Rural Development Committee, 18 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Official Report 138KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Draft Code of Recommendations for<br />the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens<br />(SE 2002/100)<br />Draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens (SE 2002/101)

---

Draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002

Under item 2, we have in front of us three affirmative statutory instruments regarding animal welfare, which are of particular relevance to the poultry industry, as we heard last week. Copies of the instruments have been circulated to members.

I welcome Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and his officials, Ian Strachan, Iain Holt, James Douse, James Shaw and Louise Connelly. I hope that you will not all be needed, but I thank you for attending.

Although we could have four and half hours of debate—we are allowed 90 minutes for each statutory instrument—I understand that the minister would like to be away by 3 o'clock for a Cabinet meeting. I am sure that we will manage to keep to that schedule.

The Executive has drawn our attention to an error in the Executive note on the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002. As I explained last week, the last two bullet points in paragraph 9 of the note, which refers to schedule 3C, should be deleted as they are not relevant to that schedule. The Executive has apologised for that error.

Last week, in advance of considering formally the instruments, the committee agreed to hear evidence from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Egg Industry Council. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made brief comments on the drafting of one of the instruments, as can be seen from the extract from that committee's 27th report, which members have received. There are no other comments on the instruments.

We have three motions in the name of the minister, which invite the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the instruments be approved. I propose, if the minister is agreeable, to take them all together. I trust that that is acceptable to the committee and the minister.

I invite the minister to make opening remarks on all three instruments. Members can then ask questions on any points that require explanation while we have the officials at the table. When members have asked for clarification and explanations, we shall move to the debate on the motions. We cannot then involve the officials, so members are asked to seek clarification early on.

For the record, my official's name is Louise Donnelly, not Connelly.

Obviously, it is not only the Executive that makes misprints. I apologise.

I have often attempted to get my retaliation in first. It was merely a factual error.

My apologies. Thank you.

I am glad to take all three instruments together, because they are inextricably linked. The regulations seek to implement Council directive 1999/74/EC by amending the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2000, as they apply to laying hens. The regulations and the two welfare codes have been the subject of full public consultation. Separate legislation will be produced in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Directive 1998/58/EC sets minimum standards for all farmed animals throughout the European Union and provides a framework for species-specified standards. It was implemented in Scotland by the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2000. Current provisions for hens cover only battery cages and date back to 1988. Council directive 1999/74/EC bans the barren battery cage and will be implemented through the amendments to the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2000.

Proposed schedule 3A to the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 deals with non-cage systems. For the first time, there will be rules for those systems. The regulations will implement a stocking density of nine birds per sq m for new producers with immediate effect, and for existing producers from 1 January 2007. The derogation for producers in certain circumstances who stocked birds at 12 birds per sq m on 3 August 1999 will continue until the end of 2011.

Proposed schedule 3B deals with battery cages. No new barren cages are to be installed after 1 January 2003. All barren cages are to be banned from 1 January 2012.

Proposed schedule 3C provides for enriched cages, which provide additional space to nest, perch and litter.

Proposed schedule 3D makes general provisions that apply to all systems. In particular, it bans all mutilation, but allows beak trimming to be authorised if it is necessary to avoid feather pecking and cannibalism. We will not seek to ban beak trimming until at least the end of 2010.

The directives are to be reviewed in 2005. That review will examine systems for keeping laying hens and the health, environmental and economic impacts of the systems. The Commission's report will form the basis of any new proposals and will take into account the outcome of any World Trade Organisation negotiations.

On the new welfare codes, laying hens and meat chickens are covered by the domestic fowl code, which dates back to 1987. That is why we have produced new codes that highlight the legal requirements with welfare advice. The codes are made under section 3 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. They can be used as evidence in prosecutions for unnecessary pain or distress, or suffering or injury to livestock. Stock keepers must have access to codes, must have knowledge of them and must focus on welfare outcomes for their birds. The codes will apply in Scotland; separate codes apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There has been full public consultation on our codes.

The laying hen welfare code provides guidance on regulations for producers, whereas the meat and breeding chickens code is issued in the absence of EU welfare proposals and in light of on-going concerns about the welfare of meat chickens in intensive systems.

The regulations and welfare codes play an important part in improving animal welfare standards and, with that in mind, I commend the regulation and the two welfare codes to your committee.

Thank you, minister.

