CODES OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK: CODE NO. 1

HL Deb 14 October 1969 vol 304 cc1340-90 1340

§ 4.10 p.m.

§ Debate resumed.

The Lord Bishop of NORWICH
My Lords, when a speaker in this House declares an interest this refers normally to the fact that the subject under discussion could affect him financially or in his livelihood. I have No interest of that kind to declare—indeed, the very fact that I have no first-hand knowledge of husbandry I hope I shall be able to keep in mind in the course of what I want to say—but I have two strong interests which have stimulated me 10 speak on this subject of farming codes.
The first, that Norfolk has a long and honourable tradition in agricultural development. It is the foremost industry and occupation of that county. Anything to do with farming concerns Norfolk people. It affects their livelihood and interests, and has a lot to do with their tradition and character. My own impression, and my own knowledge of Norfolk farming friends, and of stockmen and farmers, would support the opinion expressed by the Brambell Committee that 1341 the great majority of farmers are concerned to ensure the welfare and health of their stock. The second interest which I have in this subject concerns the maintenance of a responsible and fruitful relationship between man and nature, in particular between man and animal life. This has a significant influence on animal life; it also has a significant influence on man.
The development in recent years of intensive methods of farming and of factory farming constitutes at least a potential threat to that relationship. The very phrase "factory farming" seems to be a contradiction in terms. Farming has to do with living creatures: factories are normally associated with the manufacture of inanimate objects. The conjunction of these two words "factory" and "farming" goes to the heart of the issue with which these Codes are concerned.
It is not only a matter of whether animals are treated cruelly, but a matter of whether they are treated as things rather than as animals. In saying this I am not suggesting that it is a widespread attitude among those engaged in factory farming to treat their animals as things. All I would say is that factory farming methods inevitably create the danger of treating animals as things. And when an animal ceases to be itself and becomes in the eye of the operator a thing, a mere unit of factory production, then I suggest that an attitude of inhumanity has entered in which is incompatible with the responsibility of the operator as a human being.
Without confusing the difference of status of man and beast, it has always been recognised that, within their particular status, the animal has certain rights and that man has a duty to see that these rights are preserved. The Common Law recognises this in the many Acts concerning cruelty to animals.
The question raised by modern intensive and factory farming methods concerns the points at which appropriate animal rights are threatened or denied. The initiative which Mr. Soames took when he was Minister of Agriculture in setting up the Brambell Committee is greatly to be welcomed, and one can only wish that such an initiative could have taken place some years earlier. In assessing the conclusions of the Brambell 1342 Report, and comparing these with the Codes which are before us to-day. there is one particular argument on which I should like to say a word.
The most usual defence in regard to any practice in factory farming which may seem to be unduly restrictive, or alien to the natural behaviour of an animal, is that if the animal keeps in a fit condition this is proof enough that No improper hardship is being inflicted. Many witnesses who appeared before the Brambell Committee evidently made this point, as the Committee indicate in paragraph 30 of their Report. The witnesses claimed that the growth of an animal for meat or the egg production of a laying hen is the only reliable objective measure of its welfare. In the absence of any scientific method of evaluating whether an animal is suffering, its continued productivity, according to this line of reasoning, should be taken a:; decisive evidence that it is not contrary to their welfare.
The Report rejects this argument on the ground that while growth or egg production is a reliable guide to the welfare of the animal in certain respects—for example, it shows that the animal is being well fed—it is inadequate in other respects. Growth on occasion can be a pathological condition, although more often it is the mark of health. Growth rate and condition as witnessed by a good coat or plumage, alertness, bright eyes and contentedness, taken together, are a better guide—according to the Brambell Committee perhaps the best objective measure available—but are not inconsistent with periods of acute but transitory physical and mental suffering.
There is the further point that in systems of farming where the tendency is towards increased stocking rates but decreased life span the effects of acute discomfort or distress have less time to show. Do we, then, really draw the line simply by the criterion that the animal has ceased to be productive? In other words, do we draw the line at the very limit of the measure of stress that the animal can endure during its short life? To make life worth living for an animal goes beyond protecting it from pain and distress. So far as we know, an animal's pleasure in life, in fact the only sign ficant life it knows, is in the exercise of inherited behaviour patterns. Where these 1343 are significantly frustrated or denied the animal stands in danger of a type of deprivation which is equivalent to mental if not to physical cruelty. It would in fact be difficult to refute the argument adduced by Mrs. Ruth Harrison when speaking to the Royal Society of Health that—and I quote her words: the severely deprived battery hens, white veal calves and immobilised sows and fattening pigs do not live—they only exist. On a careful reading of the Brambell Report, and of subsequent publications and articles, the situation regarding veal calves, to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred, is the one that causes me the greatest repugnance. White veal is dependent on creating an anaemia in the young calf, providing it with only just sufficient iron in its milk to keep it from flagging. It is also denied the normal physiological development of becoming a ruminant by further depriving it of all roughage. On the majority of farms the calf is kept in a solid or slatted-sided crate 5 feet by 2 feet, on slats and in dim light. Although after the age of three weeks it is unable to turn round, in some units its movement is still further restricted by close tethering.
The number of calves kept in this way is now, I understand, about 30, 000 a year, and it is almost entirely to satisfy the restaurant trade; that is to say, to satisfy a preference for veal of a particular colour and a particular texture of flesh. I cannot believe that people would eat meat produced in this way if they were aware of the conditions under which it was produced; if, for instance, when the veal steak was set down on your plate you had a picture or description of the conditions under which the calf had been bred.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, may I just ask the right reverend Prelate this question? He is giving this description—and clearly he has great sympathy for what he says—but is he implying that these are the conditions under which calves will be kept under this Code?

The Lord Bishop of NORWICH
My Lords, may I refer to this later when I come to the point? These are certainly not the ideals set by the Codes, but considering the fact that they are not en 1344 forceable I cannot see that it will be easy to prevent veal calves continuing to be bred in just these conditions to provide such a product to satisfy a fashionable gastronomic custom, and which seems to me utterly uncivilised and utterly indefensible.
The recommendations of the Brambell Committee, if given legal sanction, would do much to remove the worst features of factory farming, including that of white veal, since their recommendations follow the principle, which they unanimously endorsed, of disapproving a degree of confinement of the animal which necessarily frustrates most of the major activities which make up its natural behaviour. What is singularly disquieting is to find that the Government are setting before us this afternoon Codes which fall well below those recommended by the Brambell Committee. Unlike the views expressed by the National Farmers' Union, a recent opinion poll among a representative cross-section of farmers showed overwhelming support for the Brambell Committee. I know this point has already been argued this afternoon (and whose view do you take?) but I believe that farmers as a whole are behind the Brambell Committee.
In response to public criticism of the Codes, most recently at a Press Conference organised by the R.S.P.C.A. on October 1 in London, the Ministry of Agriculture has affirmed that any difference between the standards recommended by the Brambell Committee and those embodied in the Codes arises from the development of scientific knowledge that has come to light since the Brambell Committee wrote its Report. If that is the case, then I feel it is important that your Lordships should be informed in sufficient detail what these new scientific data are, especially as such reputable scientists as Sir Julian Huxley and Professor W. H. Thorpe are unwilling to accept this ministerial claim.
Eminent scientists in all fields of science often disagree on the interpretation and the appropriate application of the recent findings of research. If distinguished scientists put before us differing views as to the implications of recent research which have a bearing upon these Codes, then whose opinion should prevail? I should unhesitatingly 1345 opt for the scientific opinion which provided greater safeguards and which did not therefore endanger the well being of the animal concerned. I say this because once an established system of codes has been agreed, it will be much easier to relax certain codes if it can be shown that these on humanitarian grounds are no longer necessary, rather than impose additional codes which could cause considerable difficulties and great expense to the farmers. Furthermore, the Brambell Committee have been at pains to make it clear that the codes that they recommend are minimal—and I feel that that word "minimal" ought to be underlined—that is to say, the very least that can be done to prevent ill-treatment or inhumanity towards the animal stock concerned. It should be recalled that all the Brambell Committee asked for was that the animal should be able to turn round in its pen, and a bird should be allowed to stretch out one wing. Some of us might think this almost derisory as a first step, but even this provision has been disregarded in the present Codes.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to the practical effect of these Codes, for it would seem to me that the Codes as presented before us do not have sufficiently clearly defined powers of enforcement. By a gradual process, farming has grown in its scale of operations, and I am afraid that the same kind of mistakes may be made in the treatment of livestock which were made in regard to the employment of men, women and children in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. Now, as then, we shall be told that certain methods and treatments which, on the face of them, appear to run counter to general ethical considerations are necessary if there is to be any profit. Industry is now subject to controls and inspection to protect those who are employed in a way in which they were not protected during the days of the Industrial Revolution. Such control and inspection, I submit, is needed for the protection of livestock, and also to protect farmers in general against any liabilities of economic exploitation on the part of an irresponsible minority.
This leads me to two criticisms of the Codes. In the first place, they consist of recommendations only, and breach of them in itself does not render a person liable to proceedings of any kind; in 1346 other words, these Codes do not appear to have sufficiently clearly defined powers of enforcement. It can be argued that failure to observe them could be used in proceedings against a person under Section 1 of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1968; but is this really the case? The Codes seek to provide basic guide lines, … to help farmers and stockmen to ensure the welfare of their cattle, pigs, domestic fowls, turkeys, under all systems of management". Everybody would agree with that. But when it comes down to practice, what is the meaning of "unnecessary distress" in the 1968 Act if stockmen are advised to keep animals without room to turn round and birds without room to stretch out one wing in the interests of their welfare?
As regards the character of inspection, it should, I suggest, be borne in mind that the Brambell Committee recommended that, like their own, the new Advisory Committee should have no member with commercial interests. That recommendation has been ignored, which without impugning in any respect the motives individually or collectively of those who have been selected to serve on that Committee, I submit is a defect. The only inspection system which would appear to be effective is a team of veterinary surgeons going out from the Ministry equipped with clearly defined and enforceable codes. Such an independent and disinterested inspection service is the more vital in view of changes in farming methods and in knowledge and understanding of animals and birds in their relationships with each other and with men. Not only is an adequate disinterested inspection service needed, but the inspectors, as well as those engaged in factory farming, require clear terms of reference by which the Codes themselves are to be interpreted.
The prefaces to each of the four Codes compare unfavourably with the terms of reference recommended by the Brambell Committee in Chapter 4 of their Report and summarised in the letter which Professor Brambell and his colleagues wrote to The Times, in which letter there is spelled out an alternative proposed preface. In the prefaces to the Codes, among the basic requirements for the welfare of stock are adequate freedom of movement, and ability to stretch limbs". 1347 Professor Brambell and his colleagues suggest freedom of movement to be able without difficulty to turn round, groom itself, lie down, and stretch its limbs as a minimal requirement. That is more precise and therefore, I would suggest, a much better guide. Furthermore, Professor Brambell and his colleagues would wish included in the preface, animals are likely to suffer from solitary confinement". There is, so far as I can see, no reference whatsoever to this point in the preface to the Codes before us.
I should like to end by saying how glad I am to see in the preface and in the contents of the Codes so strong an emphasis placed upon good stockmanship, because, as the preface says, stockmanship is the key factor in the welfare of all livestock. In this connection I am immensely impressed by the activity and concern shown by the Norfolk Education Committee in what it does for stockmen. Chapter 10 of the Brambell Report stresses the importance of encouraging the recruitment of trained stockmen for all types of farming, especially intensive farming. But while the Brambell Committee urge some sense of vocation in recruiting students, they point to the real danger that large-scale intensive methods can lead to a debasement in the stockman's attitude to the lives for which he has responsibility. If the Codes themselves are not adequate to provide reasonable, humane living conditions for livestock, young people of the right calibre with a vocational attitude will not be attracted into this sort of job, and this in turn will prejudice the standard of farming.
As so often happens, if you look at the economic factors without reference to ethical ones, especially when you are dealing with natural life, there is a backlash which is damaging not only to nature and to man but also, ultimately, to the economic advantage which is sought. Technology has tended to denigrate the respect and affection due to animals. This tendency cannot be controlled adequately at the local level. The individual farmer is subject to economic pressures to intensify his output if he wishes to stay in business, even though some of the 1348 methods involved may be abhorrent to his natural inclinations. It is only at governmental level that this situation can be changed, and it is at governmental level that the main responsibility must rest.
The time has come when we should cease to accept that certain systems must be used because they are economically advantageous to interested parties, or because they conform to current practice. Instead, ought not an effort to be made—and this was the approach of the Brambell Committee—to decide which systems are ethically and biologically acceptable, and then to see how these humane systems can be made profitable to the farmer? The land is our national heritage, and the farmers, in particular. are trustees of that heritage. The community must be prepared to pay not only for the produce of the land but for the health and preservation of the land as a continuing amenity, for it loses a significant part of that amenity when the animals which the land supports are degraded or maltreated.
As E. F. Schumacher said, if man thinks he can disregard the truth that "man does not live by bread alone" and can allow the human sentiment to become brutalised, he does not lose his technical intelligence but he loses his power of sound judgment, with the result that even the bread fails him in one way or another. It is with these considerations in mind that I support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in the Amendments which he proposes to move. I feel it is better that we should delay a bit and get the right Codes, rather than to-day pass Codes, if, as I contend, they are inadequate.

§ 4.34 p.m.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I feel it a very great privilege to be following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in the speech which he has just delivered. It combined an ethical and spiritual view with knowledge and with constructive proposals which I hope Her Majesty's Government will very deeply consider.
I want to begin by giving some recognition to the service which Mrs. Ruth Harrison has contributed to this subject. It was recognised by my noble friend who spoke from the Government Front Bench that it was her book, Animal 1349 Machines, and the series of articles which she contributed to the Observer which, in my noble friend's words, "first aroused great national concern and interest in this issue". She had quite extraordinary success. I suppose I have been involved over many years in seeking to exert pressure upon Governments. It has been a matter of years, and many years, before any of those efforts have had results. In the case of Mrs. Ruth Harrison, within six weeks of the publication of her book, and of her exposures in the Observer, the Conservative Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Christopher Soames, appointed the Brambell Committee; the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was introduced in 1969 and the Farm Animal Advisory Committee was appointed to prepare the Codes—a quite extraordinary achievement. So we should appreciate, if there is an advance on this subject, how much is due to Mrs. Ruth Harrison.
I admit that I am a little personally concerned. Her parents were among my oldest and dearest friends, and I can remember Ruth, when she was a mere stripling, sneaking into the church at Ayot St. Lawrence with George Bernard Shaw. "G.B.S." sat in one of the back pews and taught her to pronounce and declaim from the pulpit. I am perfectly sure that, as a vegetarian, "G.B.S." would have much appreciated what Ruth Harrison is doing now.
This is really a problem of the technological age in which we live. We have still to settle the problem of how the human individual, with liberty and personality, can live in the technological age. The deprivations of the technological age are already being imposed in the animal kingdom. Since Ruth Harrison wrote her book there has been an amazing development of the factory farming to which the noble Lord opposite referred. Eighty per cent. of laying hens are now in battery cages—over 40 million; 80, 000 sows are now confined in limited stalls; 30, 000 calves are subject to the white veal treatment to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
When the Brambell Committee investigated this subject, it was extraordinarily moderate and practical. It combined a consideration of human values with monetary profitability, and its proposals were compromises. I think the House must face the fact that the Codes which 1350 are now proposed represent much less than the recommendations of the Brambell Committee, which, as I have said, were themselves compromises. The changes have been justified on the ground of further scientific knowledge. I should like to support the request of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who asked what this further scientific knowledge is. All that the Minister was able to say in reply to his intervention was that this committee of experts had considered these matters, and it was on their recommendation that Her Majesty's Government had accepted this further scientific knowledge. My Lords, if this Committee was composed of experts, as the noble Lord has said, so was the Brambell Committee—extraordinary experts—and these members of the Brambell Committee wrote to The Times, in a letter published on June 23, that their recommendations remain unaffected by any of the advances in knowledge that have become available since we reported". If we are to judge between scientific experts on one side or the other, we are entitled, particularly in view of the division which has subsequently taken place upon the Advisory Committee, to pay some regard to the views of the Brambell Committee.
What did the Brambell Committee lay down? It laid down five freedoms for animals in the farming industry. The first was the freedom to have space to turn round; the second was the freedom for an animal to groom itself; the third was the freedom for an animal to get up from the ground and stand erect; the fourth was the freedom, when erect, to lie down; and the fifth was the freedom to stretch its limbs. The Brambell Committee urged that birds in battery cages should be given room to stretch a wing, and that the cramped confinement of calves and of sows should be abolished, as well as the white veal feeding limitations.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to interrupt him. He has set out, properly, these freedoms. Will he now say what it is in the Codes which contravenes any one of them?

§ Lord BROCKWAY
I am so glad for that interruption. My noble friend is always so helpful. That is the next 1351 point to which I was immediately going to proceed. I thank him very much indeed. But before I proceed to that point, I make the comment which I was going to make before my noble friend interrupted me, which is this. Here is the Brambell Committee laying down freedoms for animals to turn round, to groom themselves, to get up, to lie down and to stretch their limbs—live freedoms contained in the moderate recommendations of the Brambell Committee. I am just stunned by the contrast between the freedoms which are laid down for animals, even in the Brambell Committee's proposals, and the five freedoms which are declared for human beings in the Declaration of Human Rights.
Now I turn to the subject which I would have reached earlier had it not been for the interruption of my noble friend: how the new Codes fall far short of the Brambell Committee's recommendations. They permit the continuation of cramped spaces for calves and for cows, and reduce the Brambell proposals for space of poultry. The Codes will in fact have very little impact on present practice. The main departure from the Brambell recommendations are these: first, a continuation of the white veal treatment of calves; second, cattle may be stored and tethered for long periods; third, slatted floors may be used for cattle and pigs without a bedded sleeping area; fourth, sow stalls remain with tethering and without straw; fifth, there is more limited space for poultry than was proposed in the Brambell recommendations.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to explain one point which I am genuinely puzzled about? I read the Cattle Code as making it absolutely clear that the white veal business would be stopped. White veal is caused by a deliberately deficient diet. This is in contradistinction to the Code. If my noble friend is right and the white veal business can continue in the same way, I should be on his side. I think he is wrong.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
Again. I welcome that intervention. As I understand it, the new Code suggests that nutrition should be given to calves which should be equivalent in its elements to those which 1352 are in cow's milk. I think that is the proposal in the Code, and I think my noble friend will accept that. But this is still an artificial treatment for these calves, which have to be developed in a confined space for veal.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE
I am very sorry, but I must interrupt my noble friend again. There is no point in bringing up veal calves in a restricted space unless you reduce the diet. You would not produce white flesh. Therefore, once the diet is put right, nobody who is not trying to produce white veal will ever bring up a calf in this very narrow state. I do not follow my noble friend.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I become a bit irritated by interruptions, but I always feel when they have been made that they help me in my argument. Here is my noble friend arguing for this treatment of white veal calves on the ground that it provides for the customers whom the Bishop of Norwich described a more tasty veal.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords—

§ Lord BROCKWAY
No, I am not going to give way again. I have given way enough.

§ Lord BESWICK
But—

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My noble friend will be allowed to reply at the end. My speech is being interrupted: it may be my own fault. But I try to produce a consecutive speech, and the interruptions of the noble Lord and others rather detract from what I am trying to put. I was interrupted, on this occasion, even before I got to the sixth of the differences between the present Codes and the Brambell recommendations. This difference strikes me as very extraordinary. It is that beak-trimming, spectacles and dubbing for poultry may be continued. I have very little knowledge of what those things consist, but it seems to me utterly amazing that we should be treating animals in this kind of way. One of the best principles of the Brambell Report was the plea for the right of animals to maintain their behaviour. The Report said: In principle, we disprove of a degree of confinement of an animal which necessarily frustrates most of the major activities which make up its natural behaviour". 1353 There was a letter in The Times of June 25 from Sir Julian Huxley and nine prominent zoologists who wrote that in the new Codes the behavioural distress to animals has been completely ignored". Sir Julian Huxley's evidence was particularly valuable, because he had been in charge of the zoo in Regent's Park and he contrasted the distress of animals in the confinement of the London Zoo—much more extensive than would be possible under these Codes for animals on farms—with the freedom which they received at Whipsnade.
I want to say only two more things. The first is this. There is the argument that in Britain we must retain these fanning methods because of the competition from abroad. In European countries, as well as here, this issue is now becoming one of very great controversy. In West Germany the poultry industry itself has drafted recommendations in line with the Brambell Committee proposals. I would say that if we adopt a code for the liberty of animals upon farms we should have to have the right to refuse imports from countries which did not apply a similar code. I make this constructive suggestion to Her Majesty's Government: that they should take this whole issue to the Council of Europe and should seek to obtain a European code for the protection of animals in these matters.
I know that there is a certain impatience with those who are concerned with animal welfare, particularly when they appear to be little concerned about human welfare; but sensibility to suffering must surely include humans and animals, who are all a part of the universal life. Compassion cannot be separated. It is the essence of the spiritual quality of man.

§ 4.52 p.m.

§ Lord CRAWSHAW
My Lords, in speaking briefly this afternoon I feel that I must declare an interest, as I am a partner in a cattle-breeding and milking enterprise. Like many livestock producers, I am particularly concerned with the welfare of the animals, and also with the welfare of the people who look after them. I would also say, in passing, that I think the consumer, too, should be given a thought, because it cannot be 1354 denied that many modern methods of production have cheapened food products and made them available to people in a much greater range than before. I am glad that this matter has come up for consideration in your Lordships' House this afternoon and I am pleased to find how much agreement there is on many aspects of it.
I found the Brambell Report of great interest, and I agree with a great many of its conclusions. It seems important to me that the way in which we seek to implement these conclusions should have the support of the maximum number of farmers and stockmen in the country who are, on the whole, highly skilled and responsible men and whose hours of work are geared to the needs of their stock. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will accept that the principle of having codes of practice is the right approach as the first step. As your Lordships know, farmers are allergic to red tape. If at this stage we rush into a whole lot of mandatory standards we shall alienate those without whose help and support no rules and regulations can possibly work happily and to whom we look to educate and lead the minority whose standards are not so high. This minority can and must be shown that it is in their own interests, as well as in the interests of the animals, that stock should be kept healthy. To my mind it is where there is pressure and strain that the cruelty and neglect begin.
The struggling farmer, operating in old-fashioned, time-consuming conditions, will have to spend so much time on chores that he will neglect his stock. His business will not pay; he will start cutting down on feed bills and so on. I think that economic considerations of this sort are more important in regard to cruelty than the exact size of pens and similar considerations. Many modern techniques, including the so-called factory farming, brought about as they are by economic factors (which I feel sure are here to stay), often relieve the men and directly or indirectly benefit the stock. I think that the Brambell Committee would agree with this view. For example, modern cattle cubicle housing makes "mucking-out" an easy process. That benefits the men. The cattle themselves are free to get up, or to lie down, or to go off to feed at will. There has 1355 been some misunderstanding this afternoon about cubicles. The whole point of the cubicle is that the animal should not be able to turn round; it should be in a confined space so that the dung will fall in the central channel to be easily scraped away. I believe that this system is much cleaner and more comfortable than were either the old tied cow shed or the covered yard, where cattle are bound to lie on dirty straw.
Calves also can be kept in cubicles. I think that the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee should look into the whole question of whether cubicles are right for calves (as I believe), and also whether these calves should not be allowed automatically to be able to get out to wander around in slightly larger pens and then go back to the cubicles. The cubicle itself must be restricted, in order that it may be easily cleaned of dung. I think it is also wrong to assume (not that any noble Lord has done so this afternoon) that we are necessarily being kinder to cattle by allowing them access to the open, particularly when they are normally housed in well-ventilated buildings. Cattle pick up all sorts of ailments outdoors, and flies are a thorough pest to them in summer.
I hope that the Government will appreciate that standards of stockmanship are bound up with prevailing economic conditions and will do all they can to make farming profitable. I hope also that, as our stockmanship improves and becomes more humane the Government will refuse to import from abroad food produced by horrid methods, even though it is cheaper—and in this I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I hope your Lordships will accept these Codes in principle as being in accordance with reasonable commercial practice, and a good guide, and will not risk alienating responsible stockmen. I hope that the Codes will be widely circulated and that people will be told that they ought to comply. Then let the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee bring forward amendments as new research and new techniques and considered public opinion may require. I very much hope that further screws, which can soon be applied if education and leadership fail, will not be needed.

1356

§ 5.0 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of ST. ALBANS
My Lords, I find myself more qualified to speak in this debate than I anticipated, as I have been suffering recently—in fact, I am still suffering—from an attack of cramp, and therefore can sympathise more fully than otherwise with the feelings of calves. But I put my name down to speak in this debate primarily because I cannot forget a visit which I paid to a broiler house some years ago. I went into a large stock building, one of several, looking like an incongruous factory. Poultry covered the floor; the shed was dark, stuffy and overcrowded. This degree of overcrowding I considered evil.
I signed the R.S.P.C.A. advertisement that appeared in the Press recently. I admit that I had not expected the signatories to be so exclusively ecclesiastical, and I wondered what would be the reaction of farmers when they saw the Bench of Bishops in such force on that particular page. We pleaded for certain fundamental freedoms—they have already been mentioned this afternoon. But that advertisement was basically about the living space, and it has, I think, received wide support. I have been in touch with the National Farmers' Union, and I accept thankfully their contention that the great majority of farmers are concerned to ensure the welfare and health of their stock. I also agree with what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich about the importance of management and stockmanship. He has already quoted the relevant passage from the Brambell Report and I shall not repeat it.
I am with the farmers when they ask the Government to see that they are not put at a competitive disadvantage with imports which have not been produced under comparable conditions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I have observed that the poultry industry in Germany has drafted recommendations which are in line with those of Brambell. May many other countries follow this example. I have observed that in the Memorandum which the N.F.U. sent to me they stated that the main bulk of criticism of livestock producers and of the current Codes come from those whose experience of animal husbandry is absolutely nil, or at best 1357 minimal. Against that statement, my Lords, I set the argument in Mrs. Harrison's excellent article in the Sunday Observer. Ruth Harrison, as has been said, has done so much to rouse public opinion and I believe that she knows this subject thoroughly. When she says she believes that the majority of farmers, and a strong body of public opinion, and public health inspectors and veterinary surgeons, urge freedom of movement to an extent not allowed by the proposed Codes, I accept that statement.
My Lords, because my knowledge and experience is strictly limited, I wrote to one of the best informed of our agriculturists, who at one time served in the Ministry of Agriculture, and asked his views on Brambell. I have stayed at his farm frequently and have visited him, off and on, for the best part of forty years. He is a practical agriculturist. I was moved by the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who was a practical farmer for forty years, but here are the words of another practical farmer of forty years experience: You are right to be aroused about the failure of the Ministry of Agriculture to implement the recommendations of the Brambell Report, and I hope that you and others in the House of Lords debate will make them ashamed. That is a quote from a practical agriculturist who has had plenty of experience.
My Lords, I have asked why any of us should feel ashamed when we look at these Codes, and I turn to Sir Julian Huxley for the answer. His letter in The Times in June of this year has already been quoted, but I supplement that point with this one. He was pleading for more research. We need more research into behaviour patterns, not to see how much more confinement an animal can stand, but to study how we can improve the farmers' prospects and the living conditions of their stock. It is, I believe, in this direction that true progress lies.
I return to the broiler house that I saw, and here it is the memory of the degree of confinement that I retain. A broiler manager has been quoted as saying, "We don't ill-treat the birds; they live in a nice warm atmosphere, out of the wind and the rain, and they have food ad lib". He added, "Rather like a 1358 club." My only comment would be, "Some club!" The Brambell proposals were put forward in the hope that continuing concern for animal welfare would lead to the establishment of better standards. I consider that these Codes do not support that hope. I think that they support the big business concerns and allow maximum stocking densities, so giving these concerns an unfair advantage over those who are willing to treat their animals with more consideration. I accept that there are a number of good points in these Codes, but that is a criticism of some of the points.
I distinguish between the intensive farmer who takes advantage of increasing knowledge and research to get greater productivity from his land and the factory farmer. The latter appears to aim at a maximum turnover of capital with a minimum of effort. I am with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in what he said in this connection. The factory fanner intends to achieve his objective through the introduction of a new system characterised by extreme restriction of freedom. That statement may be challenged, but I think that there is substance in it. I believe that these Codes, if they are approved, will encourage improvements in some badly equipped farms, but I think that amendments are needed.
I refer now to Code 3, concerning domestic fowls. I observe that ill 1967 the broiler industry had a production rate of over 200 million birds. I note the Brambell Committee's contention about space per bird, and the fact that they said that this has been steadily reduced since the industry began. In the early days it was, I think, one bird in a twelve-inch cage; now it is three birds put in the same sort of cage, and this is a tendency which seems to me to be alarming.
I was delighted to see that the N.F.U. recommended in their Memorandum the formation of an inspectorate, composed of fully qualified veterinary surgeons who would have the right of access to farms to inspect the stock and advise the farmers. Here I would endorse something which has already been said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—I did not know that he was going to say it. A century and more ago the Government recognised their responsibility for establishing minimum 1359 conditions of health, safety and humanity in factories; hence the succession of Factory Acts enforced by factory inspectors. Modern animal industry is tending to assume the nature of a factory operation. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, but surely we should accept our responsibility for ensuring that there are suitable conditions for the animals and birds processed in these factories. I want to press for a proper system of inspection. I regret that the Minister has not used his powers under Section 2 of the 1968 Act to make provisions by regulation, as distinct from making recommendations which are not enforceable.
My Lords, I have only two more points which I wish to make. There are certain questions, four of them, that I think we should consider. Have not the Government a chance now to establish humane standards that would lead more foreign importers to review their practices and so follow up the pioneering step which they have already taken? Secondly, what moral right have we to exercise the form of domination that is shown in some factory farming; what right have we to reduce life for animals to a mere existence? Thirdly, we are trustees for the future, and I ask: how will children be affected if they grow up on farms where distress among animals is either tolerated or ignored? Fourthly, shall we ever learn to live at peace with our neighbours, at home and overseas, until we recognise the principle of reverence for life which Albert Schweitzer taught so persuasively.
As we know, the best type of British farmer cares for his stock, and most farmers belong to this type. But we find shareholders and commercial interests who think of farming as big business and who are too interested in profits. A past President of the British Veterinary Association has drawn a parallel from the last war. At the end of the war many Germans asserted that they knew nothing of what went on in the concentration camps. We to-day should be alive to our responsibility to know about the conditions on farms where animals are over-concentrated and to fight hard to have these conditions substantially improved. I beg to support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in his Amendment.

