Rural Development Committee, 11 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Official Report 271KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Draft Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock and Farmed Animals

Agenda item 3 is subordinate legislation. Recently, the Executive laid three affirmative statutory instruments in respect of animal welfare that are particularly relevant to the poultry industry in Scotland. Copies of the orders have been circulated to members. Next week, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development will attend the committee's meeting at 2 pm to speak to and move the orders.

The Executive has drawn our attention to an error in the Executive note on the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002. I have been advised that the last two bullet points of paragraph 9, which refers to schedule 3C, should be deleted, as they are not relevant to that schedule. That begs the question of why they were included in the first place. The Executive apologises for the error.

Will you repeat the citation, please?

I am referring to paragraph 9 of the Executive note on the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002, which deals with schedule 3C. Does that help?

The reference is not to the statutory instrument itself.

No, it is to the Executive note on the instrument. I am glad that we have cleared that up.

Before we formally consider the instruments, which we will not do today, the committee will hear from Libby Anderson and Mike Flynn from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and from Julian Madeley and Andrew Joret of the British Egg Industry Council.

Thank you for coming to give evidence. We asked you at such short notice because we were keen to hear from you before we hear from the minister at next week's meeting and the minister is able to attend only at the start of that meeting, at 2 o'clock. We are pleased to have you here.

I invite Libby Anderson and Andrew Joret to give a short presentation of two to three minutes on their specific interest in the matter and on why we should concern ourselves with the statutory instruments in question. We will start with Libby Anderson from the SSPCA.

Good afternoon. I am Libby Anderson and I am accompanied by Mike Flynn, who will provide expert technical information. I represent the members of the SSPCA and I take a rather more broad-brush, policy view.

The SSPCA is an independent charity, which is entirely funded by public donation, and we work for all animals in Scotland. We have a statutory role in that our inspectors are empowered to report cruelty cases direct to procurators fiscal and we campaign for animal welfare reforms. In doing that, we attempt to inform and reflect the views of our members and of the wider public.

Our policies are set by a board of directors, who have wide experience and who include members from the farming industry. Although we are considering two sets of codes—one on broilers and one on laying hens—we probably want to discuss laying hens, so I will make a few points about them.

The SSPCA has a policy of opposing the battery-cage system for egg production. We campaigned for EC directive 1999/74/EC and we welcomed it as far as it went. In reflection of our members' views, the fundamental moral question of whether it is justifiable to keep an animal or a bird in a barren metal cage for its entire productive life underpins our policy.

Historically, battery production has caused concern to the public on welfare grounds, with hens being afforded a space of no more than 454 sq cm each and being unable to carry out natural behaviours, such as perching, nesting and dust bathing. We acknowledge that there have been improvements in such systems and that it is difficult to meet the need for egg production while providing systems that meet all the humane criteria. In that light, we view the directive and the regulations that we are considering as a positive short-term benefit.

Although we will comment generally on the regulations and the welfare codes, we are obviously not in a position to speak for the Scottish Executive on the detail. Ideally, it would have been helpful if the Executive had presented the statutory instruments before we commented on them. We have studied the draft regulations and have sought clarification on one or two aspects. We would like to know the number of Scottish holdings the proposed space requirements are likely to affect. On beak trimming, we suggest differentiating between the chicks that are destined for alternative systems and those that are destined for cages, where we believe that beak trimming is not necessary.

We have a query on the detail of the figures in the regulatory impact assessment, which is given in the explanatory notes. The fact that the figure of £409 million that is given for the implementation costs to the industry from 2000 to 2011 is a United Kingdom figure, rather than a Scottish figure could be slightly misleading. We understand from the Executive that Scottish producers account for 6 per cent of the UK industry, so the relevant figure for Scotland would be £26 million. We do not know whether the estimates take account of the development investment that producers would make.

We think that the welfare codes are comprehensive. They build on previous codes and address essential elements such as stockmanship, hygiene, mutilations and inspections. Although we support the recommendation in the laying hens code that units should be inspected twice daily, we would have preferred that to have been made a requirement in the regulations.

I have spoken for my three minutes. I am happy to comment later on the economic impact of the legislation and our support for the industry in its attempts to address the problems that higher welfare standards might bring.

I will ensure that we return to those topics.

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak today.

The British Egg Industry Council is an umbrella trade organisation that represents all aspects of egg production in the UK including hatcheries, rearing farms, laying farms, packing centres and egg-distribution and egg-products plants. I am pleased to say that our membership includes the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Egg Producer Retail Association. We estimate that the BEIC covers 75 per cent of UK egg production. In fact, the figure for Scotland is substantially more than that; we probably represent more than 80 per cent of egg production in this country.

The BEIC's role as a trade organisation is twofold. First, as a lobbying body, we examine the effects of legislation on our industry. Secondly, in a separate activity, we promote the consumption of eggs through the lion scheme that some members might well have heard of. We are very proud of that self-help scheme. Up to now, the industry has not received any external finance; indeed, poultry does not receive any subsidies under the common agricultural policy, and we stand or fall on our own two feet. Ten years ago, salmonella caused a crisis in the egg industry, and we believe that we have resurrected ourselves with the lion scheme and the control of salmonella.

We have several concerns about the implementation of the welfare of laying hens directive. The directive will increase the cost of egg production for all systems of production. Although most people are focusing on cages, we should remember that the directive will also increase the cost of free-range and barn production. As producers, we are facing a potential increase in all costs.

The key question is what will happen to our long-term competitiveness. At the moment, the UK is about 93 or 94 per cent self-sufficient in eggs, which means that, by and large, all the eggs eaten in this country are produced in this country. However, our concern is whether that will be the case in future.

We want the legislation to enable us to remain competitive on a European and worldwide level. We should be allowed to continue to use conventional cages, which our competitors will be using in that sector of the market until such cages become illegal in Europe in 2012. We still want to be able to use enriched cages thereafter.

We estimate that, on a UK basis, the directive will cost the industry £431 million, which means that we are in very close agreement with Government figures. If we put that in perspective, we are talking about more than £400 million over the next 10 years, or £40 million annually. Like any other agricultural sector, the profitability of the egg industry has its ups and downs. However, in its best year ever, the whole UK egg industry might make £10 million. As a result, the required investment will be four times our best-ever profit. Moreover, there are many years when we do not make money; that is the nature of farming. Clearly, the egg industry faces an enormous and unprecedented cost, and we have major concerns about where the money will come from to meet the requirements of the legislation.

We are also concerned about the threat to our industry. As I have said, we are currently about 94 per cent self-sufficient. The biggest area of concern for us is not the number of eggs that are sold on the supermarket shelves, which will still be domestically produced, but the eggs that we eat in product or processed form in quiches, pasta, cakes and so on.

That is the area of potential loss to the UK production base. At the moment, 20 per cent of the eggs that we eat are eaten in product form. That is an area of the market that is growing quite quickly; because of changes in lifestyle and so on, we are eating more processed foods, as one might imagine. It is that area in which, if we make our own egg production too expensive, either the eggs will come in from third countries to be processed here into products or, even worse, the products will come in. We would lose not only the production of the eggs and the industry that that entails but the egg-processing industry.

That is not an empty threat. I should have said that, as well as having my industry role, I am operations director for Deans Foods, one of the major egg-producing companies in the UK. We have a substantial involvement here in Scotland, where we produce eggs from well over a million birds in cage, free-range and barn systems in Fife. We also have an egg-products plant here in Edinburgh, where we process eggs. We employ around 500 people in Scotland. In our egg-products business, we are already seeing that some of our customers—who tend to be European-wide food manufacturers—are going over to buying powders instead of fresh pasteurised liquid eggs. They have already seen the writing on the wall and are looking at trading powder on a worldwide basis. That is where we will see part of our industry being exported.

