| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The order clearly closes a loophole and we have no objection to it.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I would not normally be here at this time on a Friday, but it was drawn to my attention during the week that there could be ramifications arising from the order that have not yet been explained. The Minister will be aware how complicated Northern Ireland affairs can be, as he has been dealing with them for a number of years. In the centre of Belfast and other parts of the city, the Middle East problem has spilt over. In so-called republican areas, all you can see is the whole place festooned with Palestinian flags, while the loyalist areas are festooned with Israeli flags.
Until two or three weeks ago people laughed at this. They thought that it was not too serious—it was just one tribe showing its loyalty to a particular cause. However, I was reminded during the week that two of the Palestinians—gentlemen, persons, terrorists or whatever they were called—who were in the Church of the Nativity and were released under an international agreement by the Israeli forces were given sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland. I understand that they are still there. There is no question of their removal or deportation.
Given the sensitivity of the Northern Ireland problem, are those two individuals to be restricted to the territory of the Republic of Ireland or would they be free to cross the border into Northern Ireland? One can readily see that if they were allowed into Northern
Ireland—in other words, into the United Kingdom—their presence could be exploited by all sorts of paramilitary groups on one side or the other.I do not want to be controversial, but I should like the Minister to define the status of those two people who were in the Church of the Nativity during the siege and are now in the Republic of Ireland by international agreement. Would they be free to come into Northern Ireland? If they came in, would they be deported as undesirables? I hope that it does not happen, but the presence in Northern Ireland of one or both of those individuals could be exploited by the various warring elements in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister explain what will be the status of those people? Will they be allowed into Northern Ireland? Would the Government of the Republic have anything to say on the matter or would it be this Government which would determine whether or not they were acceptable?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the details of the case that my noble friend has referred to. But this order does not affect the position. It is trying to create a procedure which makes it easier to remove illegal entrants. I do not know the position as regards the people to whom the noble Lord referred. They will be subject to immigration control. Leave would be required for them to enter the United Kingdom and if they sought permission, no doubt the points raised by the noble Lord would be taken into account. It would be up to the United Kingdom Government to decide whether those men should be given leave to enter. But I make it clear that this order does not affect the matter either way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
2.11 p.m.
Lord Whitty rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall refer to the regulations and the two codes on the Order Paper which relate to them. These regulations implement Council Directive 1999/74/EC by amending the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 as they apply to laying hens.
The regulations add new schedules to cover each type of production system. Schedule 3A covers non-cage systems of production, such as barn and free-range. Schedule 3B sets out new requirements for laying hens kept in barren battery cages and bans these cages completely after lst January 2012. Schedule 3C lays down minimum standards for "enriched" cages.
I am aware that many welfare groups believe that enriched cages will not significantly improve welfare. For that reason the Government will be carrying out a full public consultation exercise on the future of enriched cages.
Schedule 3D sets out general provisions applicable to all systems. The regulations will allow the practice of beak trimming to continue in all systems until the end of 2010, but in the mean time we will be agreeing to an action plan with all interested parties to address this issue.
Council Directive 99/74/EC makes provision for a review looking at various systems for keeping laying hens and the health, environmental and economic impact of these systems, the review to commence by 1st January 2005. Proposals will be put forward based on the Commission's report and the outcome of the World Trade Organisation negotiations.
I turn briefly to the welfare codes of recommendation for laying hens and for meat and breeding chickens. These species are currently covered by the code on domestic fowl which dates back to 1987. The new laying hens welfare code will provide guidance to the regulations for producers. In the absence of EU proposals for meat chicken welfare standards, and in the light of ongoing concerns about the welfare of meat chickens kept in intensive systems, it is opportune to address a new code on meat chickens.
Welfare codes are made under Section 3(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. Codes exist to help stockmen care for animals and are a positive force for improving the welfare of farmed animals. In the event that a livestock keeper is prosecuted for causing pain or distress, suffering or injury, a breach of the code can be brought forward as part of the evidence.