1360

§ 5.11 p.m.

§ Lord CONESFORD
My Lords, in commending these Codes in his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. said that perhaps he had spoken too long, but I am certain that that is not the view of any noble Lord in any part of the House, whether he approves of these Codes or condemns them. I should like to make it clear, because I am going to oppose these Codes and shall vote with conviction against them, that I do not question for one moment the humanity of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, or of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I hope that I shall remain on reasonably friendly terms with them in spite of anything I shall say.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was quite right in pointing out that the legal status of these Codes is very much like that of the Highway Code. I should like to make it clear, because many of those with whom I agree on many points have criticised the Government for introducing codes at all instead of proceeding to regulations, that I do not criticise the Government on that ground. I think that the right approach is to have a code. What I want to convince the House of is the appalling danger of making things worse if the codes set too low a standard. That, to my mind, is the overwhelmingly important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, quite rightly, that the members of the Committee that produced these Codes were not unanimous but even those who opposed them did not suggest that they should be rejected in toto. Of course, nobody would suggest that they should be rejected in toto, if they were capable of amendment. The whole point is that under our Parliamentary procedure they are not capable of amendment. Therefore, if we have any vitally important objections to anything in the Codes, our only remedy is to reject them. That does not stop the Government from bringing in better codes, better considered, but it is the only method we now have.
Our debate, I thought, was ennobled by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. He expressed what I think on this subject so admirably and so completely that perhaps I ought not to speak at any length, but I am so passionately concerned about 1361 this subject on what I believe to be important moral grounds that I must make my position clear. These Codes indicate an attitude to animals that I find morally wrong and intolerable. I do not believe that men are entitled to use living creatures as mere things for our imagined benefit or convenience. I do not believe that we are entitled to deny them every element of a natural existence, regardless of their own nature, instincts and desires. That is a moral principle. I trust it is one which will command the assent of a great number in all parts of this House.
I was delighted that the expert committee, the Brambell Committee, came to conclusions that I thought eminently right. Paragraph 37 of their Report sums up their doctrine, I suppose, as clearly and completely as it can be summed up in a single paragraph. It may be remembered that when the Bill, which is now the Act under which these Codes are brought forward, was before the House, my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I tried to get some of the vital words in that paragraph in the Bill itself. On that occasion many told me, and many more have subsequently told me, that they would have voted for me but for the defect in the actual words of our Amendment, which appeared to make all tethering of cattle impossible. I can at least plead that I do not often trouble the House on agricultural subjects.
I suppose that some in this House may say, as no doubt many say outside, that those of us who take the view of the right reverend Prelate are cranks or sentimentalists. I do not think that I am a crank or a sentimentalist, but if opposition to these Codes shows me to be these things, I find myself in very good company indeed. There is Professor Brambell himself, and my old friend of over half a century, Julian Huxley, a zoologist of world-wide reputation, Dr. Tinbergen, F.R.S., Professor of Animal Behaviour at the University of Oxford, and many others. In the course of the last half century there have been a great many questions, perhaps most questions in politics, on which Julian Huxley and I have found ourselves on opposite sides, but no one has ever doubted his understanding of animals or his humanity. His opinion of these Codes is known from letters to the Press. One I mentioned in 1362 my speech when the Bill was before the House and others have been quoted in this debate. The correspondence in The Times in June and July of this year is very pertinent and I shall quote later the second letter of Dr. Brambell himself, which I think has not yet been mentioned.
Since I do not wish to delay the House long, may I refer to just two points in these Codes? They are merely illustrative, but I think they may help noble Lords whose conscience is troubled by the suggestion that we should approve these Codes, if they will consider them.
First, the question of light. I think almost the only mention of light occurs in the prefaces, for example, in the preface to Code No. 3 on domestic fowls, where it says: sufficient light for satisfactory inspection"— and I think that is also the subject of a paragraph in the Code itself. Sufficient light for inspection is excellent, but is that the only right to see the light of day that the animal is to have in the whole course of its existence? Do we really think it humane that animals should never see the light of day except perhaps when they are being taken to their own slaughter? I think that should at least give us pause.
The second matter is one that has been mentioned, I think in most of the speeches in this debate, and it is the question of sufficient space for animals. The space allowance recommended in these Codes is far less than that recommended by Brambell. But that does not end the trouble, because even the space allowance which is recommended is qualified by words which make the recommendation virtually meaningless. If noble Lords will turn to the second half of paragraph 24 of Code No. 3 they will find a whole series of recommendations as regards the amount of space; and I have no doubt that those are the recommendations that my noble friend Lord Nugent said he was observing. But how are these words introduced? Let me read them, because if this were the only objection to these Codes, I think it would be sufficient to make us vote against them. The introductory words to this part of paragraph 24 are: Space allowance is only one aspect of a complex situation involving ventilation and temperature among other factors. It will not 1363 by itself ensure the welfare of the birds. The following allowances are given as a guide to those below which"— not above which— sound management may become the critical factor. In other words, even these allowances for space, which are greatly inferior to those recommended by the Brambell Committee, this paragraph declares are allowances below which it may still be proper for the keeper of the poultry to fall. I shall read the comments of Professor Brambell on that in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for whom I have a great respect, shakes his head. But I am not quite incapable of understanding the meaning of an English sentence, and the sentence that I have quoted is only capable, so far as I know, of the interpretation that I have given to it. No other interpretation has yet been publicly suggested.
Let me read an extract from Dr. Brambell's letter to The Times published on September 1 of this year, when he said: The revised Codes for domestic fowls and turkeys state that the space allowances are given as a guide to those below which sound management may become the critical factor.' This would appear to remove all force from the space allowances and leave these entirely open to the choice of the producer. The suggested space allowances certainly are an improvement on those in the draft Codes"— that was an earlier version of the Codes— though still falling short of our recommendations, but where is the advantage if they now have no force? The revised Code on cattle does not allow calves room to turn round, it does not insist on the provision of any bedding, it does allow calves of over two weeks of age being kept entirely on a milk substitute diet without roughage". I think those words may interest the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who interrupted an earlier speaker when he was on this subject. Dr. Brambell's letter goes on: The consequence would appear to be that quality white veal production can continue virtually unchanged. It should be abolished in the interests of beef production, as well as on welfare grounds. There is one important document that has come into my hands since I was making my notes this morning. An article appeared in Nature on the 4th of this month, on the welfare of domestic 1364 animals, by Professor W. H. Thorpe, of the Department of Animal Behaviour in Cambridge University, who is an authority of world reputation. He was also responsible for a passage which I would have quoted from Appendix III to the Brambell Report. He points out how animals can suffer. Perhaps I should read what he said. The passage is on page 79 of the Report, where he said: Whilst accepting the need for such restriction, we must draw the line at conditions which completely suppress all or nearly all the natural, instinctive urges and behaviour patterns characteristic of actions appropriate to the high degree of social organisation as found in the ancestral wild species and which have been little, if at all, bred out in the process of domestication. In particular, it is clearly cruel so to restrain an animal for a large part of its life that it cannot use any of its normal locomotory behaviour patterns. That I would put in my normal use of language as, "so that it cannot move about in the usual way."
Professor Thorpe concludes his article in Nature, having made out a well-documented case on the suffering of animals through stress caused by these conditions, with these words: In conclusion, we must ask whether the Codes should be rejected by Parliament. I think they should not be rejected if there is reasonable opportunity for amendment. Then he gives the amendments which in his view are required if Parliament is not to reject the Codes, but since I do not wish to delay the House, I will not read his six recommendations.
If the Codes included those six recommendations I should not be supporting the Motion for their rejection. But because we cannot include them, and because the Codes as drafted seem to me to fall below the moral principle which I have endeavoured to put before the House, because they allow living creatures to be treated as mere things, I ask the House to reject this Motion. As I said in my speech on the Bill when it was before the House, and as has been said, I think, by both right reverend Prelates, and by others, the economic argument that we cannot afford more tolerable conditions for animals is the identical argument that was put forward at the time of the Industrial Revolution for allowing children in factories and mines, and to go up chimneys. It does not differ in the slightest. It should have been ignored then—it should be ignored 1365 now. I beg to oppose the Motion to approve.

§ 5.30 p.m.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE
My Lords, I knew the debate would be like this. It is entirely confused between, on the one hand, a high moral tone and attack on modern farming methods, and, on the other, an attack on cruelty, which is an entirely different thing. I ceased to be a farmer a year ago, so I have no apologies to make. I do not earn my living from farming. but I have done so for thirty years—and quite comfortably, too. I have farmed with the most modern methods I could find, and I have exercised the very greatest trouble all through my farming career to look after my animals properly.
Are your Lordships going to attack good farmers or bad farmers? This is what you have to settle. At the moment it is a complete muddle. We are told that if things are done in the proper way, in other words, if a farmer has battery houses, with proper ventilation, lighting, and with everything properly worked out, he is being cruel. On the other hand, if he is a casual old farmer, who does not bother to do the thing properly 1 suppose he is not being cruel. I think we have to clear our minds about this.
I feel that I am being forced, not only by my noble friend Lord Brockway, but by others, into a defence of cruelty. Goodness knows! I will not accept that position. Not only will I not accept that position, but I resent the implication bitterly. I have prepared three drafts of this speech, but none of them is any good for the present purposes, because things have become so confused. I think I had better make one or two general points, and then deal with the subject I know most about—and it is a great deal more than any other Lord in this House; that is, the keeping of hens in batteries. If anybody thinks they know as much as I do I will take him on afterwards.
The first point is this question of cruelty. I have farmed for thirty years. I have never seen an act of deliberate cruelty, except once: and that was in an auction ring where a man was trying to milk a cow he did not know. I will not go into the reasons, but he was not a farmer in any true sense. I have seen 1366 acts of unpardonable negligence. I have seen lambs on the Welsh borders eaten alive with maggots. That is disgraceful, but it is an extensive failing, not an intensive one. I have seen cockerels reared on free range which have been so badly bullied that we had to wring their necks because they were being eaten alive by their colleagues. This again is an instance of cruelty in an extensive form. I stopped keeping birds on free range as soon as I saw this happen. Whenever I have had sheep I have always seen that they were shepherded with the very greatest care, and I have usually shepherded them myself. There is more cruelty by bad shepherding of sheep than in any other of these systems. Why do we never hear from the animal lovers about these things?
I must not get too worked up about this, but it is highly annoying. For the past fifty years cows have been tied up by the neck in cowsheds. I personally think it is a bad system, but nobody has ever complained about it. Because a modern system, which involves a great number of animals together has been invented this has somehow become a guilty act.
There is very little to criticise, in my opinion, in Codes I and 2. I have irritated my noble friend Lord Brockway—and this will doubtless happen again in the course of our acquaintance—by interrupting him, because I thought that he misrepresented what the Code said about veal calves. I hope that my noble friend Lord Beswick will tell us which of us is right. If Lord Brockway did misrepresent it he must naturally be pleased to be put right. However, he then misrepresented me by suggesting that I was advocating veal calf rearing. This is one of the things that should be stopped. I believe that Code No. 1 will stop it. I have already explained in my intervention why. By having a full diet, and not depriving the calf of iron, the other restrictions become unnecessary and useless. Therefore I think this Code will stop white veal rearing. If it does not, then there is a case for taking the matter further.
The most serious criticism in this whole matter, the one with which I am most concerned, is the criticism of keeping hens intensively in batteries. My noble friend Lord Brockway gave some figures. I will give some more. There are over 1367 100, 000 producers of eggs, who own something over 50 million hens; and 70 per cent. of these—and perhaps the noble Lord is right in saying 80 per cent.—a very large proportion, are kept in batteries. Are we going to have philosophical arguments in this House about whether birds should be kept in batteries at all, or are we going to discuss the figures laid down by the Report, which say that a reasonable size of cage should give so much space? They are two quite different things. My own belief is that birds in batteries are as contented as those kept in any other way. This is a subjective belief. I have kept birds on free range, and I have told your Lordships why I will not do that. I have also seen them torn to pieces by the fox because somebody has forgotten to lock up the hens. I have kept birds in a deep litter, where they sometimes huddled in the corner and killed one another. I have kept birds in folds, where they have to be dug out in the winter from the snow, and where they get their feet muddy. In my case the foxes used to burrow underneath and pull off the legs of the birds.
I have found all these systems unsatisfactory. I therefore decided, reluctantly, to go and look at the battery system, because I had the same prejudice that we all have. By this time I knew about birds; I knew what they looked like. I worked with them and lived with them, and I had been out every morning and moved 80 folds before breakfast. I was not a theorist; I knew my stuff. And when I went to look at some well-kept batteries I was very much impressed with the apparent contentment of the birds. I put in a battery for 7, 000 birds, which in those days was enormous, though now it would be very small. I had nine enormous fans which changed the atmosphere, I think, 24 times a minute—or it may have been 24 times a day. There was never any smell; everything was beautiful. I engaged a poultry girl, and I said to her, when we got our first pullets in, "Don't they look lovely?", and she said, "Sir, they are my pride and joy". We lived with those birds for six years. Please do not tell me we were being cruel.
May I give your Lordships a case which comes out of the Brambell Report? This is really what the whole matter is 1368 about. The last sentence but one in paragraph 26 says this: Animals show unmistakable signs of suffering from pain, exhaustion, fright, frustration, and so forth and the better we are acquainted with them the more readily we can detect these signs. Who are the people best acquainted with those birds? I and my poultry girl were best acquainted with those birds. In the very words of the Brambell Report, we were the only persons who could see whether they were suffering stress or not; and we say that they were not. All right; we may have been wrong. If you think it necessary to scrap the whole system of battery keeping this is an argument which is a perfectly intelligent one. It may be the wrong thing to do. But to increase the size of the cage by two inches, which is what this argument is about, is simply silly.
Dr. Blount, who died last year, or the year before, was on the whole the most distinguished veterinary surgeon in the poultry world, and he wrote a paper called, "Comments on the Brambell Committee". In this he disagreed with a number of the Committee's points, and he based his findings on daily observation of birds in larger cages and in smaller cages. This work is very detailed. He had a number of photographs showing, for example, that in the standard cage a bird can stretch its wings full length, and if it is put in a cage where there are no limitations it still does not do any more. These are matters that we can argue about, but to alter the entire economy of 40 million birds, as my noble friend Lord Brockway said, for two inches, the result of which is quite uncertain, seems to me insane.
I am tremendously in favour of standards. I think that farmers are greedy, like everybody else. There is always a danger that they will crowd, crowd, crowd, because in that way they make more money, and that in the end they go too far. I think that the Government's acceptance of the Advisory Report's recommendations is to be commended. If the Government had accepted the entire Brambell Report it would be the first time, I think, that this had ever happened in the history of Government. Governments never accept Reports completely like this. They have accepted a very great deal of it and have accepted 1369 the two most important points in it: first, the appointment of an Advisory Committee which is drawn from a very wide group and is not suspect in any way; and secondly, giving to veterinary surgeons the duty of inspection. This is as far as I should feel like going at this moment. If the nation decides that keeping birds in cages is repugnant to it, it is entitled to do so, and I should not mind at all—I do not mind how my eggs are produced so long as they are fresh—but it would be a very expensive item and evidence to justify it certainly does not exist.
My Lords, I believe that the Codes are as reasonable as one can expect as a first shot. I do not understand what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, meant when he said that they could not be altered. They can be altered by the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, so far as I understand the position, at any time. So I think we have a flexible instrument which will meet the case, and I urge that the Codes be adopted.

§ 5.42 p.m.

§ Lord SOMERS
My Lords, in view of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, may I say on my behalf, and I think on behalf of all those who are opposing these Codes, that none of us is attacking the good farmer, for whom we all have the greatest respect. The one whom we are attacking is the irresponsible farmer. Of course, there is the danger, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, that now that intensive farming has become a money-making method the good farmer will gradually be replaced by the irresponsible type who comes into the industry simply for the purpose of making a bit more money. That is why I think that very careful control of intensive farming is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in introducing these Codes seemed highly satisfied with them. I am sorry to say that I do not share his satisfaction. I do not think they go nearly far enough. We have the recommendations of the Brambell Committee, which was set up, after all, by the Government and which consisted of very learned and responsible members. What is the purpose of setting up a special committee and then ignoring their recommendations? I cannot see 1370 any reason for taking any of the Brambell Committee's recommendations and merely saying, "Well, we don't like that. We're not going to agree with it. We appointed the committee but we are not going to do what they say."
To come briefly to these four Codes in turn, so far as cattle are concerned I do not think that the space allowance provisions are nearly good enough. I think that they should be allowed sufficient space to turn round. This has been opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, on the grounds of hygiene. One can see what they mean, of course, but surely a farmer who is making a fair amount of money by intensive farming methods can afford a few staff to clean out these pens periodically. If he cannot afford that, then I should have thought that intensive farming is not very productive. There is also the question of light. Natural light is a necessity for animals. When we come to consider whether or not an animal is suffering, I know that we come up against a difficulty because it can be very difficult for us as humans to know whether an animal is suffering. It cannot tell us. On the other hand, those who have had great experience with animals have come to the conclusion that to a certain point ore can tell, or one can at least judge, because an animal not living in its natural condiditions or natural surroundings, though it does not know why, will as a result suffer to a greater or lesser extent.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, in speaking of the domestic fowl, said that climatic conditions in winter were so severe. I quite agree with him. They are. But would it not be possible to let the animals have a free run during the summer and house them during the winter? I should have thought that that was a possibility. I am not opposing intensive farming as a whole at all. It has come to stay, and if it is properly supervised it will work very well. But I am most insistent on the fact that it must be supervised and that these regulations must be made mandatory. To come to pigs, I cannot say that my experience of pigs is very great, so probably I had better not say very much about them, except that I think that the "sweat box" 1371 method of breeding them is not a pleasant one, and I personally should be glad to see it go.
As to the domestic fowl, I should like to note one paragraph in the Code, paragraph 20, which says: Provision should be made for a period of darkness in each 24-hour cycle. What period of darkness? Five minutes? My Lords, the provision should be made far more explicit than that. It might say, "a period of darkness corresponding with the natural rise and fall of the sun". Personally, I should be very happy to see batteries go altogether, but if they must remain I think; one or two things should be absolutely insisted upon. One is that there should be one bird to each cage. That would eliminate the process of de-beaking. We do not know, of course, quite how much distress this causes to the birds, but the mere fact that we do not know means that it may cause a great deal more than we believe.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to explain one point. It is not normal to de-beak birds if you have one, two or three in a cage. De-beaking is normally used as a remedy where large numbers of birds are in a cage. I have never de-beaked a bird, and I have always kept three to a cage.