All the letters that I have had from producers have expressed great concern that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development is going to gold plate the directive in Scotland. Having corresponded with the minister, I have received a categorical assurance that he has no intention of gold plating the directive. Am I right in thinking that gold plating the directive would mean implementing it before the rest of Europe does? I think that you said that it would not come into force in Europe until 2012. Have I got that wrong? What is the explanation?

No, I do not think that that is correct. We regard gold plating as the implementation of requirements that were not in the original directive. As far as the implementation of the directive in Scottish legislation is concerned, there are a couple of minor areas that we would see as gold plating. One is beak trimming. The directive allows beak trimming to be continued for ever and a day, but in the Scottish legislation, which mirrors what is happening in England, beak trimming will not be allowed after 2010. We have grave concern about that, as we believe that that date may be premature.

There is a need to beak trim to prevent feather pecking and cannibalism. It is a big issue and it is multifactorial. The genetics of the bird play a big part, as does the management of the birds. We are very concerned that 2010 is premature. At the very least, we would like some sort of review of that requirement, perhaps 12 months ahead of its implementation, just to be sure that it is still sensible. There are examples of non-beak-trimmed flocks that then have to be beak trimmed as adults. That is a much greater welfare insult than beak trimming birds at less than 10 days of age, which is what the directive will allow. We have significant scientific research to back that up. It shows that if beak trimming is done before 10 days of age, no long-term pain will result to the hen.

You said that there were one or two things that gave you concern. Could you give another example?

We have another minor concern. The directive covers the issue of when lights go off in the poultry houses. It says that it would be good practice to have a twilight period between the bright lights and the darkness. That is normal practice in the UK for birds that are kept in non-cage systems. It is a practical requirement, because it allows the birds to get into the position where they are going to sleep for the night before the lights finally go dark, so it is sensible. Twilight lighting is not usually used in cage operations; because the birds are contained in a cage, there is no real risk of them damaging themselves when the lights go out. Regulations about twilight lighting could increase costs significantly.

Do the SSPCA witnesses want to comment on that?

On timetabling, the directive provides for staging, with the phasing out of conventional cages by 2012. I am sure that colleagues will correct me if I am wrong. I spoke to colleagues in Europe yesterday. As far as I understand it, other member states in the European Union have fulfilled their obligation to transpose the directive into law or their discussions are taking longer because they are considering whether to extend the ban to cover not only conventional cages, but modified cages, which we may discuss in more detail later. My information from Europe is not that we are ahead of the game, but that we are possibly running to catch up.

Is there any evidence that people buying eggs or similar products prefer to buy products that have better welfare standards, or do they buy on cost? Does anyone have any comments on shoppers' priorities when they are buying food? Could any other measures be brought in to help the industry to offset the costs if the draft codes are passed?

We do not have one consumer; the market is segmented into a great deal of groups. Consider current purchasing habits: roughly speaking, 70 per cent of eggs consumed are cage eggs, about 5 per cent or 6 per cent are barn eggs and nearly 25 per cent are free-range eggs. That situation has arisen without legislation driving it. It is just a response to market demand.

The free-range or non-cage sector has grown over the past 20 years from virtually nothing. Where the market would finally settle down if there were no legislation is an open question. As producers, we believe that there would ultimately be a plateau. There are consumers who, because they are not concerned or cannot afford to be concerned, will only ever buy on price. That is a significant sector of the market. Perhaps 50 per cent would be in that category. Price is very important.

Will you repeat the other question, please?

Would you call for any measures that would help to offset the costs if the draft codes are passed?

We want the agriculture ministers of the EU to honour the commitment that they made when the directive was passed. That commitment was to ensure that animal welfare is included in World Trade Organisation agreements, which it currently is not. We will get imports from third countries that operate to a lesser standard than ours. Those countries operate to a standard that is lower than the one to which we currently operate, not the standard to which the directive will move us. A commitment to ensure that any imports from third countries must meet the production standards that we use in this country is a tall order. Animal welfare may be included in various ways. To keep up the pressure on that would be very helpful.

Even if we end up with a favourable WTO agreement, we still have the issue of a £400 million plus capital cost for implementation of the directive for an industry that is, at best, making £10 million a year. How do we deal with the capital cost?

What are the Scottish figures?

They are £26 million over the next 10 years.

The SSPCA has been replying to consultations on laying hens from the Farm Animal Welfare Council and others for the past seven years. We have always said that something must be done to put the British industry on an even footing with European and non-European countries. America has some vast systems and a lot of the dried products are now coming from there. The conditions in certain states are appalling, considering that they are in America.

The SSPCA is a charity and it believes in improving animal welfare. However, as with animal scientific procedures, we have always been careful not to make regulation so hard for the egg industry—which is well policed and well managed—that it would just be exported to other countries. That has happened in the pig sector in the past, in which producers have upped and moved to former Soviet countries. That concerns us. We are part of the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare. We are concerned not only with chickens on a farm in Fife, but with overall welfare.

I am confused about something in the draft code recommendations that deal with the welfare of laying hens. Paragraph (a)(iii)—I do not know why it is so numbered as there are no subparagraphs (i) or (ii)—of the boxed section under paragraph 37 that deals with alternative systems of housing says that all systems must be equipped in such a way that all laying hens have

"at least one nest for every seven hens."

It goes on to say that

"If group nests are used, there must be at least 1m2 of nest space for a maximum of 120 hens".

As a layperson, I have not been involved in such a situation, but I know that 1m2 is about the surface of the desk in front of me. Am I misreading the paragraph? Are 120 hens supposed to be housed in 1m2 of nest space?

That is correct.

And that is an improvement on the current situation?

Yes, but you must bear in mind that, in non-caged systems, the nest is there only for the bird to go into to lay its egg before coming out again. As the paragraph says, where individual nests are used, there must be at least one nest for seven hens. A typical individual nest would be around 12in by 18in and, again, would be used only for the bird to lay its egg before coming out again. The normal system uses a long run of communal nests with 120 birds per square metre, which is perfectly adequate. If you saw the arrangement in operation, you would be quite happy with it. The acid test would be the number of eggs that the birds did not lay in the nest, which is absolutely none. That proves that the birds are able to use that system. They do not appear to be cramped.

I will take your word for it, as I have not seen the system in operation. The statistic simply struck me as being incredible when I read it.

You have to remember that, naturally, not all hens in a flock lay their eggs at the same time, which means that the same space in the nest box is reused over the course of the day.

The maximum demand is during the peak laying period, which lasts for about five hours in the morning.

I point out to members that, if members want to see a modern and updated system in operation before we meet the minister next week, we have an open invitation to visit Glenrath Farms, which is about 20 minutes out of Edinburgh.

It would be good for the committee to see that because there are big differences between the welfare aspects of various systems. I have been to Glenrath Farms, which is run by John Campbell. Around 70 per cent of the capacity is in conventional battery cages, 20 per cent is in barns and 10 per cent is free range.

Andrew Joret was talking about beak trimming. In the conventional cage, beak trimming is not required. There is a theory that the more space and light the birds are given, the more likely they are to be aggressive. Aggression can be countered by enriching their environment or dimming the light and so on but the point is that different criteria apply to each system because they are all different.

In all the systems, welfare comes down to the competency of the stockman. That can lead to the industry being seen to shoot itself in the foot because, with what is considered to be the best welfare system—total free range—the stockman has to have much more astute knowledge of the chickens than he would if he worked with a battery system, which contains the bird, does everything for the bird and monitors everything that is happening to the bird. It would be good if members of the committee visited Glenrath as it is hard to explain certain elements to people who have not seen the systems in operation.

I hope that we have a chance to see the systems, as the issue is complicated and we should ensure that we fully understand the various options.

The British Egg Industry Council's opening statement mentioned the practice that the council hopes the supermarkets will pursue following implementation of the regulations. Am I right in saying that the council would expect supermarkets to stock only eggs that comply with the higher welfare standards? If so, is that because the supermarkets have given an undertaking that they will not sell eggs that are produced in third-world countries that fail to comply with such standards?

