HL Deb 20 December 1982 vol 437 cc898-909

5.57 p.m.

Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th November 1982 be approved.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that in addition to these regulations there are three other associated items on the Order Paper which your Lordships may find it would be convenient to speak to at the same time. They are the draft Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1982; the proposed alterations to the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, No. 1 (Cattle); and the proposed alterations to the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, No. 2 (Pigs). I have also placed in the Library of the House for your Lordships' information copies of the existing codes; the complete texts of the proposed new codes, as it is only the alterations which are laid on the Table; the introduction which Ministers propose to include in the printed texts of the new codes; and the report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council on which the regulations are based.

In 1976 the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons reported on certain mutilations on farm animals, which inspired the Farm Animal Welfare Council in the summer of 1981 to publish advice on which Ministers, after consultation, have based their proposals for further regulations. The Government undertook, in their manifesto, to update the animal welfare codes which were first introduced in 1969, following the Brambell Committee Report. The codes were revised in 1971, when I then had the pleasure of introducing the debate in this House. We are grateful to the Farm Animal Welfare Council for the hard work which went into their advice on revisions to the codes, on which we consulted a very wide range of interests before formulating the proposals which are the subject of your Lordships' consideration today.

Consultations on the new regulations and the proposed code revisions produced some controversial points on which the council's further advice was sought. With regard to the two regulations, your Lordships will see that both of them consolidate earlier regulations, and amend them. The new provisions in the Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) Regulations prohibit certain procedures, most of which are, so far as we know, rarely if ever undertaken. The new provisions in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order have the effect of reducing the age above which a layman may not castrate an animal; of introducing limitations on the age above which laymen may desnood turkeys, remove the combs of poultry, cut the toes of domestic fowls or turkeys and remove the supernumerary teats of calves; and of prohibiting the carrying out by laymen of vasectomy, electro-ejaculation and most dehorning or disbudding of sheep and goats.

These proposals have proved rather less controversial than the welfare codes to which I shall refer shortly. I must, nevertheless, draw attention to the most controversial point in these two regulations. In its original published advice, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that the present ages above which castration must be carrried out by a veterinary surgeon using an anaesthetic—which currently vary by species—should be harmonised downwards to the present minimum of two months. This proposal was criticised on behalf of hill sheep farmers as unreasonably restrictive because it could mean that farmers would have to collect sheep from the hills more than once in the season in order to castrate the lambs. I must tell your Lordships that, although the Farm Animal Welfare Council has maintained its original recommendation, Ministers have decided that laymen should continue to be able to castrate sheep up to three months of age, and the draft regulations provide that this should be so.

I should like now to refer to the welfare codes. These are intended to encourage stock-keepers to adopt the highest standards of husbandry. Since the last revision in 1971, much more information has been gathered from practical experience and scientific knowledge, and this has enabled the new recommendations to be more specific and more helpful than in the previous codes.

I am bound to tell your Lordships that the contents of these revised codes, and particularly of the revised pigs code, are not without controversy. Some argue, on the one hand, that certain existing systems should be more explicitly condemned and that certain provisions of the code should be converted into mandatory regulations. On the other hand, it has been argued to us that the pigs code overstates the arguments against sow stalls and sow tethers, that it ignores some of the advantages of the early weaning of pigs, and that it overstates the desirability of straw bedding. We have given very careful consideration to all these controversial matters, and in some cases we have asked the Farm Animal Welfare Council for further advice. That further advice is reflected in the proposed alterations which are now before your Lordships. I am satisfied that the proposed new codes are balanced and reasonable in the light of all the information which is available.

Your Lordships will see that the revised codes will be substantially longer than the present ones. Some of the changes are largely textual, although many are substantive. I believe that it would not meet with the whole-hearted approval of your Lordships if I were to go through each of them individually. I shall, of course, be happy to answer any specific points which your Lordships may raise.

As in the past, we propose to issue printed versions of the revised codes to all keepers of cattle and pigs. I might say that the printing and the dissemination of the codes is neither a cheap nor a simple operation, and it will be two or three months after parliamentary approval has been given before we are able to issue the full texts. But I hope that, when they are issued, all concerned with livestock will read them diligently and will take due note of all the carefully considered recommendations in them. We also plan, at the same time, to inform stock-keepers of the new regulations.

The documents before the House this evening reflect several years' work by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and its predecessor. I should like to pay a tribute to the careful consideration which the council has given to this task which was laid upon it by Ministers. Its members give up much time to the council's work, and both the Government and Parliament are indebted to them for the work which they do. But I am not today merely presenting the work of an advisory body. Ministers, too, have given careful consideration to all the contentious issues, and they have concluded that the documents before the House today represent a balanced view, taking account of all the relevant information. I commend them to the House, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th November 1982 be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)

6.6 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, we are all obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the well-documented way in which he has put these matters across to us and has saved us the pain of going through the long operation of dealing with all the codes of practice which are second, third and fourth on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may look first at the first two orders. I am sure we would all agree with some of the operations that are forbidden in the first order. On the question of the second order, the noble Earl admits that the Government gave way on the question of the three-month limit for lambs. I am therefore surprised that a dog may be castrated at six months; that seems to me to be rather old for a dog to be castrated. I have no particular knowledge of dogs, but I wonder why it may be left so long.

In respect of operations which can be carried out by trained persons, does the noble Earl have any knowledge or information about the question of anaesthetising animals by the use of electric shocks? Two or three years ago there was a lot of publicity about this. It was used in several countries abroad but was refused permission in this country until research was undertaken. I believe this method would make trained operators very much better at their jobs if this could be used as a form of anaesthetic when operations are taking place.

When one comes to the codes of practice for cattle and pigs, I well remember putting these through the House along with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in 1969. We made a promise then that the matter would be reviewed. The noble Earl said the codes were revised, but I know not whether they were reviewed; I presume that they were reviewed before they were revised in 1971. It would appear that this is the only revision since then, which leads me to think that the codes have worked pretty well up until now. It is rather intriguing that the present Government should alter the name of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to the Farm Animal Welfare Council and appoint to it the same people. Is there any mystique about the use of the word "Council" rather than the word "Committee"? Does the body have any more powers? What was the reason for that change of name?

One matter in the codes of practice which I found particularly interesting was that much more emphasis is to be placed on the question of fire in farm buildings where animals are kept. I have suffered two very bad experiences of farm fires in which many animals were killed, and it was a sobering experience. One of the fires, which was in a calf house, was created by the ventilating fan fusing—at least, that is what the fire bridgade assumed happened. In the code, emphasis is placed on the fact that such appliances should be carefully checked, et cetera. It would be better if we could follow the advice given by the Farm Buildings Advisory Service in Aberdeen, where they have tried to persuade farmers that natural ventilation is much better than mechanical ventilation. If one can do that, one can do away with mechanical ventilation, then there is no danger of mechanical appliances going wrong. There is also an emphasis on the use of straw. I personally prefer the use of straw as bedding. I do not like slats or hard concrete, which is very bad for the feet of cattle, and I believe that the use of straw bedding should be encouraged, although I know that it creates a lot of work and, again, it is a fire risk. Something else that would help farmers is steel or concrete buildings, but in my opinion there is nothing better for stock than wooden buildings. They are far kinder in every way, although there is a fire risk there, too.

The codes also emphasise the importance of stockmanship, and this is most important. But if I showed some of the remarks made in the report to my stockman, he would tell me where to get off; some of the remarks are slightly naïve. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, agrees with me—he was quoting one to me the other day.

On the question of tethered animals, I started farming in Aberdeenshire way back in the mid-1920s, and practically all the feeding cattle there were tied by their necks from the beginning of October until the middle of April. They were fed in stalls and never loosed out at all. A lot of cattle in these areas are still tethered in that way. To suggest that they should be let loose daily to exercise, to quote someone in another place, would be to create an absolute rodeo before one could get them back and their loss of condition would be appalling. I think these are the sort of statements that should be very carefully considered before it is suggested that such things should be done.

On the question of pigs, some stalls I know do not look well and I am not particularly keen on them myself, but I was in Denmark many years ago and saw some tethered sows on straw. I do not think I have ever seen anything that looked so comfortable or well controlled as those, so I think one should be careful about condemning tethered sows on straw. On the castration of pigs, we have a lot of prejudice to get over here before butchers will accept non-castrated pigs unless they are quite young. There are experiments to show that they fatten much quicker; if that is the case and the prejudice could be got over we could save a certain amount of work and a certain amount of cruelty.

On the question of early weaning, I think that is a difficult one. After all, the research stations in animal welfare produce early weaning techniques, and the advisory service have been pushing it for quite a long time; it would be very difficult now suddenly to stop and say that it is not a system that we can recommend. I do not know the proportion of pigs that are early weaned, but it must be very large, almost approaching 50 per cent. So there is some difficulty in putting that forward.

I think that is all I have to say. These codes are very necessary in many ways. Of course, they are not mandatory, they are for advice and instruction, and of course can be used to prosecute people in cases of cruelty. Apart from the remarks I have made, we give them our blessing.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I have one query on the vet code, if I may call it that, and one on the pigs code, and a general point concerning all the welfare codes. As far as the veterinary code is concerned, I am still worried, despite the very helpful remarks of my noble friend, about Part II(a)(iii), which forbids the farmer to castrate rams over three months old. This will cause trouble in the hills, where rams are often not brought in until they are four or five months old. I would have preferred five months as the maximum in the hills. The same proviso applies to bull calves, with the harsher restriction of two months. I must say I am curious as to why, although a farmer may dehorn a bullock himself under anaesthetic, under paragraph (h) he cannot do likewise to a sheep or goat. I fear that the temptation to break this law will be very great, and as breaking the law is something my noble friend would not want to encourage I would have liked to see this relaxed a little.

As far as the pig code is concerned, I have doubts about the new Section 44,which encourages farmers to wean at or after three weeks. I am not a pig farmer, but my relations are and I have spoken to them at length about this. Many now, with the new foods, wean earlier than three weeks. Provided it is done correctly, there are benefits, and no distress is caused to the piglets. It comes back to the point of good stockmanship and management, which cannot be satisfactorily quantified in a welfare code.

This brings me to my general points on the codes. The first point is that I hope ADAS will not be encour- aged or forced to advise farmers to abide by them when it is obvious, for instance, in the case I have just quoted of pigs, that the advice given to that particular farmer should be contrary, or perhaps should I say parallel, to the code. This is a very important point because it is vitally important for ADAS to maintain their very well respected, admired and independent help to the farmer.

I should like to finish by making it quite clear that I have no objection at all to these welfare codes. Indeed, a great deal of work is put into them by those who serve on the council, and, indeed, as my noble friend pointed out, by the Ministry themselves. But I hope that they will be very careful to stick to the intensive side of rearing the livestock, where in my opinion, the greatest risk to livestock welfare occurs. I say this because some noble Lords may remember that a few years back, at this time of year, we discussed the sheep code. It was, and is in my opinion, a totally ridiculous code. Many of your Lordships would have liked to send it back. This apparently was, and indeed today is, against the accepted practice of the House. Indeed, as I understand it, we cannot even amend a word of this code. I have to admit that I wonder what we are doing talking about it if we cannot do anything about it, but perhaps I am a little too cynical. In any event, I hope my noble friend will make sure that stupid and ridiculous codes, such as I and the House thought was the one on sheep, do not come before your Lordships again, because I would hate to see my noble friend put into the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was put into a few years back. Apart from that, I welcome the codes.

6.18 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I wish to begin by making a protest about our business. I did this last week in connection with the important question of the Commonwealth Development Corporation being spatchcocked into the supper interval. Now. tonight, we have this important collection of draft orders and we are under pressure, because for a very well understood reason the House wishes to rise a little early. But why cannot we have proper time in which to discuss these important matters? This House sits only four days a week; the other place sits five. Why cannot we have a five-day week, if that is necessary in order to discharge our business in reasonable conditions and with reasonable time? The other place spent the whole of Friday discussing the report of the Select Committee which is associated with these draft orders. Here we are, for the first time for years, considering draft orders which update (the in-word of today) the codes and regulations that were introduced a decade or so ago. I do not think it is fair on the House, and it is not fair on those of us who do a lot of work on these matters and spend our private time, our weekend time, trying to master subjects, to be told when we get here, "Can you be brief?". I let it pass at that.

These draft codes contain very important changes. I think it is right that they should receive reasonable consideration. First of all, I take the one dealing with the prevention of cruelty, the Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) Regulations. One looks at the explanatory note to see what are the new listed prohibitions under the regulations. I will not read them out; they are all pretty horrible. But I am rather surprised to see that the debeaking of poultry is not included. I think this is a horrible mutilation of poultry, and those who have seen the television programmes recently must be quite disgusted at seeing poultry pushed against a hot implement to mutilate their beaks. First of all you create the conditions under which cannibalism is almost unavoidable and then you mutilate their beaks so that they will not peck each other to pieces.

I notice that devoicing of cockerels is now a prohibited operation. Tongue amputation in calves is now prohibited, except under the exemption terms provided for in the regulations. I am horrified that these practices have been permitted for so long. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with living material which goes to make up the nation's food. Indifference about the conditions under which this living material is born, bred, fed, overfed, slaughtered and put into the shops is something in which members of the public should take a close interest.

I next want to say something about the draft codes. Here my noble friend Lord John-Mackie referred to fire. The time has come to translate some items in the codes into regulations. Fire precautions is certainly one of them. Your Lordships will notice in paragraph 20, and the following paragraphs on page 5 relating to cattle, all the good advice about fire precautions, emergency steps to be taken in case of fire, and so on. But there is no mandatory stipulation about fire precautions. It is astonishing that the agricultural industry has gone all this time without compulsory fire precautions, fire drill, and the rest of it, while in industry, boarding houses and hotels, fire precautions are insisted upon in greater and greater detail. Is it because human lives are at risk in the one case and only animals in the other? I wonder why this is? I wonder what the insurers have to say in some of these cases? That would be interesting to know.

Our farming industry is no longer a group of amateurs, and impoverished amateurs at that. Farming is big industry, and is treating living creatures as machines. But they are still living creatures, and all the humane care that can reasonably be given should be available to them. There is no insistence in the code, because we do not have regulations, on steps to be taken to meet interruption of essential supplies. We read of the dreadful conditions that can arise in farms and intensive husbandry units when there is failure of electricity, strikes, or interruption of supplies through one cause or another. Here again, it seems to me that in most cases emergency supplies and supplementary power should be available in the case of larger units, or emergency steps to be taken by manual effort. At least, comprehensively, some provision should be made for emergencies where living animals and birds are involved.

I was in the Cabinet at the time the original code was introduced by a Labour Government following the Brambell Report. I much regret now, in hindsight, that we were too timid in dealing with the problem, which could then have been dealt with more firmly, to the better advantage of the agricultural industry and of the animals and birds concerned. Conditions at that time made it difficult to impose upon the industries concerned the stricter conditions for keeping livestock. I think it is a pity we did not. We need the identification of problems of livestock care and treatment well in advance of the investment of large amounts of capital in equipment, in buildings and staff to deal with them. That is why it is always a great drawback if one leaves these tendencies to grow and become firmly established before dealing with some of the problems that are almost certain to arise. Undoubtedly intensive husbandry was one such problem that ought to have been seen much earlier. Its potential for difficulties and hardship for animals, and all the other problems we have had, should have been identified much earlier.

I regret that I must ask the Minister to deal with a matter of apparent detail, but which appears to be of considerable importance—that is, the amount of space allowed to animals. I refer to paragraph 33 and so on, on page 9. I am dealing with the cattle code. In the debate that took place in another place on 19th November the Minister said: The use of crates"— I am dealing with calves and crated animals— has rapidly declined in favour of loose housing systems and it is estimated that about 90 per cent. of systems for raising veal do not use such crates. There will shortly be new codes saying that the width of the pen for a single penned animal should not be less than the animal's height at the withers, and that effectively rules out crates."—[Official Report. Commons. 19/11/82: col. 551.] That was what the Minister said, but it was not challenged throughout the rest of the debate. There seem to be grounds for doubting whether that rather sweeping statement by the Minister is correct.

First, it would be of interest to ordinary people to know what is the difference between the old regulation and the new regarding the width of a pen. The old regulations say that the width of a pen for a single penned animal should not be less than the height of the animal at the shoulder. The proposed new code is that the width of the pen for a single penned animal should not be less than the height of the animal at the withers. So it is important to know the difference between the height at the shoulder and the height at the withers We all have a petty good idea of what is the shoulder of an animal, but probably not everyone understands what are, or is, the withers of an animal. We ought to know the difference. It must have been measured. The shoulder measurement is one thing, the measurement to the ridge between the shoulder blades of an animal is another. What is the difference between the two. Is it in inches? If so, how many?