The regulations and the new codes will apply in England only. Similar regulations and codes are being produced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The regulations and codes have been subject to full public consultation. The regulations and welfare codes form an important part of the Government's animal welfare strategy as it applies in the poultry field. I commend these measures to the House.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I intervene briefly at this late hour in the week on the basis of some knowledge of the various conditions in which animals and birds are kept. For four years in another place I chaired the Select Committee on Agriculture. In the period of my chairmanship, I presided over three inquiries, one of which was an inquiry into intensive methods of food production, known at that time very generally and very broadly as factory farming. It is not a pleasant memory. Like every Select Committee, that committee took a great deal of evidence. We had splendid advice, particularly splendid veterinary advice. It was the visits that I remember with some horror. We saw veal calves in crates, tethered sows, broiler chickens densely gathered in broiler houses and laying hens in battery cages. I wonder whether the new regulations make some recommendation on how many meat chickens per square metre will be allowed.
I well remember visiting a very large broiler house in Yorkshire which I entered with a member of my committee, Miss Joan Maynard. It was darkish and dusty and we could scarcely move our feet because the chickens had been so densely gathered. When we emerged and had the protective clothing that we needed taken from us, Miss Maynard turned to me and said, "I shall never eat chicken soup again". I said, "Why not Joan?". She said, "Because I would feel the feathers in my teeth", such was the intensity of that place. Miss Maynard's political views and mine were somewhat far apart, but she was an excellent member of that Select Committee and was basically a very kind person who championed the lot of the British farm worker for many years.
When we deliberated on cages, we were horrified when we were shown caged laying hens. In making our eventual recommendations, however, we had to take into account investment and the fact that there might be a flood of foreign eggs into Britain if we proposed any quick changes to the system, which had by then become a very strong one. I think that, at that time, more than 90 per cent of British eggs were produced through the battery system. So the recommendation in our report was that the Minister should seek Community agreement on a minimum of 750 square metres per bird and that he should refuse to agree to anything less than 550 square metres per bird. We also in our report strongly recommended further research and consideration of alternative intensive systems, quite a number of which we saw during our inquiry.
The Select Committee's report, which I signed, was produced in June 1981. It is now June 2002. The cages are still in existence, and are now to continue until 2012. I very much regret that that is far in the future. There are, however, some redeeming features of the present situation. It is a fact, for example, that Britain has larger sales of free-range eggs than any other country in Europe, which is pleasing. However, cages will continue to exist for all this time. As the Minister said, from 1 January 2003, no new cages will come into existence. I suggest, however, that we should take some lead from Germany which proposes abolition by 2006. Nevertheless, there has to be change in all 15 member states. With that number of states, there is bound to be a brake on change. I have heard a suggestion that Belgium and Holland may well follow Germany's lead on the timing. I wish that we could do the same.
I wish also that a case could be made for Community support, in the form of capital support, to make possible and effect change. Can more research be carried out on humane alternatives and on the general well-being of animals and birds? I was surprised to hear on "Farming Today"—I believe that the relevant broadcast was on Wednesday this week—that there might be a reduction in the Government's spending on agricultural research and development. That was an unconfirmed report. I hope that it is not true.
Finally, as the former chairman of a Select Committee which a long time ago considered this method of egg production, I hope that we shall see
some improvement in the relevant timescale. I refer to birds which are kept in awful conditions. I was brought up on a Northumbrian farm and I remember exactly the natural instincts of a laying hen. It is an appalling thought that the cages we are discussing will be allowed to remain until 2012. Even then, a new model of cage may be permitted although it does not have the support of various organisations, including the RSPCA.2.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says and I am grateful for his personal opinion. That is what this House is about.
I should declare a past interest as someone who qualified as a poultry farmer and kept poultry but was on contract with Thornbers to produce parent stock; that is, the stock that farmers bought. My poultry were free-range—they had to be in those days—and were kept in deep litters.
Although I hear what my noble friend says he knows very well that I shall not support him all the way down the line that he took. I wish to make some important points. However, before I do so, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining the regulations. I understand that, broadly speaking, the farming sector welcomes them. We also accept them in principle but I have some questions for the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer today.