Last week, we took evidence from the British Egg Industry Council and the SSPCA. There was not a great deal of disagreement between those two organisations. You have been written to about gold plating the directive and I am aware that you have refuted any suggestion that you will be gold plating it, but the British Egg Industry Council made a point about the requirements for beak trimming, which will be banned in the UK from 2010. Although I got the impression that the council is not entirely against an eventual ban, it suggested that that date is somewhat premature because one of the best methods of preventing beak trimming is genetic improvement in the breeding of laying hens.

The council suggested to the committee that it would be more comfortable with an eventual ban if there were a possibility of a review being held just prior to 2010, to find out whether things had moved on enough to render beak trimming unnecessary and whether banning it would therefore be easier for the industry. Do you have any thoughts on that? Will you undertake to conduct such a review?

I have two thoughts. Most of us want an end to beak trimming. There is a sensible way of interpreting the spirit of the directive and transposing it into domestic legislation, as well as taking account of our own consultation with the industry. If the industry accepts that beak trimming should be ended and that that should be done by breeding, there would be no harm in setting an end date and giving the industry suitable encouragement to proceed with the breeding programmes. The industry could then meet the requirement by 2010.

I do not believe that anyone who has read the directive can be in any doubt that the intention behind it is to end the practice over a reasonable period of time.

The British Egg Industry Council and the SSPCA also told the committee that the industry in Europe is moving forwards together—although Germany is bringing in a ban on all cages from 2005—and that the main problems arise with processed eggs rather than eggs in the shell on the shelf, if I can put it that way.

The main competition from processed eggs comes from the United States of America, where it is assumed that none of these welfare improvements will be introduced. The European industry will therefore be left at a competitive disadvantage. Presumably any movement in that direction would have to take place under the WTO. Is there any way that that argument can be influenced so that our producers are not overly disadvantaged?

That is one of a number of respects in which the UK—particularly Scotland—and Europe are progressing towards introducing minimum acceptable levels of animal welfare, and rightly so.

As you say, convener, the WTO does not regard the levels of animal welfare as matters that should be taken into account in world trade. I am glad to say that Europe has moved to a position where it is now realising that that is not an acceptable way of progressing. I understand that, in the next round of WTO discussions, Europe will be arguing forcefully that the WTO should wake up, get into the 21st century and realise that we are not making these regulations as an impediment to free trade: we are concerned about animal welfare and are raising our standards.

That is the European position and it will be the position I take when I have the opportunity to talk to the relevant people in Europe, whether commissioners or officials. Those issues do not affect just the directive we are talking about today: there is a range of animal welfare issues where I believe our industries become disadvantaged by the WTO insisting that animal welfare is not a relevant consideration in determining whether we can permit the importation of goods.

Although I am behind the industry, I support the European position of wishing to negotiate, as part of the next WTO round, for animal welfare considerations to become part of world trade considerations.

I am sure that all of us around the table and others in the rest of Scotland share the concerns that Libby Anderson expressed last week on behalf of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—that battery production is not conducive to proper animal welfare. I am sure that we all support the principles that lie behind the regulations.

Last week, £409 million was quoted as the assessed overall cost of the regulations for the UK, of which £26 million would be the cost for Scotland. Are those the correct figures?

I think that I have a figure of £425 million, but I do not think that we are going to argue around the margins.

I thought it might be helpful to put those figures on the record, as they are big numbers and it is clear that the regulations will have a serious impact.

Notwithstanding what the minister said about the WTO, the big concern is what will happen if Scotland and England—and, indeed, Europe—implement the directive, but attempts to persuade competitors outwith Europe to follow suit fail. Last week, Andrew Joret of the British Egg Industry Council expressed concern that the result of the directive might be the export of our egg industry, particularly the processing side, outwith Europe. If that were to happen, welfare infractions and other problems would continue. The only difference would be that the hens would be living not in Europe, but in South America and other parts of the world.

Obviously, that argument can be produced, but I have to say that the evidence for it is mixed. We have to remember that we are not the last member state, but one of the last, to transpose the regulation into domestic regulation. Competitor member states have transposed the legislation. I understand from the industry that the message is a bit mixed.

There is clearly a risk of what Fergus Ewing described, but if an element of crisis arose we would want to take the matter to the Commission. That takes us back to the problems with Europe in general and this EU directive in particular of trying to raise the standard of welfare in a sector where it is badly needed. Fergus Ewing has made a point in that respect.

A large part of the problem results from imported powdered and other processed product. However, in the Scottish context, we are talking about the shell egg sector. There may therefore be a slight onus on the industry. Part of the mechanism in the defence against the potential problem that Fergus Ewing mentioned is the industry upping the ante in respect of the trade marks that it has introduced as quality standard marks. The industry should be asking people, "Do you know what you are getting if you ain't buying an egg that's got a lion on it?"