§ Lord SOMERS
My Lords, of course I accept what the noble Lord has said, but I believe that de-beaking has been recommended for even two birds to a cage since they might possibly attack each other—and that cage must be large enough for the bird" to stand up and stretch its wings to their full extent. In his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to stretching—this was apropos of cattle, and he spoke of the animal stretching its limbs to the extent of the pen. If the noble Lord will look at me and watch me stretching my arm, I am now stretching it to the extent of my "pen" but I am not stretching it to its full length at all. Therefore surely the wording should be "Stretch its limbs to their full extent" and not to the extent of the pen. That should also be the case with fowls.
If we look at page 7 of Code No. 3, it speaks of beak-trimming, blinkers, toe-cutting, dubbing, de-winging, castration. 1372 My Lords, all those things are treating these birds, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said, as "things", and they are not things. They may not be highly intelligent creatures but at least they have a right to live a reasonably normal life. I am not saying that one has not got to make some sacrifices for the sake of farming them, but on the other hand one must realise that they are living creatures with a consciousness. Therefore, I hope that the House will support my noble friend Lord Selkirk in opposing these Codes and that the Government will go back to the Report of the Brambell Committee and introduce something a little better.
Meanwhile, I should like to read a letter which was sent from four members of the Advisory Committee which was set up by the Government. I am reading from the Report of the Council of Justice to Animals, of which I am the President. The letter says: Opposition to extreme methods is not confined to the animal welfare movement. To gauge the opinion of farmers as a whole. Social Surveys (Gallup Poll) Limited, on behalf of the Co-ordinating Committee on Factory Farming, took a cross-section of 2, 000 farms of all types and sizes in their Spring Farm Survey of 1968. The survey revealed that 85 per cent. of farmers approached felt that all animals should be able to turn round in their pens; 78 per cent. considered that caged poultry should be able to spread their wings; and 56 per cent. agreed that all farm livestock above a certain age should have access to the open for some part of the day. The letter goes on: Certain members of the Advisory Committee, representing animal welfare, could not agree with some of the recommendations in the Codes and their feelings regarding certain aspects of factory farming are expressed in the following letter to the Minister of Agriculture: 'We did not anticipate that all the findings of the whole Committee would coincide with our own as we recognise that we have a fundamental difference of approach. 'Obviously more scientific research is necessary, particularly into the behaviour of animals, but we would like to record our disappointment that some practices and systems have been considered acceptable which, from careful observation. we recognise must inevitably cause prolonged discomfort and probable mental suffering. even though the productivity of the animal is not affected. For example, we have not found convincing scientific evidence that keeping animals for the major part of their lives in dim light, on slats, and tethered or confined so closely that they cannot freely turn round is conducive to their welfare'". 1373 My Lords, the Brambell Report has said all that needs to be said on this subject. I only beg Her Majesty's Government to read the Report again and to re-draft these Codes.

§ 5.57 p.m.

§ Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD
My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and I have listened to every single speech which has been made, and I now rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I have been farming now for 35 years. I do not go in for intensive farming in the sense that noble Lords have been talking about this afternoon, because that is not the way my land lies. My land is hill land, and therefore I farm accordingly. But I have absolutely no objection to people who do farm—and farm extremely well—by other methods. Listening to this debate one would have thought that people were accusing these who are using modern farming methods of some kind of moral turpitude. My noble friend, Lord Conesford, with whom I seldom disagree, rose to his feet: and made a tremendous moral attack upon those people who are farming in modern ways and by modern methods. This seems to me to be a strange way of dealing with people who are applying modern techniques to an ancient industry.
Anyone who has been in farming for a long time will remember that what was done in the past was far more cruel—if we must use that word, although I do not wish to use it, but if one wants to use it then in many ways it was much more cruel. There were very dark byres with no proper light; there was no water laid on; the temperature depended entirely upon what happened outside, whether it was freezing or whether it was frightfully hot. There were no methods of ventilation which could be altered. Cows wandered about in their own muck and got perfectly filthy. This was simply because people had not then invented other ways of looking after animals. To-day we have quite airy buildings, we have temperature control so that the animals do not freeze in the winter and roast in the summer. There are marvellous milking machines which the animals themselves like far more than the old-fashioned method of milking by hand, since some people were good milkers and 1374 some were bad, whereas these machines are all identical and enable one man to look after perhaps 80 or 100 cows instead of having goodness knows how many milkers. The whole thing is now done in a much better and more scientific way.
It has been said, even in this debate, that one cannot tell whether animals like conditions or not. But you can, my Lords; you can tell whether they like them or not by whether or not they thrive. Animals are very much like human beings. Human beings living in cramped or difficult conditions or in bad housing—which we all know about—do not thrive; they get tuberculosis or some other disease. Animals get diseases just as easily as human beings if the conditions under which they are living are detrimental to them. No farmer, unless he is an absolute fool, is going to keep livestock in conditions under which they do not thrive, because livestock which do not thrive are an entire liability when you are trying to farm and make it pay. I was very interested in what Lord Donaldson had to say. I have never had anything to do with poultry, but Lord Donaldson has great experience; he has tried a variety of methods. I was interested when he said that he had discarded the free range method because the hens so often attacked each other. That is perfectly true. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, whom we all know and admire for his desire to prevent human beings from fighting, does not know, because so far as I know he has never farmed, that animals fight each other in the most awful, devastating manner unless you stop them, and that is sometimes done in the natural habitat. It is rubbish to criticise modern conditions, which very often prevent animals from killing each other or fighting each other and enable them to thrive very often much better than they did in the old days, when there was a great deal of disease and people and animals did not thrive.
Of course, there are bad farmers, and cruel people in other professions, and I am just as down on them as everybody else is. But these Codes are a good step towards trying to prevent people from being cruel and using methods which we cannot defend. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, quoted paragraph 21 of Code No. 1, but he did not read paragraph 24, which says that calves must be fed 1375 and must have fresh, clean water and a diet of roughage as well as milk, and so on. Those are the codes which most farmers, if they want to make their stock pay and are anxious to be successful, will use. If they do not use them they will certainly suffer and it will be very much to their detriment as well as to the detriment of the animals.

§ Lord CONESFORD
My Lords, if I may correct the noble Baroness, the Code from which I quoted was Code No. 3, Domestic Fowls. I did not quote any other.

§ Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. Somebody quoted Code No. 1 about cattle and quoted only one paragraph and not the complementary one.
There has been some comment about these Codes being advisory and not mandatory. But under the present 1968 Act people can be prosecuted for being cruel or not observing the code. It has not been laid down until now, but under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act there is a possibility of prosecuting people for misusing their farms or ill-treating animals, and that can be used now. I know that many lawyers are not anxious, or generally not anxious, to create offences which mean ringing people into court, unless it is absolutely essential. People can be brought into court for cruelty to animals; that is a fact here and now. It may in the end be absolutely necessary to bring people before courts—but this is the time, now, to try to do something in a wise way. These Codes, although they may not go so far as some people would like, do go a long way to fulfilling many of the recommendations of the Brambell Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, told us that Professor Hewer was the Chairman of the Committee which drew up the Codes. Many people have talked about Professor Brambell, and I know him and have great admiration for him, but Professor Hewer is as great and knowledgeable for this job as was Professor Brambell, and if Professor Hewer and his Committee produced these Codes I should have just as much faith in them as in the recommendations of the Brambell Report.
1376 The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, made, I think, a very practical contribution to this debate. He also is a practical farmer and knows what can be done and the best way to do it. Noble Lords have been very critical, for instance, about the modern way of producing poultry, but the fact is that to-day chicken, which used to be an expensive form of food and a luxury—I can remember in my childhood that we used to have chicken only occasionally, rather as something of a treat—is just about as cheap as any other kind of food. That is because chicken are produced in this modern way, and the consumer, therefore, is able to buy all types of chicken, small and large, much less expensively than in the past, and they are extremely good. That is surely something we want for the consumer.

§ Lord BOOTHBY
My Lords, the noble Baroness talks about the consumer, but what about the chicken?

§ Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD
My Lords, the chickens are perfectly happy. Lord Donaldson gave us an extremely good description of his experience—I am not experienced in this—and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, equally, of the production of hens under a modern system. The fact is that if they were not happy—and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, can go and see Lord Nugent's and Lord Donaldson's farms—they would moult, not lay eggs, but die. The fact is that this is a way of production which suits both the industry and the consumer. I have no doubt that Lord Boothby is one of the persons who enjoy the chicken they can buy for less to-day than many years ago.
I resent the view of many people of those of us who are engaged in this industry and who are most anxious to see it develop in as practical and wise a way as possible. We are anxious to serve the public. We want the public to get the best possible service from the farming industry, and we have the support of the Government, both financially and in other ways, so we are under a moral obligation to do the thing as well as we can. I very much resent the fact that people are throwing moral bricks because they think the way we do it is not the way it should be done.
1377 There are no doubt black sheep—there are always in every industry—but to-day, by and large throughout the country (and I speak with experience) people care desperately about farming. It is not an industry in which one makes a great deal of money. Believe me, after 35 years' farming I could show your Lordships farm accounts, year after year, which would not particularly encourage anyone to go into farming unless he liked it and it was a way of life and a thing he wanted to do. It is not something out of which one becomes rich; it is a service to the community. It is the land we live on and we want to do our best with it. It would be disastrous if these Codes, drawn up by Professor Hewer and his Committee, were to be rejected simply because they do not go as far as people want. These Codes can do a great deal and they can be altered in the light of experience. I support very strongly the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to approve these Codes.

§ 6.10 p.m.

§ Lord RAGLAN
My Lords, I should like to speak for a minute and a half. I must declare an interest as a farmer. I broadly support the Government's recommendations in this Code, although I am sure they could be improved in some respects. I think the noble Lord, Lord Somers, had a point when he talked about the wording of the Code where it referred to an animal spreading in a pen, for instance. A lot has been said to-day about what is natural and unnatural, as if to say that what is natural is good and what is unnatural is bad. I would point out that horns on cattle are natural, yet they are the most vicious weapons. I have seen the most appalling wounds caused by horns, with one animal inflicting violence on another, and the wound which is caused is no better for being caused naturally.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that a fleece on a sheep is unnatural—it is man-bred. I believe that one of the cruellest things that one can do to a sheep is to put it out in a field in the sun with its fleece on, or even let it walk about in the rain with a fleece on and make it sleep at night in a wet fleece. It is rather as if I had gone out into Hyde Park in a thunderstorm and slept the night on a park bench in my overcoat. Sheep suffer terribly 1378 from wet and heat, and all because they have this beastly, unnatural fleece. I assure your Lordships that in my own experience they are far happier indoors in a well ventilated building than they are outside. I wanted to draw your Lordships' attention to these facts. Factory farming may seem cruel—in certain instances I am sure that it is—but we must not forget that, so far as the animal is concerned any farming is a highly unnatural activity.

§ 6.12 p.m.

§ Lord WALSTON
My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long, but I should like to add just one or two words to what has already been said. Having listened to almost all this debate, it strikes me that many of those who have spoken have, if I may say so with the greatest respect, spoken on the wrong Motion. They have been talking along the lines of a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, when he spoke of "reverence for life". That, of course, is an enormously important matter to talk about, but it is not the subject of the debate that we have been having.
If we were to discuss reverence for life, which would be a most interesting and important debate for us to have, we might well come to the conclusion that we should not be carnivorous; that meat should not be eaten; that animals should not be kept in subjection and in captivity simply to gratify the whims of our own palates. But because we have accepted—and, so far as I know, few of us are vegetarians, and as a community we are not vegetarians—the fact that we are going to keep animals solely for our own pleasure, solely because it tastes good to eat their flesh or their eggs, or to drink their milk, what we should be discussing now is how we can keep these animals with a reasonable degree of humanity (if one can apply that word to animals), with a standard of behaviour that conforms reasonably with what we think is right; and that of course becomes entirely subjective and also, to a large extent, economic.
There are certain questions of taste that come into it. People may say that they refuse to eat foie gras because the conditions under which it is produced in the goose are particularly repulsive. I do not know many people who actually say so, but the cruelty involved in producing 1379 foie gras far exceeds any cruelty involved in producing eggs in a battery. The cruelty involved in bringing in (I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will not object to my mentioning this) crate loads of herrings and dumping them on the deck of a trawler and leaving them there wriggling and gasping for breath until they die and then smoking them and eating them, or eating them, having prepared them in oatmeal, as I do, with enormous pleasure, is far greater than the things that we have been talking about. So we must get the matter into proportion.

§ Lord BOOTHBY
My Lords, I must beg the noble Lord's pardon. He knows nothing about the herring fishing industry because nothing like that ever happens in regard to the herring.
They never writhe about, nor are they left to die slowly prior to being smoked. They would not be worth smoking if that were to happen. This is a most humanitarian industry.

§ Lord WALSTON
My Lords, they die. I do not believe that they are killed humanely, each one of them individually, whatever process is adopted.
We are, as I say, prepared to subject animals to a lot of cruelty for our own pleasure. Now we must decide to what degree we are to go and how much we are to pay for it. If those who support the Brambell Report and oppose the Government's proposals were prepared themselves (most of them are believers in private enterprise) to say: "We will not consume food produced in these inhumane ways, but we shall pay 25 per cent. more for food which we are satisfied is produced decently and kindly", they have the remedy in their own hands. Incidentally, if they take that line they will deny themselves the eating of any imported mutton or lamb, because if they look at the conditions in which these animals are driven up into the slaughterhouses and dealt with on the journeys from their farms into the frigerificoes which some of your Lordships have seen, again they will know that these things are infinitely crueller than anything that goes on in this country.
The Brambell Committee did a valuable job. Mr. Soames deserves great praise for having instituted it. and the present Government and successive 1380 Ministers of Agriculture all deserve praise for their encouragement of it. The Committee's Report started the ball rolling. It has given us a great deal of valuable information. It is not the Bible, it is not absolute truth. But the Codes here put forward are based to a large extent on the Brambell Committee's works. Whether they are perfect, I do not know—I very much doubt whether they are. Whether in fact they are better than Brambell in every respect, I do not know. But I do believe that they are a step forward—not a great step, but a realistic one and a valuable one—and I support them.

§ 6.18 p.m.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, I am gratified to think that on one point, at any rate, there is universal agreement with something I said in my opening speech; namely, that there is room for more than one opinion on animal welfare matters. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said about respecting my opinion. I certainly respect his, and it is good to feel that there has been no hint at all that any of those who have had practical experience in these matters—the noble Lord, Lord Nugent; the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw; my noble friend Lord Donaldson and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, all of whom have engaged, as they have told us, in these practices in intensive husbandry—have been charged with any kind of cruelty; and it is good to think that their testimony was received as carefully as it was.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says that there have been no changes since the Brambell Report, and asks why, therefore, we do not accept Brambell in its entirety. Of course, there have been changes. We have accepted what Brambell has recommended. We have accepted the necessity for legislation. We have accepted the recommendation which Brambell made, to set up this Advisory Committee. We have seen that Advisory Committee go into these matters far more deeply than it was possible for the Brambell Committee to do. The Advisory Committee, in fact, took up where the Brambell Committee left off, and these have been developments since Brambell reported.
I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, two questions which have relation to this. He asked 1381 whether I could give him an assurance that we would accept the recommendations of the Brambell Committee. I said that we have in prinicple accepted the recommendations. We also accepted that there should be this Advisory Committee. We have also accepted the need for a set of Codes. He also asked me if I would tell the House at what age a calf must cease to be enclosed in a pen 5 feet by 3 feet. But, of course, nothing is said in the Codes about 5 feet by 3 feet. I hope that I have made it clear that calves of different sizes will need pens of different sizes; and what is laid down quite clearly in the Codes is that there should be "freedom of sideways movement" for cattle, whether tethered or in pens, and that they should be able to groom themselves without difficulty and, if they are in a pen, there should be sufficient room to lie down on their side and extend their legs within its confines. Then paragraph 20 also says: consideration should be given to the adoption of a suitable loose-housing system". This would go some way to meet those who do not like the idea of a pen at all.
I said that the Codes set this out clearly, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that there is probably room for some misunderstanding here, as obviously he and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Somers, had obviously misunderstood the wording. We were all greatly impressed by the demonstration which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, gave us, but "within its confines" does not mean that you can extend the legs as far as the pen allows; it means that the animals should have sufficient room to lie down on their sides and extend their legs within the pen, and not, as was the case at one time, probably through a slat in the pen or through a hole in the pen, but within the confines of the pen. I am sure the noble Lord will be satisfied on that point.
We have heard from a number of noble Lords about this Gallup Poll, or some sort of amateur poll of farmers who have declared themselves 76 per cent. in favour of more generous treatment of animals.

§ Lord SOMERS
My Lords, may I just say to the noble Lord that it was a Gallup Poll.

1382

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, I have no knowledge of whether it was. I speak now only on my own authority, but I honestly doubt whether 76 per cent. of the farmers of this country say that it is feasible to have all cattle going out into the open, even with the qualification of fair weather. I wonder how many dairy farmers in Scotland, or the North of England, would say that it was feasible to have cattle going out into the open throughout six or seven months of the year. I should prefer to accept the testimony of the National Farmers' Union on this point. I shall not weary the House with all they say, but I refer to paragraph 10, in which they say: Parliament rightly rejected the mandatory approach because there simply is not adequate scientific evidence on which to justify automatically rendering a producer liable to prosecution. Then they say, in paragraph 11: Parliament would be wise, in our view, to accept the Codes as drafted by the Advisory Committee. Whether it was Gallup or anybody else, I would frankly rather accept that statement than this other rather mythical Poll.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said he had evidence that there was to be a different interpretation from that which I put on the recommendation about the freedom of movement to be given to cattle. I do not know what that evidence is. All I can say is that the Code means precisely what it says, with the additional explanation that I have given, that "within its confines" means that the extended legs would be possible within the pen and not to any extension of the pen.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, suggested that we should take a Code to the Council of Europe and get from them an agreement more closely in line with what he appeared to think had been recommended by Brambell. I assure my noble friend that he is not likely to get unanimity within Europe for anything near what he wants—not this year, next year, or the year after. If he wants to make progress in this I think he should start at home; although I agree that we should endeavour—as we did in one particular, in the case of transit of animals—to try to get agreement with other countries in Europe.
The noble Lord instanced a report by the poultry industry in Germany, and he said that this was in accordance 1383 with Brambell. My noble friend should not make statements like this unless he can justify them. He read it out, but what he said is not the case. In some cases that report on this one industry was in line with Brambell, but in other cases it was not. In any event, it is not the law of the land in West Germany. Does my noble friend wish to interrupt me?

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, quite honestly, I did not follow what my noble friend said.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, I am sorry; my noble friend may conceivably have the opportunity of reading it tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked why we should not accept the Brambell recommendations, and he further asked, with great emphasis, "What is the purpose of setting up this Advisory Committee?" I am surprised that the noble Lord should contradict himself in such a short space of time. We accepted the recommendation of the Brambell Committee. In paragraph 228 the Committee said: We recommend, therefore, that provision should be made in the Act for the establishment of a Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee to advise the Minister on all these matters. That is what has been done. As a result, we have the Codes that I am putting before your Lordships this evening.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich made a very impressive case, if I may say so, against so-called "factory farming". I think we were all moved by the picture he painted. But that is not what we are arguing about. If he wants to come forward with an argument against factory farming, he should say so.

