| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for responding so fully to these opening amendments. It was important that we sought clarification on them. Her explanation was very full, so I will need to read what she said.
I should have said that Amendment No. 35 was a probing amendment. I was trying to establish exactly what the Government view as being the sort of place in which an animal fight would take place. They take place in different places: fields, barns or anywhere. We raised that amendment in case one had a barn that was used for a fight. I assume that nine-tenths of the barn would be used for ordinary farming practices. I am afraid I do not have great knowledge of bull pits, but I understand that they can be erected fairly quickly and easily. We were trying to define the thinking of the Government on that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I speak without advice. I take the noble Baroness's point that many premises can be used or put up temporarily for this purpose. I understand from conversations in the north of England that there are buildings that have cockpits specifically designed for cockfighting. I see that a Member of the Committee could ask whether this would be the sort of thing one might find in a garage
24 May 2006 : Column GC208
by looking at the underside of a vehicle. If there is anything I can add to help the noble Baroness, I shall write to her.
Baroness Byford: It was not me in a garage at that stage, but it was an example I gave. It could have been in a barn.
I shall not delay the Committee. I am sorry if the noble Baroness thought that we were widening the scope because we want to make sure that this section is as tight as possible in order to end these activities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 39:
"PHEASANTS AND PARTRIDGES
(1) The person responsible for an animal to which this section applies commits an offence if the animal is kept otherwise than in accordance with this section.
(2) An enclosure in which any pheasant is kept for the purpose of producing eggs must be of a kind which provides a minimum of one square metre of floor surface area per bird.
(3) Pheasants shall only be kept in a laying pen described in subsection (2) for up to a maximum of six months in any one year.
(4) After the laying period, pheasants which are not released into the wild must be moved to a separate enclosure which provides a minimum floor surface area of two square metres per bird.
(5) An enclosure in which any partridge is kept for the purpose of producing eggs must—
(a) be of a kind traditionally used for the keeping of partridges (commonly known as a partridge box), and
(b) provide a floor surface area of no less than 0.55 square metres per bird.
(6) Partridges shall only be kept in a box as described in subsection (5) for a maximum of six months in any one year.
(7) After the laying period, partridges which are not released into the wild must be moved to a separate enclosure which provides a minimum floor surface area of one square metre per bird."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 39 relates to the "prevention of harm" section of the Bill and relates to something that is happening in the game-shooting industry. In moving this amendment, I stress the importance of game shooting to rural areas in economic and conservation terms: in farm diversification, the encouragement of wildlife and making good economic use of field margins, small copses and so on. I recognise the importance of the game-shooting industry, and this is a small part of what is happening within it. This matter has been brought to my attention by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has a wide membership within this industry.
4.15 pm
The amendment is designed to address a recent but serious abuse that has crept into the game-shooting industry. It is, after all, an industry that began with the
24 May 2006 : Column GC209
shooting of wild birds and there was never an intention, until extremely recently, that it would become akin to factory farming, using a battery system to rear the next generation of birds. My amendment seeks to provide standards for the housing of laying pheasants and partridges which are kept for egg production.
Few premises would be caught by the amendment because most people in the industry do not use anything that could be called "battery cages" for laying. But where they are used, up to nine female birds could be confined in a small area. The cramped conditions are likely to cause stress in the birds and they prevent the birds from exhibiting their natural behaviour patterns. That is one of the five freedoms that the Bill seeks to promote. They can also lead to all kinds of abhorrent behaviour such as pecking and, in extreme cases, even cannibalism. Feather loss and illness are frequent in battery cages and they have a higher mortality rate. Those are problems which we came across in battery cages used for laying chickens. One of the big success stories of recent years is that in the demand for free-range eggs, battery chickens, through market forces, are being phased out. It would therefore be unfortunate if in another part of the industry they were being phased in.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has come out strongly against the use of battery cages. Its council resolution of March 2005 states that,
"Battery-type cage laying systems for pheasants and partridges are incompatible with the values of BASC and the future of game shooting".
The association then makes a number of points about what the game-shooting industry should be about and what its members strongly feel. It is most concerned that the use of battery cages could bring the industry into disrepute, which would be most unfortunate.
Anticipating the Minister's reply, he might say that a further study is needed to examine exactly what size of cage is reasonable for a pheasant or a partridge, given the five freedoms that we have discussed. However, I am looking for a statement from him that a battery system is not acceptable. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: Given that the Bill is primarily enabling, it would seem contrary to its purposes to make specific provisions on the face of it, particularly when issues are to be dealt with under approved codes of practice. Furthermore, the Government have made clear that they intend to introduce a code of practice for the welfare of game birds.
I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has raised an important issue and I condemn any improper rearing practices. Moreover, I appreciate her comments about gamekeepers. Too often, in my view, they are castigated as being inappropriate in the countryside, but those of us who have dealings with shoots and gamekeepers in rural areas know only too well the important contribution they make to conservation and biodiversity.
The noble Baroness mentioned that BASC has taken it upon itself to raise this issue. However, my information is that it has done so unilaterally, without
24 May 2006 : Column GC210
consulting the other organisations involved. That is regrettable, because if proper consultation had been allowed to take place, these problems could have been resolved. I declare an interest as president of the Game Conservancy Trust. It, together with the CLA, the National Gamekeepers' Association and, perhaps most importantly in this instance the Game Farmers' Association, feels that research needs to be done on this matter and has specifically come forward with the recommendation that it should be referred to the Farm Animal Welfare Council to look not just at rearing density but at raised laying units.
We must also bear in mind that raised laying hens are used extensively abroad. I do not have the exact figures, but I know that a high percentage of the reared game birds released in this country are imported. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will by now be aware of my concerns on imported stock coming into this country which do not match the standards imposed on our own producers. I suspect that import controls on game birds coming into this country are unlikely to be imposed under the EU and WTO rules. No doubt the Minister will give me some guidance on that. We could therefore have the unsatisfactory situation in which controls are imposed on our farmers and game rearers—I thoroughly endorse such moves if they are appropriate—but it would be ridiculous if imports could come in from abroad which did not comply with the same rules. I hope therefore that the Government will resist the amendment and allow proper research to be carried out. It will go some way to determining the nature of the relevant codes of practice.
Finally, under Clause 12 which deals with regulations to promote welfare, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has an amendment which will ensure that regulations made under subsection (1) shall be made on the basis of scientific evidence. I thoroughly endorse that proposal, but I believe that it should apply also to the rearing conditions of game birds. I hope that the Minister will resist that and rely on research that will ultimately determine the problem.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |