Anyone who clips cattle
should be experienced, competent and trained in clipping
techniques.” If people
are being taught to clip cattle, they are none of those things but, of
course, as common sense dictates, they have to learn. By definition,
according to the code of conduct, if they did not have that experience
and they were being taught to clip cattle, they could be prosecutable.
That engenders fear. I am not talking about common sense or cruelty.
That is a completely different issue, on which the Minister has my full
support. The key
point is clarity. My argument is about the letter of the statutory
instrument and the risk that it poses to an already burdened farmer,
who probably does not want to see the inspector and would be quite
hostile. Inspectors have the patience of Job in a lot of cases, because
their visits are a burden and sometimes take place at the most
inconvenient time. Therefore, I am worried, because the Minister has
not said that people who do not have the code easily accessible will
not be prosecuted, but they may well be warned. That is what I am
waiting
for.
Jonathan
Shaw: I have an important point for the hon. Gentleman. A
case will have to be made and presented, and it will be for the courts
to determine. Clearly, if a case rests on whether the farmhand, farmer
or person who has animals in their care does not have the code book in
his or her back pocket, I do not think there will be a case to
answer. A case is based upon what is reasonable. The codes have been
welcomed and, as I said, several consultees pointed out that farmed
animals are different from non-farmed animals.
As for the
improvement notices that the hon. Members for Leominster and for Brecon
and Radnorshire mentioned, animal health veterinary inspectors make
assessments on the basis of the evidence that they can see when they
inspect the animal. They then decide whether there is a need to issue
an improvement notice. It is for the practitioners on the ground and
the experts to decide. We often talk about letting the clinicians in
hospitals get on with the job. On farms, we need to allow the
inspectors to get on with their job.
On another point raised by the
hon. Member for Leominster, individuals will not automatically go to
court if the regulations are breached. The inspectors will apply a
common-sense approach to enforcement. If an inspection of a farm with
an exemplary record shows that something is missing, which can happen
even among the best farmers and people who care for animals, a
common-sense approach should be applied, not a stringent, unreasonable
approach. That is what we envisage. We have come to that position in
consultation with the appropriate
people. The
hon. Gentleman asked why level 4, not level 5, fines should be imposed.
Under the previous regulations the fines were set at level 4, so we are
keeping them the same. However, if there is cruelty, we could use level
5 fines under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
| 