The Lord Bishop of NORWICH
My Lords, may I intervene. If the noble Lord read my speech I think he would find that I did not, in fact, speak against factory farming as such. I merely said that factory farming tended towards conditions of cruelty; therefore it was very important that appropriate Codes should be established.

1384

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, I think the right reverend Prelate underestimates his own eloquence and powers of persuasion, because certainly I was honestly moved by the picture which he painted. He was asking us to consider this question very carefully, and I think we should, but at the same time it is true to say that none of the critics on the Hewer Committee have come out against factory farming. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about some of the aspects of factory farming. In any case, that is not what the Codes are about and it is not what the argument is about.
The right reverend Prelate went on to say something about the conditions under which calves were kept, and he protested against those conditions. I beg the right reverend Prelate to believe me when I say that I do not believe he changed one word of his speech as a result of what I said—not a single word—or else he did not listen to what I said. I agreed with him on the various points he made on diet. It is said that it is a basic requirement that there should be nutritionally adequate food, and specifically the Code makes mention of iron. Exactly what is the effect of iron is going to be the subject of a further study, but if it can be shown that it is an essential food, then under the terms of the Code it should in any case be given.
There was some sort of dispute between my noble friend Lord Brockway and my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge as to whether this Code does or does not permit the production of white veal; but the Code is not concerned with the product of an animal, it is concerned with how the animal is kept. If the animal is kept in this way and white veal does not result, then white veal is abolished. That is the fact of the matter.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene in this exchange. In the tension of the discussion I misunderstood what the noble Lord said. I made a charge which was not justified, and which I am very ready now to withdraw.

1385

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich also said that it would not be possible for the bird to stretch one wing, and this was also said by another speaker. Again, he did not listen to what I said. There is nothing in the Code which would prohibit a bird from stretching one wing. Indeed, paragraph 24 of the Code on Domestic Fowls says: Irrespective of the type of enclosure or system of management used, all domestic fowls should have sufficient freedom of movement to be able, without difficulty, to stand normally, turn round and stretch their wings". How can the right reverend Prelate come along and say that it is declared in the Code that a bird should not be able to stretch one wing?

Lord HAWKE
My Lords, is this consistent with the dimensions laid down? That is our point. We think the rules are defective in this sort of way.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, I take that point, but that is not the way it was put by the right reverend Prelate. On that point, I can only say that I have asked the same question: Are we satisfied that these dimensions are adequate to permit this movement which is laid down in the Code? It is pointed out to me that this Committee specifically went out into the field. They made observations to see whether the dimensions would enable this degree of movement, and they were satisfied that they would.

The Lord Bishop of NORWICH
My Lords, may I explain that I was basing my description of this condition on the opinion of the Brambell Committee which gave minimum dimensions of space, and those figures have not been accepted in the Codes before us. That is the reason I spoke in that way.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will be good enough to agree that the Brambell Committee did not, in any part of its Report, say that the findings of a subsequent Committee were not going to permit a bird to stretch one wing. Certainly, I consider that there is a rather confused setting out of permitted dimensions, but in the opinion of this independent Advisory Committee the dimensions will allow a bird to get up, 1386 turn round and stretch its wings. That is as far as I can go on that.
The real issue before us this evening is: what will happen if we vote a gainst the approval of these Codes? That is what we have to decide. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that there would be "no difficulty in getting modifications to the present Codes". I wonder why he said that? What evidence has he for thinking that? What sounding has he taken of the members of this Advisory Committee? I had the opportunity, while my noble friend Lord Hughes was intervening, to ask the Chairman of the Advisory Committee: "If you had an opportunity to draw up these Codes again, in the light of all the protests that have been made in recent weeks would you change them at all?". He said, "No, I would not. My view remains the same". He further said that he had every reason to believe that the majority of the Committee, if asked to look at this matter again, would come up with the same recommendations. That is in the light of present knowledge. Why does the noble Earl think there would be no difficulty?

§ Baroness SUMMERSKILL
But, my Lords, is not this the Committee from which the three women members resigned?

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, I have to tell my noble friend that the three women members, as she described them, have not resigned. I have further to tell my noble friend that in the first place these three ladies said in terms that they did not think the recommendations should be withdrawn. They set out their objections to eight clauses out of something over 200, and they agreed that the Codes should go forward. It is certainly true that these ladies, in the light of all the propaganda or in the light of public opinion, as they have said, have changed their minds and think that the Codes should be withdrawn, but they have not resigned from the Committee.

§ Baroness SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, it is the same thing. It is morally the same.

§ Lord BESWICK
No, my Lords, it is not quite the same. What I am saying is that if my right honourable friend had to go back to this Committee and then ask them to look at these matters 1387 again, there is no reason to believe that the majority would come up with any different recommendations. Therefore it seems clear to me that if we do not accept the Codes to-day we shall be right back to square one. We shall not be making this advance; and there has not been a single noble Lord in any part of the House, supporting me or opposing me, who has not said that, in the main, these Codes constitute an advance. As I have said, the three ladies have criticised eight of the clauses out of something over 200.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, quite rightly said that we cannot amend those clauses here. No, we cannot. But if the Codes are accepted, then the matter is not settled for all time. Studies go on and further investigations take place. If there is any reason why the majority should change their view, and if they come up with another recommendation, then, as I have said, my right honourable friend has undertaken that the necessary amendments to the Codes shall be tabled. Therefore I feel that we should be mistaken if we were to turn down this opportunity to make this advance. If we accept the Codes, we shall have done something which no other country in Europe has done. If we vote the Codes down, if we do not approve them, then I think that animal lovers throughout will have reason to regret our failure.

§ Lord CONESFORD
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can give some answer to a specific criticism which I made of paragraph 24 of the Domestic Fowls Code. That paragraph sets out dimensions greatly inferior to those recommended by Brambell, but the Minister has commended them. But that paragraph says that even those minima need not be kept, because it uses these extraordinary words: The following allowances are given as a guide to those below which sound management may become the critical factor.

§ Lord BESWICK
My Lords, in my view, it would be possible to write this paragraph rather differently to make it clearer. I do not believe that the noble Lord has placed upon it the sort of meaning which it is intended shall be placed upon it. I think he would have less difficulty if he read with the sen 1388 tence he has quoted the sentence which goes before. The sentence which goes before says: Space allowance is only one aspect of a complex situation involving ventilation and temperature among other factors. It will not by itself ensure the welfare of the birds. The sentence which the noble Lord quoted is intended to say that, even if these dimensions are accepted, without good management they will not ensure that there is not unnecessary cruelty. It is not suggesting that you can go below. It is saying that if you go above and you do not also have regard to the other factors—ventilation and temperature—then you do not necessarily keep within the law, which is meant to avoid unnecessary cruelty.

Lord HAWKE
My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, I really do not think that there can be read into these particular words the meaning he wishes to put on them. I would personally read them as saying that if you want to have a smaller cage you have to be a bit of a wizard to bring it off.

§ 6.40 p.m.

The Earl of SELKIRK
My Lords, may I thank noble Lords for supporting the Amendment which we have in front of us? The essence of the Amendment is not an attack on farmers, though I thought the farmers were a little thin-skinned in some of the things that were said. The essence is that we have animals completely under our control, and it behoves us to maintain a very high standard in their care.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to the Advisory Committee. There is a fundamental difference between the Advisory Committee and the Brambell Committee. The Brambell Committee were unanimous in their recommendations and the Advisory Committee were not. The noble Lord has himself said that this document could be better written, as I am sure it could be. I am sure it is wise that we should go a little nearer to what Brambell has laid down as an absolute minimum. There is no attack on factory farming, but there is a laying down of an obligation to see that it is properly carried out—and I do not know any Member of this House who would differ from that. Based on the supposition that animals should be able to lie 1389 down, should be able to stretch themselves and should be able to groom themselves, I believe that we could go a little nearer Brambell.
Of course, I do not know what difficulties there are, though I do not believe they are very great, but if this House were to say that it wanted rather clearer and stronger regulations, I think that it would greatly help the Advisory Committee. The Government are asking us not to give them powers but to approve

1390

§ this Code. If we do not actually oppose it, we are approving it. I cannot do that. I think it would be hypocritical to say that I approve everything which is in this Code, and it is for that reason that I would ask your Lordships to divide.

§ 6.47 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 67.

1389

CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Conesford, L.	Poltimore, L.
Airedale, L.	Dilhorne, V.	St. Albans, L. Bp.
Albermarle, E.	Essex, E.	Sandys, L.
Amherst, E.	Ferrier, L.	Selkirk, E. [Teller.]
Audley, Bs.	Hawke, L.	Sempill, L.
Barrington, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Silkin, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Huntingdon, E.	Somers, L.
Berkeley. Bs.	Kirkwood, L.	Strange, L.
Bethell, L.	Lauderdale, E.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Boothby, L.	Listowel, E.	Summerskill, Bs.
Brockway, L.	Moyne, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Norwich, L. Bp. [Teller.]	Wade, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Platt, L.

NON-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Goschen, V.	Nunburnholme, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Granville of Eye, L.	Pargiter, L.
Auckland, L.	Greenway, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]
Balogh, L.	Grenfell, L.	Raglan, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Headfort, M.	Rankeillour, L.
Beswick, L.	Henderson, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Birk, Bs.	Henley, L.	St. Davids, V.
Blyton, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Bowles, L.	Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Serota, Bs.
Burden, L.	Hughes, L.	Shackleton. L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Carnock, L.	Jackson of Burnley, L.	Shannon, E.
Carrington, L.	Jacques, L.	Shepherd, L.
Collison, L.	Jellicoe. E.	Stamp, L.
Crathorne, L.	Leathearland, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Crawshaw, L.	Lindgren, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Denham, L.	Llewelyn-Davies, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.	Thurlow, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	McLeavy, L.	Walston, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Wilson of Langside, L.
Falkland, V.	Maelor, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Faringdon, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Gaitskell, Bs.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Nugent of Guildford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

1390

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

CODES OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK: CODE NO. 1—CATTLE