It is essential that we have a vibrant and profitable egg industry. Like any business, it needs to plan long term, and to plan long term and reinvest it needs to make a profit. It is not supported by the UK taxpayer. My noble friend will be interested to hear that, currently, 72 per cent of UK egg production comes from caged hens, 22 per cent from free range and 6 per cent from barn hens. From 1st January next year new barren cages will be banned. Enriched cages will be required—the industry accepts that. However, what assurance can the Minister give that all EU countries have laid down the same start date and that they will enforce it? The enriched cages will require substantial capital. The regulatory impact assessment indicates that the cost to the industry will be more than £400 million. The egg industry calculates a further running cost of £109 million each year.
When these regulations were debated in another place, Mr Morley was sympathetic to the representations made concerning the cost of complying with the new regulations and indicated that money might be made available in the form of a restructuring loan or some funding support from the rural development framework. Can the Minister bring us up to date on that?
The egg industry employs some 8,000 people directly. It is the biggest user of cereals—some 800,000 tonnes each year. The majority of eggs sold through supermarkets come from the UK and nearly 50 per cent of value eggs are from caged hens. The future viability of the industry does not impact solely on egg producers but has a knock-on effect on cereal growers, the processing sector and, ultimately, the wider food
industry. In a good year, the UK industry makes a profit of about £10 million but the norm is much nearer £5 million.Will the Minister confirm that he is satisfied that the regulations will be adopted and implemented in all EU countries? Is he confident that the UK has not gold-plated the EU regulations? Will he tell us whether the German Government, who, as my noble friend said, are considering banning cages altogether, are planning to give investment loans to egg producers who are having to convert from those cages to other systems? If so, do the German Government need to seek approval from the EU Commission to do so? If—a further "if"—the UK Government decide in future to ban all cages, would they, too, seek such financial aid for egg producers who currently use the cage system?
My noble friend indicated that Holland and Belgium were also considering banning cage birds. My understanding, from a meeting that took place this week, is that Holland and Belgium are having a re-think. Germany is coming up to an election later this year, and that country may change its mind, too.
I turn to the Official Journal of the European Communities and to Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19th July. Paragraph 8 in the annex states:
- "In order to prevent feather pecking and cannibalism, however, the Member States may"—
- "authorise beak trimming provided it is carried out by qualified staff on chickens that are less than 10 days old and intended for laying".
The regulations were debated in another place in the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 12th June 2002. At col. 6, Mr Morley said,
- "it was not necessary, and not my intention, to provide for a continuation of beak trimming beyond 2010".
The Minister will be aware that breeders are working on increasing the docility of laying hens. Until that has been successfully achieved, beak trimming is an important protection for the animals.
We all recognise the need for a high standard of animal welfare but that must not be used to put UK producers at a disadvantage. In particular, we must not allow the Continent to send us eggs produced to lower standards than those that required of our producers. If we carry on, such practices will be banned among our producers. As a consequence, those eggs are often cheaper.
I have been lucky enough to visit Deans at Bilsthorpe. I have seen for myself the new enriched cages that we discussed earlier; many of them are being
trialled for DEFRA. I was impressed by the extra room that the birds will have in future. The difference between the current practice and the enriched cages is noticeable. Following my visit, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raising two issues. He was kind enough to reply to me. I received his letter yesterday. The first issue was about the scratching area in the new enriched cages, about which I had reservations. The second issue, perhaps nearly as important, involved the proposed claw-shortening device that is being added to the cages. Noble Lords may wonder why that is important. As I have suggested, it involves great cost to the industry, which has to plan. The industry needs guidance from the Government about what is or is not required of it. My understanding from the letter that the Minister sent me yesterday is that research is being carried out continually. Unfortunately, that may not produce a result before some people commit quite a lot of money to the new egg cage system.As I said, I understand that a review of the cage system of production is due to take place in 2005 and that it will be ongoing. I understand that it will be based on the scientific research being undertaken. But I am concerned about the fact that the Government propose to push ahead with consultation on the future of bird cages, and to consult widely, before that scientific evidence is available. In our earlier discussions on marine wildlife, a plea was made that we should listen to what is being said and that we should take account of available research. Again, I ask the Minister to do so. Perhaps he will take up that point when he replies.
