WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK (CATTLE AND POULTRY) REGULATIONS 1974 (Hansard, 17 June 1974)

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, I assume we are now passing from this Guy Fawkes incident to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations once again? May I beg leave of your Lordships to say one or two brief words about these Regulations. which I do as a lover of animals—except of foxes. The ban on docking of the tails of cattle is obviously acceptable to us all. The ban on trimming of birds' wings, also is obviously acceptable to us all. Similarly, I think that the ban on fitting of blinkers to birds will be acceptable to most of us, but I have some doubts about sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 2, which says that in future. the castration of a male bird by a method involving surgery will be prohibited. If that is to be prohibited, and it is recognised that more and more people are feeding on caponised cockerels, and that the sales of poultry are increasing day-by-day throughout the country—probably because of the high cost of meat—may I ask how cockerels are to be caponised in the future?
We have heard during recent years that caponising has been brought about by the implanting of a chemical pellet—I think that is the official term—under the skin of the cockerel. This pellet appears to be comprised of female hormones, and there have been warnings by many mem 756 bers of the medical profession that the caponising of cockerels by this method, and the consumption of these feminine hormones by human beings, might ultimately have the effect of caponising human beings. As one who does not want to be confronted with that fate, I ask my noble friend whether it is wise that we should in future prohibit the caponising of these birds by surgical operation, and thus compel the breeders of poultry to resort to this other and somewhat doubtful expedient.

LORD DE CLIFFORD
My Lords, one welcomes these Welfare of Livestock Regulations. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to whom I wrote on the subject of pheasants and ducks, which I understand are not involved in these Regulations. I cannot comprehend, if it is essential to stop the nicking of the end joint of poultry, why it should equally not be stopped on pheasants, partridges, ducks, et cetera. There is a considerable amount of this nicking of the ends of the wings of ducks, particularly of rare breed ducks. I would only ask whether at some future time it might be possible to include the mutilation of all forms of birds within the scope of these Regulations.

§ LORD SOMERS
My Lords, I do not want to ask any questions, but may I just say a word of thanks to the Government for having introduced these Regulations which are a good step in the right direction. As your Lordships know, I have campaigned on this subject for some little time and I am most grateful that some result has appeared, since these Regulations are mandatory and will have a great deal more effect than the codes have had in the past.

§ LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN
My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here to hear the explanation of the noble Lord about these Regulations, but I should like to express my gratitude to him for bringing them forward now. They make a significant advance in the conditions under which animals will be kept. I remember with horror some of the experiences I had as a boy on Welsh farms, when animals seemed to me even then to be unnecessary mutilated. We are very grateful indeed to the noble Lord and to the Government for bringing in these Regulations.

§ LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, I am very grateful to the House for the welcome it has given to these Regulations, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who spoke with all his great wealth of experience. I am glad he endorsed what I said in my speech, that these malpractices are indulged in by only a minority of people. Indeed, as he pointed out, of over 4,000 farms only 36 were found to be below standard. We are grateful to him, speaking for the Opposition, for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, of the Liberal Party, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord De Clifford, also welcomed part of the Regulations. He mentioned the question of game birds. As he said, he wrote to me about this subject in advance. I gave him some information, but I know he would like me to develop that a little.
The Draft Regulations really apply only to animals or birds which are livestock for the time being situated on agricultural land within the meaning of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. In general, this means animals or birds kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur, on land used for agriculture for the purposes of a trade or business whether a farm in a rural area or an intensive livestock unit in an urban area. The Draft Regulations would not apply to animals kept for the production of meat, milk or eggs for private domestic consumption; nor would they apply to game birds reared on farms solely for sporting purposes, nor to ornamental fowl. As the House will be aware, an authoritative interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts, but we consider that game birds reared solely for sporting purposes would not be held to be livestock for the purposes of the Draft Regulations. Game birds reared as laying stock which after producing eggs for hatching are fattened and killed for human consumption might, however, be held to be kept for food production and thus to be "livestock". A definite ruling on these points could of course be given only by the courts, but may I remind the House that the 758 animal or the bird could also have the additional protection of the Protection of Animals Acts of 1911 to 1964, which make it an offence to cause suffering to any animals.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland raised the question of the castration of poultry, or capons as they are usually known. He said that people might be deprived of enjoying these birds at the table, and he gave the impression, I thought, that they were fairly widely bought. I understand that the surgical castration of poultry is not much practised in this country as it is uneconomic. It is of course practised in France, but I am informed that even there this is done only in the smaller and more remote farms and is gradually dying out. It has been superseded by chemical caponisation and by the production by means of special diets of birds similar to capons. The noble Lord raised an interesting point about the effects that some of these practices might have on people consuming poultry in future. I am informed that table birds of high quality similar in carcase characteristics to capons can now be produced by feeding a high-energy, low-protein diet so that the birds lay down fat. The increased growth rate makes it possible to market such birds before they have developed the secondary sexual characteristics which caponisation or castration would he intended to suppress. I hope that that explanation gives the noble Lord the answer he wants, and I beg to commend the first Regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper.