HL Deb 07 July 1998 vol 591 cc1167-73

7.41 p.m.

Lord Hoyle rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st May be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House is aware that this country led the way in Europe when in 1990 it banned the close confinement veal calf crate and its associated unsatisfactory dietary regime. We were disappointed that the European Community did not follow our lead when it made its own rules on calf welfare in 1991. The decision to advance the review of these rules at the request of the previous UK administration was therefore welcome. No less so was the outcome. Many of us might have wanted an earlier implementation date for the Europe-wide ban of the veal crate than 31st December 2006, but we can applaud the endorsement of our view that it is a totally unsatisfactory system in which to rear calves.

In many respects the new European legislation resulting from this review confirms the high standards already laid down in the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 or voluntarily adopted by our industry. Our philosophy in drawing up these implementing regulations has been to follow the directive but also to retain where appropriate those standards that go beyond the new EU requirements.

I turn now to the draft regulations. They apply to all calves and not just those intended for veal production. Accommodation requirements are clearly set out for both single penned and group housed calves. In addition to retaining the minimum space allowances which in this country have prevented the use of the veal crate we have improved on the new EU minimum space allowances for group housed calves, reflecting what actually happens on the British farm.

Next, I move to paragraph 15 of the draft regulations. As I indicated, the dietary arrangements associated with the use of the veal crate and permitted by the original EU directive were unsatisfactory. We believe it is important to the welfare of calves that they have a diet with sufficient iron to maintain satisfactory haemoglobin and fibre to stimulate development of the rumen. The standards included in the draft regulations not only implement the provisions which we are pleased to see in the EU directive but also reflect the higher standards which British producers, to their great credit, have already chosen to adopt. The revised directive and therefore these regulations deal with a number of other aspects of calf husbandry such as the provision of bovine colostrum in the first six hours of life, inspection, feeding and the provision of bedding and drinking water. As to the last two, we have again chosen to reflect current industry practice and have included standards higher than the EU minima.

I have left until last the ban on the tethering of calves because I know that it has been of concern to the industry. It is a requirement of the directive that only group housed calves may be tethered and then for no more than one hour when being fed milk or milk substitute. Industry representations have focused on the implications of this requirement for the use of long tethers with outdoor hutches. We have therefore examined it very carefully and checked our interpretation with the EU Commission. This has confirmed beyond doubt that the ban applies to all tethers. Whatever the merits therefore of long tethers, the arguments in their favour are not universally accepted. There are other means of containment. For example, fencing will continue to be permitted. It does not mean that when tethers go, outdoor hutches must go. We recognise that this provision will not be without cost to the industry and a regulatory appraisal has been prepared and placed in the Library of the House.

We have carried out consultation exercises in developing these proposals and have adjusted our proposals where required in the light of these.

Noble Lords have no doubt noted that some parts of the regulations do not come fully into effect before 2004. However, we believe that they are a great step forward.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st May be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hoyle).

7.45 p.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House for a moment to welcome these regulations. They will not please everyone. Many people may prefer to see a more speedy implementation, but they represent a significant step forward. I hope that other member states will emulate the standards that will be applicable in the United Kingdom. The regulations represent a step forward because they confirm that the tethering of calves will end. Many people suspected that that practice would not come to an end in the whole of Europe. Certainly, the regulations make for greater humanity in the containment of calves. Far too many calves are kept in very small spaces. There will be those who say that the regulations do not go far enough. I have some sympathy with that view, but while milk is consumed calves will be produced.

I very much welcome the recognition that the cow is a gregarious creature and calves should not have to spend their lives in solitary confinement. That is an important step forward. My noble friend refers to diet. These regulations represent a very significant step forward in that regard. There are those who want to see the palest meat on their plates, but I do not believe that the deliberate malnutrition of livestock can be justified.

I believe that a word of appreciation should go to those who have been making efforts in Brussels to ensure that this step forward is taken in the EU. I believe that the responsible Ministers deserve a word of appreciation. I trust that the House, in approving these regulations, will bear in mind that commendation.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, from these Benches we very much welcome the regulations. They represent a massive step forward. It is a great pity that the EU-wide ban on the veal crate will come into operation only in the year 2007, which is quite a long way in the future, although this practice has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1990. Once UK exports of beef animals are permitted, we will be sending to EU countries calves that will be able to be placed in veal crates up to 2007. That is a great shame, but this ban is a step forward.