The information I get about the falling off in the use of crates is that 40 per cent. of veal calves are raised in straw yards, 10 per cent. in the old type of crate, and 50 per cent. in the slightly wider crates which are, I am informed, 27 inches wide instead of 23 inches wide. The NFU figures appear to be 50 per cent. in single pens and 50 per cent. in straw yards. Is the single pen a larger crate under the new regulations than the old crate? Before sweeping statements are made that crates are going out, we want to know whether crates are still in, and are probably going to stay in indefinitely, even though they might be a little larger than the old ones. Therefore, I ask the Minister to kindly throw a little light on this subject. It is important to know, because the rearing of calves in crates has undoubtedly disturbed the public who have witnessed recent television programmes.

There is another interesting comparison between the old regulations and the new regulations. I quote from page 10 of the cattle code dealing with food and water. The old code says: Whatever feeding system is adopted, all cattle should receive a daily diet which is nutritionally adequate to maintain health". The new code says: Whatever feeding system is adopted, all cattle should receive a daily diet which is adequate to maintain full health and vigour". However, we find that there is a reference in the code to the need to include an adequate supply of iron in the diet of veal calves. I think I am entitled to ask whether we are going to have veal calves in the same anaemic condition under the new regulations as we have at present. How long is this fad for white veal going to dominate the veal production in this country? It is absolutely disgraceful that calves should be artificially fed in order to produce a certain type of meat which means that in many cases—in most cases—they get no solid food for the whole of their lives.

I feel very much under pressure as regards time, but I can relieve the Minister of one matter that I had proposed to raise, and that is about the composition of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I am much obliged to him for having sent me a note about that, and there is no need for me to pursue it. I wish to join in the thanks to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It is very easy indeed for us to take their work for granted. I know how disappointing and discouraging it is when you sit on these advisory committees and find that the Government may not really be wanting your advice at all or at least if they do, they do not heed a lot of it. That often gives rise to disenchantment and despair.

In conclusion, I want to express the hope that the veterinary profession will take a very positive stand on matters concerning the care and treatment of animals. I know that it look the medical doctors a long time to become the exponents of health and health care, and adopt a line of social responsibility as well as purely medical proficiency. The veterinary profession should be encouraged to assert their ethical standards as well as their professional advice. I am glad to see that steps are being taken in the veterinary profession to encourage, through the creation of a new animal care trust, the development and the promotion of the welfare of all animals.

I shall leave the matter there. There are other matters that could be raised probably by other noble Lords who may now feel constrained to say nothing. To them I apologise for having taken 16 minutes of the time of the House.

Several noble Lords

"Hear, hear".

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

Yes, my Lords, I know that noble Lords can say, "Hear, hear", but so far the debate has been conducted by farmers about farming. However, now and again, a layman has a point of view on these matters and I claim the right in your Lordships' House to express it.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I shall take about three minutes. I simply want to say, as somebody who for many years represented thousands—not hundreds—of hill farmers, that one must not imagine (if a long conversation is going to take place down there it will make my three minutes four!) that the small hill farmer, particularly above the 600 ft. contour, is not concerned with animal welfare. The health of his animals and the health of his farm stock is an important factor in his income. It is a fool of a farmer who does anything that would in the main be destructive to the health and welfare of these, in many cases, small herds of cattle or the few pigs that he may own.

Secondly, I should like to point out that the National Farmers' Union has briefed a number of us and there is a point in the speech made by my noble friend who has just sat down. We should like at some time an opportunity in this House for a full debate on the agricultural problem. I am quite sure that given the circumstances, through the usual channels, we shall get it. Consequently. I do not want to raise points just for the sake of it this evening.

However, before I sit down—and I promise to sit down in three minutes—I should like to thank the Ministry and all of those who prepared for Members of this House a full brief. It has taken hours of reading and its is of great importance as regards the understanding of the hard work that has been done by the Ministry to try to get a code of welfare for the animals which is at least an improvement and of which the direction, I am sure, partly pleases my noble friend who has just spoken.

