Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I speak, on the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens. I speak not only for myself, as always, but also for the Green Party and with the help of a briefing from Compassion in World Farming which campaigns for the welfare of farm animals.

We welcome any improvement in the welfare of farmed animals, but we are doubtful about "enriched" cages. I am not sure who they are meant to enrich. They certainly do not enrich the farmers; they certainly do not enrich by much the lives of the hens; I can only imagine that they enrich the makers of enriched cages.

We are delighted that from 2012 the EU directive prohibits conventional battery cages. However, disappointingly, the directive allows enriched cages to be used. As has been said, Germany has banned enriched cages from 2012, and we urge the Government to follow Germany's lead and prohibit enriched cages as they offer no significant or worthwhile welfare benefits to hens as compared with conventional battery cages. Sadly, the draft regulations fail to ban enriched cages, although we welcome the various promises of consultation made by the Government, and hope that they will not be in any way put off by the criticisms we heard today.

The space and height as well as the nest, perch and litter facilities provided in enriched cages are so minimalist that they fail to allow hens to perform their natural behaviours in any way that is meaningful to the birds. The EU hens directive requires enriched cages to give each bird 750cm 2 of space, of which just 600 cm 2 has to be "usable" space. However, a study by Dawkins and Hardie shows that hens require on average 1,272 cm 2 for turning, 893 cm 2 for wing-stretching, 1,876 cm 2 for wing-flapping and 856 cm 2 for ground-scratching. Clearly, enriched cages fail to give hens sufficient space to perform important basic natural behaviours.

The directive requires enriched cages to have a height of at least 45 cm. Research by Dawkins indicates that hens should have a cage height of at least

21 Jun 2002 : Column 1045

46 cm and that, if given the opportunity, hens will use up to 56 cm of height. Moreover, perches in cages are normally set at least 7 cm above floor level to allow eggs to roll underneath them. As hens may spend a considerable proportion of their time on perches, cage height should be measured not from the floor but from the perch. This means that enriched cages should be at least 53 cm high and preferably 63 cm high. In conclusion, the directive's height specification of 45 cm is too low to ensure good welfare.

The facilities in enriched cages are too meagre to allow hens properly to perform certain essential natural behaviours. Only 8 to 26 per cent of dust-bathing bouts in enriched cages occur in the dust bath, indicating that it fails to satisfy the hens' strong motivation to dust bathe. Research shows that dust-bathing in cages tends to be abnormally short and incomplete.

Perches in cages are too low to fulfil the hens' need for a raised perch for roosting. Likewise, competition for the nest box in enriched cages, together with disturbances within the cramped confines of the cage, mean that nest boxes in cages are unlikely to satisfy the birds' behavioural need to lay her eggs in a nest.

In conclusion, enriched cages provide too little floor space and insufficient height to allow hens to perform many basic behaviours such as turning, ground-scratching, wing-stretching and wing-flapping. Moreover they do not allow hens properly to satisfy their needs to dust-bathe, lay their eggs in a nest, perch, and peck and scratch at the ground. In the light of those deficiencies we urge Parliament to prohibit enriched cages when implementing the EU directive into English law.

We warmly welcome the implementing regulation's phase-out by 2011 of the painful mutilation of de-beaking. Battery cage producers have for a long time stated that they do not need to de-beak. Some people misleadingly argue that de-beaking is necessary in percheries and free-range systems to prevent feather-pecking and cannibalism. However, both scientific research and practical experience show that those behaviours can be addressed without resorting to the painful mutilation of de-beaking. We believe that feather-pecking and cannibalism should be avoided by the use of perchery and free-range systems which are well designed and well managed and by using strains of birds which are less prone to feather-pecking and cannibalism.

Finally, I very much welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, and the fact that we have had such a strong statement from the Back Benches of the Conservative Party. In commenting on some of the remarks from the Liberal and Conservative Benches, I can say that my party believes and no doubt a large proportion of the British population believe, that the efficiency of an industry and the welfare of the people who farm in this industry cannot ever justify the kind of cruelty which the noble

21 Jun 2002 : Column 1046

Lord, Lord Elliott, described, which I have seen for myself, and which all of us know happens—regardless of the stand we take on this matter. I hope that the Government will consult; that they will move more rapidly than the European Union; and that they will try to persuade as many other people to do so as possible.

2.55 p.m.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a more detailed and substantially wider-ranging debate than I anticipated. That indicates the strength of feeling on the topic.

In relation to the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Morpeth and Lord Beaumont, clearly there is significant concern in this country about whether any form of caged or battery farming of poultry should ultimately be acceptable. There are not the equivalent regulations relating to meat and poultry as there are for laying hens, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, knows, although that matter is being considered. The regulations provide for some increase in the space per hen, but even with the enriched cages we approach only the 750 square centimetres. I think that it was a slip of the tongue by the noble Lord who said that it was 750 square metres. We have not contemplated that size of chicken. It only reaches that size for the enriched cages and not for others.

There are doubts about whether the enriched cages provide a benefit. That is the reason why my honourable friend Elliot Morley announced that we should have a consultation in this country on enriched cages. It is the reason why the Germans have indicated that they will be taking early steps to ban the current cages.

There is a dilemma. On the one hand, there is big concern in this country. On the other, there is no point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, in exporting cruelty if by maintaining a higher standard, all that happens is that we then import, from the European Union or elsewhere, chickens and eggs which have been produced to worse standards. That is why, in general, the Government have taken the view that we will not gold-plate regulations relating to the European production methods and why what is before the House today directly transposes the European regulations.