With regard to the other matters dealt with in the regulations, there are grounds for considerable congratulations as well as regrets. The congratulations arise because as usual we in this country have gone further in the welfare of animals than the directive demands. I congratulate Ministers on that. We have done reasonably well in achieving that.

The matter for regret is that the dietary recommendations are weaker in several respects than those of the European Commission's own scientific veterinary committee in its 1995 report. It recommended considerably more roughage than the regulations require. It recommended more dietary iron than our regulations require. It produced evidence to show that the level of dietary iron required by our regulations can cause problems during exercise. It is a pity that we have not gone that much further. I hope that we will not have to wait until 2004 or 2007 before we improve on the regulations. But in so far as the Government have progressed, and have done better than they are forced to do by the EU, we congratulate them.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, I support the measure. Anyone who has seen the methods used in veal rearing will believe that it is long overdue. I believe that it is. I congratulate the Minister on the lucid way in which he introduced the order. It gives us the opportunity to raise one other issue on animal welfare. It concerns the welfare of the horse. I have given notice to the Minister, who I hope will graciously reply briefly to certain points I wish to make.

In the UK, the horse is not treated as livestock in law or by people. It is not used for human consumption. It holds a special place in people's hearts. It is a friend. It is an animal of great beauty. It has given countless pleasure and exciting leisure from the racing world, through the horse shows and trekking to even the little Shetland pony. I suspect that we lavish more money on our horses than on our people.

On the Continent the horse's lot is not so happy. In certain countries, especially the Netherlands and France, it is fashionable and popular to eat horse meat. Importing horse meat from America and the Argentine constitutes a large trade. For the sake of horse meat for human consumption, Brussels is shortly to apply regulations which will ban the use of certain painkilling drugs, commonly used by our vets to treat ailments such as colic and lameness. Such a move will be anathema to the UK, horse lovers and animal welfare in general, especially as we do not eat horse meat and there is no medical evidence to show that such meat has done any harm to humans.

I know that one aspect of this problem will be raised tomorrow, so I shall confine myself to the following short questions. Do the Government have reserve powers to reject a ban on non-MRL drugs in the UK should the EC regulation come into effect? Secondly, can manufacturers of those painkilling drugs rely on a future reduction being legal or will supplies just be cut off? Thirdly, is the EU including in its regulations a ban on foreign imports of horse meat for human consumption from countries which have no control on drugs?

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, I have just one question for my noble friend the Minister. When these regulations are brought into force, what oversight will there be to ensure their implementation?

Baroness Byford

My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the regulations introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I shall reinforce the point he made; that over the years British farmers have led the way in how we look after livestock. Being a former farmer, that comes right from the heart. It is in no one's interests to fail to look after one's animals. I am sure that the regulations will be welcomed by the farming community.

The noble Lord referred to the fact that the previous government initiated the moves in 1990. Like him, we were disappointed that the EU took another year before it agreed to follow our example. We are even more disappointed that the regulations will not be implemented until 2006. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, calves will continue to suffer in the meantime.

The regulations cover accommodation, diet, tethering, group living, space allowance and cleanliness and good management. I have one or two questions for the Minister. I accept that we have laid down different standards from our European colleagues. For example, on room, the directive requires that beasts from 150 kg to 200 kg need 1.7 square metres, whereas the regulations suggest 2 square meters; and for heavier calves the directive requires 1.8 square meters compared to 3 square meters in the regulations. Is not the Minister concerned that we should all be working to the same standard? I accept that our farmers set high standards, but in the long-term welfare interest of animals, do not the Government consider that we should all be working to the higher standards that we have set?

The Minister referred also to diet. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, referred to the sufficiency set down by the EU. The committee considered that the quantity set might not be sufficient.

The Minister spoke about tethering. The regulations have accepted that calves need to be tethered for a period of not more than one hour in order to feed them milk or milk substitute. It is important that tethering be allowed, because even calves bully one another. We do not want calves not to have the chance to feed so we are pleased that tethering will be allowed, but will be for feeding during a limited period only.

On longer-term tethering, there will be a cost implication for farmers. The Minister referred to that. Perhaps he will enlarge on the point when he responds, because he did not specify how those costs would be laid down. The Minister spoke also of trying to encourage the more rapid implementation of some of the regulations. We would obviously welcome that. We appreciate that in this country the regulations will come into force in 2004.