However, there is another factor. The growing spread of city life, the growing urbanisation of England, is a factor which in many cases makes farming very difficult. I am thinking especially of the worrying of sheep by dogs from large villages that develop in and near the farming belt. Also there are huge roads that are now being pounded to death by lorries and tremendous tension can build up in animals that are near the continuing rush of lorries. Does that have an effect? I do not know. In the early years of road building that argument was put forward. We must protect our small farming areas, and the Ministry should be careful—indeed it is careful—in its protest to ensure that not too much of our farmland is given up to the building of great roadways.

I promised to speak for three minutes and three minutes is on the clock. Rather than irritate the House this evening—I shall do so on another occasion if we can have a full debate—I shall sit down and thank the Ministry for supplying us with such full notes for our debate.

6.38 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, on having congratulated the Ministry—for which I respond with gratitude —and also on his masterly brevity. I shall try to do the same, but I am not quite certain whether I shall have the success which he achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has voiced that quite correct concern which we know he feels about the welfare of animals. It is a concern about which he feels very strongly and he is quite right to remind the House of it. I hope that he did not feel unduly curtailed by the circumstances.

I think that the noble Lord will agree that there have been great changes over the last few years as regards the consciousness of people, whether farmers or others, about the way in which livestock are kept. It is quite right that, in this era of intensification, we should all be reminded of the need to take care of how the stock are kept. Since the last introduction of the codes, there have been very considerable improvements and considerably more knowledge has been achieved, which has found its way into the codes. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said that the code for sheep was a ridiculous code. That is a point of view, but I hope he does not feel that too strongly over that code or any other because they sometimes say the obvious: because they say the obvious, that does not mean that they are ridiculous.

The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked why it was that cats and dogs were permitted to be castrated up to six months and other animals only up to two months, save sheep, as regards, which it is up to three months. The new regulations before us today deal only with the proposals for changes in the law as it affects farm animals, and, therefore, that part of the Act to which the regulations refer remains the same other than where it relates to farm animals. Any proposals in relation to cats and dogs would, of course, be considered by the agriculture Ministers in the light of any future changes in the 1966 Act.

The noble Lord asked about electric shock treatment and anaesthesia that results from it, As far as I know, there is no commercial use of electro-immobilising equipment taking place in this country. If it is used, it would be subject to the basic regulation which prohibits the causing of unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to farm animals. Research into the principle of this is recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and it is under consideration.

The noble Lord tweaked me as to the difference between the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The difference is that the latter, the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, was only an advisory body This is a new council. It has not only the same members as it had before, but it has 11 additional members, and its remit was widened to cover the welfare at markets, during transport and at slaughter. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, unlike its predecessor, is free to make its views public.

My noble friend Lord Stanley referred to the early weaning of pigs and to what ADAS was going to do about this. The ADAS advisers are, of course, expected to take full account of the codes in advising farmers, but, as my noble friend will realise, codes are recommendations and are not law. The relevant offence is the causing of unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress, and it is only if that exists that the codes become legally relevant.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to debeaking. The welfare code for domestic fowls advises that beak trimming should be carried out only as a last resort, and that where an outbreak of vice occurs it should be tackled immediately by appropriate changes in the system of management. Although beak trimming is pretty undesirable, and therefore not advised, the noble Lord will agree, to use his own words, that when the birds peck each other to death that is a pretty disagreeable form of exercise, too. Therefore, the codes recommend that, first, you should change the management and, secondly——

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I did not get as far as death; I think I said, "peck each other to pieces".

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that is a great deal worse than death, but let that be as it may. The noble Lord also referred to fire precautions. The new codes will contain much more about fire precautions than did the previous ones. The noble Lord also asked about veal calves. The veal crate system was much criticised some years ago and it has declined in significance over recent years with the adoption both of wider individual pens and of group housing systems. Paragraph 35 of the proposed new code will repeat the provisions in the present code, that individual pens, where used, should be as wide as the height of the animals at the withers. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that the previous code referred to the shoulders. He asked, "What on earth is the difference between the two?". In the standing animal the height to the withers is measured from the ground to the prominence at the base of the upper border of the neck, and this is a greater distance than that from the ground to the shoulder. So there is marginally an improvement.

I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has voiced his concern, and he is right to do so. I appreciate the fact that, on the whole, other noble Lords have welcomed these codes. I am sure that they will encourage farmers to look after their animals better, and to take more care of them. It is not naïve or silly to put the most elementary things in codes, because it is the code which determines how animals ought to be kept. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will approve these regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.