However, we recognise that there is concern. That is why the consultation is there. That is why we need to talk to the industry about whether we can move faster without additional serious disadvantage and without exporting cruelty to the EU or beyond.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked a number of questions about that subject. In particular, she asked whether other EU countries enforce their regulations as effectively as we do. I recognise that in the farming sector there is always a doubt with regard to that. The FVO has done some fairly intensive monitoring, one exercise of which is continuing. Although there are some deficiencies in practice in some EU countries, in general the indication is that the existing regulations are largely being met. There is no particular reason to assume that these would not be.

21 Jun 2002 : Column 1047

There is a cost to the matter. As the noble Baroness said, the indication is that the cost over the 10-year period will be £400 million. Any reference to grants to meet those costs would not be on a general basis and would not be for simply meeting what would then be the legal standards. Any help in that area would need to be cleared—even if Defra's budget stretched to it—through the state aid provisions of the European Union. The German aid, which in principle has been talked about, and which relates to bringing forward the deadline for getting rid of cages, would require EU state aid agreement. They have not yet got that state aid position.

The noble Baroness also asked about the position of the Dutch and the Belgians. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred to the matter first. It is our latest indication from the Dutch certainly, and following the Dutch elections, that the current Dutch Government are not inclined to pull forward the deadline as the previous Minister had indicated they might.

Internally in the UK, some difference of approach is being manifested in Wales, although at this stage only at committee level, and this is a devolved matter. It is therefore conceivable that there may be different regulations in secondary legislation in Wales and in Scotland, but we shall watch those developments. Scotland has already passed regulations that are approximately the same as those proposed for England.

There is clearly a different dimension to the proposals for beak trimming. We shall try to persuade other member states that that is an important issue during the period in which we are reviewing the position on beak trimming. A meeting will shortly be held with all interested parties, with the aim, as my honourable friend Mr Morley said, of banning beak trimming by the end of 2010.

We also want in that review to increase understanding of the interaction between the various factors that trigger feather pecking and other dangerous activities. The new welfare code includes management measures that themselves can help to reduce feather-pecking tendencies. Clearly, in the long run, breeding may also have an effect. The code also stipulates that the practice will be restricted literally to beak tipping—that is to say, blunting of the beak to remove the sharp point only, not the somewhat more radical surgery that has occurred.

The provisions before your Lordships therefore fully fulfil the European requirements, but we are taking various steps to discuss with the industry and welfare groups whether we should be taking other measures in that area. The Government's view is that many attributes of past poultry practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred are undesirable but, as I said, if we are to gold-plate any regulations, we must be certain that we do so in a way that will bring other European countries with us and does not of itself export cruelty.

21 Jun 2002 : Column 1048

Most of the increase in imports from the rest of the world probably comes from countries with a more barn-based or close to free-range activity, so in that dimension we are not exporting to crueller regimes. They have other cost advantages of which they take advantage. There are particular problems with China, relating not only to influenza but to the use of antibiotics, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, which has led to the European Community limiting poultry exports from China. The latest avian 'flu information is worrying.

The reference to carrying chickens is in the welfare code rather than in the regulations, so it is a matter of guidance rather than a statutory requirement, but it reflects the recommendations of the Council of Europe on welfare, rather than EU provisions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to our exchange of correspondence relating to enriched cages and provision for scratching areas and claw shortening. There are several initiatives in that area, and we are looking at outcomes rather than wanting to prescribe, authorise or certificate particular ways of reaching that outcome. However, we are working with the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service to monitor current installation of claw-shortening devices. We already have some results from that monitoring; we need further results. But we shall not prescribe for that by regulation except in relation to outcome.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, widened the discussion to labelling and farm assurance schemes. I can assure her that farm assurance was a major theme of the Curry report, and one that we need to address, as is labelling more generally. There are problems with labelling and we want a more country-of-source dimension to labelling provisions, but at EU level it was felt that that would be counter to the World Trade Organisation requirements. Indeed, various other members of the World Trade Organisation queried whether we should go down that road at all. Nevertheless, the EU position in the WTO talks is that, in liberalising agricultural trade, we should recognise not only standards of safety and environmental performance but standards of animal welfare. That is part of the EU's mandate, as we go into the Doha round of WTO negotiations.

From the question of chicken cages to the WTO and the future of the CAP, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the regulations have wide ramifications. I can assure the noble Baroness that there has been no delay in the CAP reform process as a result of the American Farm Bill. That Bill might be seen as being anything from irritating to unhelpful—if I were less diplomatic, I might use other terms. However, the commitment of the American Administration to the liberalising process means that the CAP reform must proceed within the timetable to which we are committed for the mid-term review and if we are to get to Doha with firm propositions by next March.

21 Jun 2002 : Column 1049

We expect to see the commissioner's proposals for CAP reform in the mid-term review at the Council meeting next month. We expect that discussions on that matter will continue for the next few months after that and that the EU will go into the Doha talks on its current mandate. From that broader picture, I return the attention of the House to the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens

3.7 p.m.

Lord Whitty : My Lords, I beg to move.

21 Jun 2002 : Column 1050

Moved, That the draft code of recommendations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft code of recommendations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

        House adjourned at eight minutes past three o'clock.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page