To my knowledge, no supermarkets have stated that they will not sell eggs that are not produced to the new standards. Given that we have a strong lion scheme within the industry, which covers UK-produced shell eggs, we do not think that they would make such statements.

I have mentioned our biggest concern, which is about eggs in product form—hidden ingredients. Consumers might not be aware that a product contains eggs. There is very little traceability for such eggs. There is not the same traceability that there is for eggs that we see in the packet on the supermarket shelf—we can tell the consumer which flock produced them. That is the area of competition for the future and we are concerned about it.

Some customers who take pasteurised liquid egg products have moved over to dried egg. They do that only because they see that dried egg that is traded around the globe can come from any country. The United States can import egg into this country, and Mexico, China and India all have large egg industries and drying operations and are looking to sell their product in Europe.

I am grateful for that clarification. Is it feasible to contemplate an import ban on products that fail to comply with the regulations? Have you invited the Government to pursue that, as it would protect your members, who have to comply with the welfare standards?

The industry would certainly like that to happen. We are not anti-imports per se, but we would like all imported products to be produced on the proverbial level playing field—to the same standard as we produce them here. The problem with that is that, under WTO rules, we cannot make an exception for animal welfare, hence the need to incorporate animal welfare into the rules.

The notes that we have refer to the current status of negotiations in the WTO. What is your understanding of the stage that has been reached? Is there any possibility that the WTO and all its members will agree to be bound by the higher welfare standards?

Our view so far is that we are unlikely to get what we want on animal welfare from the WTO. We might get some small crumbs of comfort, which would be allowed under the so-called green box criteria. The WTO would allow Governments to make capital or revenue grants to industry, which would perhaps help to offset the capital costs of complying with the directive. At the moment, the WTO does not allow that. There might be greater emphasis on labelling, because there is no requirement to label third-world-country eggs. It is unlikely that imports of eggs from third-world countries, which have not been produced to EU standards, will not be allowed, which is what we want.

The WTO has traditionally been one of the greatest obstacles to animal welfare. Regulations that are brought in throughout the EU frequently run the risk of falling foul of the WTO, at least on paper. I read in the Executive's briefing—and I am sure that we can get confirmation of this—that in November, at the Doha meeting, ministers agreed that they would acknowledge non-trade concerns, including animal welfare, in agriculture. That is helpful for the time being, but we would like to see that extended to other fields. We support the industry on animal welfare, as do the other larger animal welfare groups.

I have a report here from Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, a copy of which I will leave with the committee. The report addresses economic problems and suggests many ways of getting round them, such as subsidies and labelling. It also suggests that compensation payments would not fall foul of WTO rules. We would certainly support any approach that helps to resolve problems.

The industry and welfare groups are very close together on these issues. From work that I have done in Geneva, I know that many countries are sceptical about why Europe wants a multilateral agreement on animal welfare, so I do not know whether we will achieve that in the final Doha development agenda agreement.

Decisions will be made on the tariff cuts for each product. As an industry, we need an exemption from any tariff cuts. We see that as one way of maintaining competitiveness in the European Union.

It would be ludicrous if the UK Government imposed welfare standards on Scottish industries but did not look for such standards to be included in the WTO's agenda. Is the UK Government fighting tooth and nail to get the WTO to address those issues, or does it not have a policy?

I do not know about tooth and nail, although I am sure that Andrew Joret can answer your question better than I can. The UK Government's advisers, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, stated categorically in a report a few years ago that those things have to go hand in hand. We want to improve animal welfare around the world; we do not want to export cruelty.

We believe that we have the support of UK Government ministers. We have had meetings with them and they are pushing the issue as strongly as they can.

Our weakness as far as the WTO is concerned is that the body negotiating on our behalf is an EU body. EU negotiators are working on behalf of the block. We have major concerns that horse trading may go on behind closed doors and animal welfare may quietly slip off the agenda. All we can do is keep up the pressure on our ministers and politicians to ensure that that does not happen.