I do not disagree with anything the minister has said, but I want to pursue my general point one stage further. The minister mentioned in his opening remarks that a review is to take place in 2005. Am I right in saying that the remit for the review will not encompass an ability to alter the effect of the regulations? If, by 2005, it appeared that attempts to persuade the WTO to incorporate the regulations were failing, would there not continue to be a real risk of the processed side of the industry being exported?

That was not the purpose behind the 2002 review and I do not want to anticipate what might happen in 2005. As it is, I am having a little difficulty getting my head around what might happen in 2003. If there were that degree of concern and we were in danger of meltdown, I cannot believe that several member states or the Commission would not be open to changing the nature of the 2005 review. The purpose of the review has been laid down: it is to take forward progressive improvement in the welfare of laying hens. There is an element of speculation here. If the case that Fergus Ewing posits arises, I am sure that a different process will be put in train.

The directive makes provision for a review from 1 January 2005. The Commission is charged to submit to the Council a report drawn up on the basis of opinion from its scientific panel on animal health and welfare on the various systems for keeping laying hens and their health and environmental impact. The report will also take into account the socioeconomic implications of the various systems and their effects on the Community's economic partners. Proposals will then be put forward based on the report's conclusions and the outcome of the World Trade Organisation negotiations.

That seems to me to give them all the grounds that they need to reopen that if they so wish.

That gives me some reassurance. I raise the point because of the potentially severe impact that the regulations could have.

I want to turn to more specific issues that were raised last week by Andrew Joret. First, on gold plating and the issue of beak trimming, as far as I understand it, a stop date is incorporated in the Scottish regulations, although it is not required under paragraph 8 of the annexe to the directive. I understand that Germany is not introducing a stop date. I think that our stop date is 2010. Mr Joret said that there were no significant competitive implications for that element of gold plating, but I wonder whether the minister could explain the thinking behind the introduction of the additional measure in the Scottish rules.

I tried to do that in my response to the convener's question. The ultimate aim of the regulations will be to ban trimming systems by 31 December 2010. I agree that we could decide not to say that that is the aim until we implement the measures. However, we gathered that the industry would seek to deal with the issue by breeding. It seemed to us that, having regard to the consultation process and wider animal welfare considerations and given that the industry accepts that it did not impose a competitive disadvantage, the additional measure would prompt the industry to act to implement the regulations.

I am not entirely sure that there is a difference between our approach and that south of the border. The effect is the same. We have stipulated the stop date in the regulations to give the industry a clear signal about what it needs to do by 2010.

Yes. Beak trimming is an activity that should be outlawed. I am sure that we all agree on that. I am concerned about the practicalities.

The second item that Mr Joret drew to the committee's attention was an example of gold plating that he said would have competitive implications because it might impose additional costs in Scotland that would not be borne in England or in other EU states.

In evidence to the committee, Mr Joret drew attention to the way in which perches are measured and the effect of paragraphs 41 and 42 in the regulations. Mr Joret said:

"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."

When I am asked him how serious the matter would be, he said:

"Quite serious. It is a question of practicalities."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 11 June 2002; c 3277.]

Can the minister explain the thinking of the Executive in relation to that aspect of gold plating?

There is a difference. You are referring not to the statutory instrument, but to the welfare code.

Yes.

The Scottish Executive has never had any difficulty with the industry in not regarding slatted floors as perches. That has always been our position. If anyone sought to employ a perch arrangement, that would require some consultation and discussion. We do not define slatted floors as perches—that has always been the case. I am therefore surprised that the issue gives rise to any difficulty. It is not as though, as a consequence of the regulations, we are introducing a different interpretation from that which has existed in Scotland for some time.

I am simply reading from what Mr Joret said last week. You are saying that his concerns are misplaced.

I am surprised by those concerns. We have not defined slatted floors as perches and I do not see how one could do that. It may be that someone else has, but I think that there is a distinction between a slatted floor and a perch.

Perhaps that is an issue that Mr Joret should pursue with you directly. I think that he was basing his argument on a reading of paragraphs 41 and 42 of the welfare code.

I think that he was reading from the English code rather than the Scottish code. The English code states more fully what is considered to be a perching space and slatted floors come into that. The Scottish code is silent on exact definitions, which means that we are not putting any different pressure on Scottish producers. I believe that they follow the same pattern as the English in any case.