In another place, Mr Morley indicated that the industry was in favour of the consultation going ahead. However, I have spoken to the British Egg Industry Council and I understand that that is not the case. Its view is that such consultation should not take place until research has been completed.
The CAP reform plans have obviously been delayed following the announcement of the American farm Bill. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord where that leaves the UK and the EU in relation to the discussions on animal welfare that were to take place within the WTO talks. Will the EU countries commit their producers to additional restrictions and, if so, what does he believe will happen to our egg industry?
I believe that the Minister knows that in America cages of an equivalent size to ones in this country, which hold five hens, hold on average seven or eight hens. Obviously that gives American egg producers a competitive advantage. If, in the important talks that are due to take place, the topic of animal welfare is not to be included because of the new American farm Bill, that poses a question as to the future viability and profitability of the whole egg industry which is enormously important to this country. Perhaps I may add a small rider to that. Eggs are an important commodity for many people on lower incomes because they provide an important level of protein.
I understand that the Welsh Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee voted on Wednesday by five votes to four to ban all battery
cages from 2006. I am sure that I am right in saying that the regulations which we are now taking through relate only to England. But surely we should not end up with a situation in which Welsh farmers and egg producers compete in a different way from English egg producers. I have many friends who produce eggs in Wales and, indeed, in Scotland. I wonder whether the Minister is as concerned as I am that we may well be faced with a very difficult situation within the UK. I realise that the committee's decision must go to a fuller, plenary session, but I believe that the situation that we are facing is most worrying.Lastly, I turn to the matter of catching and handling birds, in particular, when they are being removed from cages. I understand—indeed, I used to do it in my day—that the normal practice is to catch hens by two legs and lift them when destocking takes place. However, once hens are caught, they are often carried by one leg. The regulations which we are approving state that birds must be carried by two legs. Will the Minister clarify whether that is an EU or a UK requirement? Again, my understanding is that it is an English or UK, rather than EU, requirement. If that is so, what justification is there for altering the present practice? The one point on which I believe the noble Lord will agree with me is that there is great concern in relation to exporting our vibrant and viable egg industry.
Finally, I raise the whole issue of food security. I am sure that other noble Lords will be as disappointed as I am to read in the newspapers today of the fear of a new epidemic among Chinese chickens. That only underlines the need for us to continue to have a self-supporting, vibrant egg industry.
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this step forward in animal welfare regulations. New regulations can be introduced for British chickens, but if through the lack of clear labelling of produce buyers are driven to buy not just from countries in Europe that impose less stringent regulations but also from countries on the other side of the world with much lower standards of welfare, overall welfare standards will not be raised. The Government are committed to better publicity for farm assurance schemes and to clearer labelling of origin but we are yet to see any tangible evidence of that on food.
Within the regulations, the issue of good husbandry is examined in the codes and I particularly welcome the frequent examination and thorough inspection of stock outlined. The noble Baroness alluded to chicken flu which has raised its head in south-east Asia again, as outlined in The Times today. Unlike foot and mouth disease, that is an infection that killed literally millions of people throughout the world in the last century, so it is particularly serious.
We also welcome the code of recommendations on record-keeping with regard to medicines. I believe that the use of antibiotics in poultry, as in all meat, is of great concern not only because we eat meat and eggs but also because we use the compost that results from recycling chicken litter. I understand that such compost can be labelled "organic", although it comes from chickens that have suffered from heavy antibiotic usage.
Overall, we welcome the regulations but with the proviso that the Government must address the issue of labelling. In heating chicken houses that contain fewer chickens in compliance with notions of better welfare, producers in this country have the added expense of the climate change levy, whereas as there is no tax on aviation fuel cheaper meat can be flown in from abroad. I reiterate our support for the regulations.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page