You mentioned gold plating in relation to debeaking. Will other EU states voluntarily accept 31 December 2010 as the date for banning the practice? If you do not have that information, do you feel that such acceptance should be sought as soon as possible? The ban on debeaking is one of a large number of measures to promote animal welfare. We all regard feather pecking and cannibalism with abhorrence. What impact would gold plating in debeaking have on the industry in Scotland and the rest of the UK if other EU states do not have the same high standard? One imagines that the measure would be applied in the same way throughout the UK.

Beak trimming is not to do with competitiveness because its cost is not that great. The industry would dearly love not to use the practice but we worry that, even by 2010, we will not be ready. As far as I am aware, the other member states that have implemented the directive have implemented it as it stands. An exception is Germany, which will allow beak trimming to continue indefinitely. Only the UK is setting a limit of 2010.

The industry would like the need to beak trim to go away—through improvements in the breed of bird or in management—but before that happens we would like there to be the possibility of a review.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council classes beak trimming as a major welfare insult and its views may have led to the call for gold plating.

I have examined paragraph 8 of the annexe to directive 1999/74/EC, which the codes would implement. Unless I misread it, it appears to set out the provision that requires action to be taken on beak trimming. I am curious about how beak trimming can be allowed at all, but I do not have the whole picture, and I raise this point in the hope that Mike Flynn or other witnesses can clarify it. Paragraph 8 states:

"Without prejudice to the provisions of point 19 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC, all mutilation shall be prohibited."

I have not seen the other directive that is referred to, but the rule that

"all mutilation shall be prohibited"

seems to be clear. If that is the law, how can beak trimming be permitted? Am I missing something?

Beak trimming is prohibited except where not doing it would cause a greater welfare issue. For example, if there were an outbreak of feather pecking or cannibalism on a site, someone could decide on beak trimming. Again, that is why I urge the committee to visit the Glenrath Farms site. The requirements for beak trimming are different in the different systems, whether cages or free range.

My concern about beak trimming is that, in the interim period, it must be done by a person over 18, because of the Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 1962. The situation is ridiculous. Someone of 16 can be employed on a chicken farm and can be responsible for humanely killing a chicken, but they cannot take off the tip of a chicken's beak until they are over 18. I find that a bit of a sticking point.

I want to add to that. I do not have the relevant paragraph in front of me, but another part of the EC directive states that beak trimming may be permitted. Let me clarify the position for the committee. There is a substantial difference between the three practices of debeaking, beak trimming and beak tipping. In my experience, some of our competitor countries, particularly the US and Brazil, carry out debeaking. That is when the beak is taken back to the nostrils—which we would regard as an abhorrent practice. We do not practise debeaking in the UK. Beak trimming is a more gentle operation, but we advocate beak tipping, which just takes off the end of the bird's hooked upper mandible. That is done only when we believe it to be the lesser of two evils.

Beak trimming involves taking off the first third of the upper mandible, which then must be cauterised within 15 days, but preferably within 10. One problem is that a lot of that is done at source, and it is not known whether the chickens will end up in a battery cage or a free-range system. Therefore, if a chicken on a farm has not been beak trimmed properly, it might be beak tipped if the beak grows back and causes a problem. The main problem is that all chickens are currently beak trimmed without knowing which farm system the chickens will end up in. It could be one that has no requirement for beak trimming.

I have a final point. It was stated in the council's opening remarks that there was more than one instance of gold plating in the codes because the rules, regulations and codes go further than the council feels the directive requires. Would any of the other instances of gold plating have implications for the competitiveness of the industry in Scotland and the UK vis-à-vis EU competitors?

Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the draft Scottish welfare code, rather than the statutory instrument, relate to alternative systems and perching, which are a design technicality. The English regulations are slightly different because, in most of the non-cage systems, there is a chicken house that has a litter area at the side and a raised, slatted area of nest boxes in the middle. If members take up the invitation to visit Glenrath Farms, I am sure that they will see that.