So only the wording is different.

There is no material difference. It is not gold plating, because what we are talking about is a welfare code, not the statutory instrument. Gold plating is a specific phrase that refers to Scottish regulations going further than required in the directive. For example, if the directive said, "You must do A, B and C" and we said in our statutory instrument, "You must do A, B, C and D," D could be considered gold plating. What we are talking about is a welfare code, which is not a statutory instrument, so gold plating does not apply.

I think that we know what gold plating means.

I understand the point that Mr Joret is making. However, a code cannot prescribe something that is not provided for in the statutory instrument.

Let us return to the issue of egg powder, which is a worldwide commodity that is bought and sold rather like powdered orange juice. How can it ever be labelled so that we know that the product comes from birds who meet the proper welfare standard?

There are two elements to that question. The first concerns the extent to which we can control the importation or free trade of egg powder. At the moment, we do not have any control. The Scottish Executive is wholly supportive of the European Union's position that welfare considerations should be taken account of by the WTO in determining and defining free trade. Beyond that, if an accepted standard is established and the EU is able to make that imposition, it can then start to require certain products to contain information that would allow the consumer to make an informed choice. Of course, it would also allow the EU and others to determine whether they would permit the free trade of those products. However, we are very far from reaching that point and have no power to determine various aspects of free trade by taking into consideration elements of animal welfare.

I quite understand the technical aspects of gold plating. However, the industry feels that anything—be it part of a code of practice or part of a statutory instrument—that sets it at a disadvantage or affects it in practice is gold plated against its interests. That is the reason for the representations that we received last week. For example, one of our witnesses pointed out that it was normal practice to create false day time for non-caged birds by dimming lights and then switching them off. I understand that the statutory instrument, code of practice or whatever will propose that that should be extended to caged birds.

I know that lighting regimes must allow for a period of twilight. Indeed, the directive seeks to improve that situation and sets conditions for all lighting regimes.

I take your point about gold plating. I would be concerned about that issue if, in the light of evidence even from England—which has been mentioned once or twice—it became apparent that we would be imposing a standard that added to the industry's costs. I am certainly not aware of such evidence. The directive undoubtedly provides for the twilight issue and requires all regimes to follow a 24-hour rhythm, including a period of darkness for a third of the day. Our instrument also provides for that.

Will the practice be extended to cover caged birds as well?

It is one of the general conditions in the directive that applies to all systems. The directive says that there will be a 24-hour rhythm for lighting, and that that will apply to all systems. In that case, the directive also applies to cages in that respect.

Right. Thank you.

I want to make a general observation. It is not simply the content of regulations that gives rise to the comment that they are gold plated, but the timing of such regulations when compared with the introduction of similar measures in other EU states. If we introduce identical or more restrictive regulations ahead of other countries, we have to bear that burden not just in agriculture but across the board. As a result, when ministers introduce such regulations, it might be useful if they could indicate how our timetable stands in relation to the timetables of our competitors throughout the EU.

We are one of the last to implement that particular directive.

Congratulations, minister.

Indeed, I regret to say that that tends to be my record on such matters. Certain members of the European Commission take a very dim view.

Do members have any other comments?

Agreed.

I did not ask whether we agreed the instrument, Mr Morrison. Although you are keen to move on, I am afraid that I cannot yet do so.

Minister, do you wish to make any closing remarks?

No. I think that we have adequately dealt with all the points.

In that case, I ask the minister formally to move the motions.

Motions moved,

That the Rural Development Committee, in consideration of the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens (SE/2002/100), recommends that the Code be approved.

That the Rural Development Committee, in consideration of the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens (SE/2002/101), recommends that the Code be approved.

That the Rural Development Committee, in consideration of the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002, recommends that the Regulations be approved.—[Ross Finnie.]

Motions agreed to.

Members will be relieved to find out that we do not need 90 minutes to debate each motion. I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance. I am glad that we are able to let you away well ahead of schedule.

I am obliged. The committee should be congratulated on replicating the conditions of battery cages for this meeting.

I think that you mean enriched cages, minister.

---

Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/238)

Item 3 is an instrument to be considered under the negative procedure: the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing)—that is a slightly strange tautology—Amendment (Scotland Regulations 2002. The Subordinate Legislation Committee reported on the instrument in its 26th report and brought nothing to the attention of the Rural Development Committee. Do any members wish to comment?

No.

You are very decisive today, Mr Morrison.

In that case, I take it that members are happy that the committee should make no recommendation to the Parliament.

Members indicated agreement.