Finally, whatever we do, we want to ensure that our farmers are playing on a level playing field. We do not want them to have greater restrictions so that from a competitive point of view they will find their hands tied behind their backs in comparison to their European colleagues. I do not know whether that is something upon which the Minister would like to comment. In general, we welcome the regulations, as I am sure will our colleagues in the farming industry. Perhaps I may reiterate that British farmers have led the way, and we hope that others will follow more rapidly than they have shown an inclination to do so far.

8 p.m.

Lord Hoyle

My Lords, I am pleased with the welcome that has been given to the measure. Everyone who has spoken looks forward to the phasing out of crates. The only question raised is the length of time. We, too, would like to have seen them phased out earlier, but at least a start has been made and it is coming about.

I welcome the words of appreciation to Ministers from my noble friend Lord Hardy. The regulation applies to all the states of the European Community. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, welcomed certain factors that had occurred. He also asked why we appeared to be lagging behind with regard to recommendations by the European Union Scientific Veterinary Committee. It recommended a minimum level of 100 grammes of roughage per day from two to 15 weeks of age, increasing to 250 grammes from 15 to 26 weeks. Our regulations are compatible with that recommendation. Our regulations additionally require the daily ration to increase in line with the growth of the calf. The Scientific Veterinary Committee commented that it would be better for double the minimum amount of roughage to be fed to calves. We wholeheartedly agree with that view. In practice, our industry provides at least twice that minimum figure.

The noble Lord also asked whether the Scientific Veterinary Committee recommended a higher minimum haemoglobin level. I have to say no. Many studies into provision of adequate iron and the avoidance of anaemia were considered by the Scientific Veterinary Committee. Many of those studies indicated impaired performance and an increased disease susceptibility in calves whose blood haemoglobin concentration was below 4.5 millimols per litre. The Scientific Veterinary Committee therefore recommended that calves be fed sufficient dietary iron to maintain the haemoglobin concentration at a minimum level of 4.5 millimols per litre until slaughter. We believe that we meet that level.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was kind enough to inform me that he would depart from the regulations in speaking about horses. There is to be a Question on the issue tomorrow. In the meantime perhaps I may say this. The answer that we have received in relation to ourselves is that veterinary medicines for which no MRLs are set are not banned under the regulation. As he rightly said, they may not be used on any animal intended for human consumption. However, the Commission has also issued a statement confirming that they may be used on an animal not intended for human consumption. Perhaps I may quote from the statement: It is not the intent of regulatory authorities to deprive veterinarians of the possibility of treating animals. When guarantees can be given that horses will not be consumed, there is no obligation for any form of maximum residue levels". I hope that that sets at rest the fears that noble Earl expressed tonight, and will give him some comfort. I know of his interest in horses.

I have also been asked how the regulations are to be implemented. In this country, the enforcement role will be carried out by the State Veterinary Service. Veterinary inspectors will enforce the regulations by making ad hoc inspections. They will also make additional inspections in response to complaints or allegations of poor welfare or breaches of the regulations. The basis of the SVS policy enforcement will be the same as for other welfare legislation. Advice will be given to rectify minor contraventions, but prosecutions will always be recommended where there is evidence of cruelty, pain or distress. I hope that that reassures the noble Earl.

The noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench raised the subject of higher standards. We have always been ahead in relation to Europe, as she acknowledged. Consultations took place. With regard to consultations on the increased space allowance, we received no adverse comments.

The only question in relation to tethering was the cost to the industry. We estimate a cost of about £78,000. There was another increased cost for the maintenance and provision of fences. We do not believe that the cost will be too damaging to the industry. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness: it is one ban that will come into effect immediately. As I am sure she is aware, it should have been implemented by 1st January 1998. Because of our consultations, we have been late in bringing the measures forward.

We are concerned about a level playing field. We do not believe that these regulations pose an undue burden. That was not indicated in the consultations.

I am pleased with the welcome the regulations have received. Perhaps I may say, finally, that, like all noble Lords in the House, I hope that eventually there will be an end to veal crates. In response to those who asked what will happen when exports are renewed, we cannot ban the export of calves but we hope that increasingly it will not be livestock that is exported but meat and meat processing products. I commend the Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.