That is the typical layout of those poultry houses. Perches must be provided. In the English regulations, it is made clear that the raised slatted area counts as perching, but that is not made clear in the Scottish regulations. The old Scottish Office took the view that perhaps that should not be the case. If one takes that to the letter and perching is added over the slats, there will be an impossible situation. Birds will crash into perches and people will not be able to move around. That is a clear concern of the industry here. Scotland would be put at a disadvantage with England, never mind the rest of the European Union.

How serious would that be?

Quite serious. It is a question of practicalities. The best way forward would be for you to visit a farm and see things for yourself.

Does the SSPCA have a view on that?

Not really. What Mr Joret says makes sense. Birds should have something on which to perch and get off the floor. As Mr Joret said, it would be better if members saw things for themselves. If there is a slatted area and perches, one of the biggest dangers in barn-type systems or some alternative systems is the furniture. Birds are adept at smashing themselves up and can do severe damage to themselves, which is a big problem. Elsewhere in the directive, it is recognised that a perch must be a certain distance from a wall because, if anything startles the birds, they will fly in the first direction that they think of and they break easily.

Is the Scottish approach better than the English approach, or vice versa?

The current approach in the industry in England and Scotland follows the English welfare code.

We have not considered the matter until today.

I have been to one of those systems and did not see any problem with it. It seemed perfectly acceptable to me.

I wonder whether the Executive might be asked to explain why there appears to be gold plating in this instance. I hope to understand the matter better after a visit.

The minister will appear before the committee to discuss the subject next week.

I keep hearing the term gold plating. All farm species—sheep, cattle and pigs, for example—have a code of welfare and those always go a step beyond the legislation. They are guides for best practice. If one does not follow a code, one does not commit any offence, unless unnecessary suffering is caused. If there is gold plating, I am pleased that there is.

The directive says that laying hens must be checked once every day, but we say that that is not enough. The code says that they should be checked at least twice a day, which is sensible. I know that the farm that will be visited keeps to strict checks at least twice a day. That should have been in the main legislation rather than the code. I do not think that there would have been any opposition to that.

Libby Anderson said that she might want to return to the issue of enriched cages and one or two other topics. Is there anything that the witnesses think we have not covered? If so, could it be covered in about two minutes?

When we discussed economic impact, rather than perches or beak trimming, I had in mind the modifications that the industry will have to make to cages and the lower stocking rates. I think that those will have a greater impact, although I am open to advice on that matter. We have already discussed the level playing field and the fact that, as far as we understand it, all member states are implementing the directive now and taking it further in some cases. Those are the main comments that I want to make.

To show that the welfare groups are supporting the industry, there is a European seminar tomorrow, which will bring together the industry, retailers, consumers and Governments to consider the various options, including subsidies, compensation and labelling. We know that, by 2004, it will be obligatory to label all table eggs. That does not address the problem of processed eggs, but table eggs—eggs that consumers see in the supermarkets—from the EU will be labelled and people will know how they were produced.

I would like to add something about the document, "Hardboiled reality: animal welfare-friendly egg production in a global market". We co-operated on that and had considerable input into it, as members can imagine. However, we take issue with one small area: cost. The document suggests that, in 2012, barn egg production will be cheaper than production from enriched cages. We strongly disagree with that. We have challenged Peter Davies, who is the director-general of the RSPCA, on that point. There is a certain amount of wishful thinking. It would be nice if that were the case, but our figures show that, come 2012, enriched cages will be the cheapest form of egg production and the cost of barn production will be some 25 per cent higher. That is a key issue, because if barn production was cheaper, enriched cages would not be needed. That is not the case.

On that note, I call the session to an end. I thank the witnesses for attending and for giving us their time. I appreciate that they would have preferred to have a meeting after we had met the minister, but our preference was to have a meeting before we met the minister. I am sorry about that. We have been given a foundation on which we can constructively approach the Executive.

Will we have the benefit of the Official Report in advance of next week's meeting? That would be helpful in questioning the minister.

The Official Report of the meeting will be published on Monday.

That ends the public part of the meeting. The committee has a couple of items to discuss briefly in private.

Meeting continued in private until 16:50.