Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 6: After Clause 8, insert the following new clause- ““GAME BIRDS (1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, establish a code of practice for the keeping of game birds within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed. (2) The code shall specify for different species of game bird- (a) a minimum spacing requirement per bird for enclosures in which any game bird is kept for the purpose of producing eggs, (b) a maximum length of time for which game birds are to be kept in a laying pen, and (c) a minimum spacing requirement per bird for enclosure in which any game bird is kept for purposes other than producing eggs.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns an entirely different area of animal keeping and I return to the keeping of game birds for egg production, which I raised in Committee. As I explained then, I am of course aware that there are strict regulations in place specifying the minimum size of cages for chickens for egg laying production. The European prohibition of conventional battery cages for egg laying hens is due to come into force in 2012, under Council Directive 1999/74. However, there are no binding specifications for cages for game birds. Although these birds are brought in from the wild and then kept for egg production—albeit for a limited period of time—there is still no reason why there should be such a double standard for the conditions in which they are kept. When I raised this issue in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said: "““We share the concerns of the League Against Cruel Sports, Animal Aid and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation over the use of caged systems, and want to ensure that anything used to house game birds provides appropriate welfare for the birds””.—[Official Report, 24/5/06; col. GC 214.]" I thank her for that statement. I am sure that the Minister and his team will have had further discussions about this issue and I hope that a statement will be forthcoming today. If welfare is at the core of the Bill at Clause 9 but the battery cages for game birds fail to meet its requirements on several counts, it would be very unfortunate. Here again we are slightly in the territory that lies between what is a farmed animal and what is a wild animal. For example, the normal behaviour patterns in pheasants include flight and running territorially and, obviously, those are all severely curtailed by cages. Pain, injury, disease and suffering are all the more likely in battery cages and all kinds of abnormal behaviour might be caused by them. I have slightly adapted the amendment I tabled in Committee so that Amendment No. 6 is more in line with the wishes of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. He said in Committee that I was trying to put something specific in the Bill and that, "““if by doing so she is ensuring that government powers are to be circumscribed in this area, on these Benches we would have rather more sympathy with that effort””.—[Official Report, 24/5/06; col. GC 213.]" I hope that the amendment will now satisfy a little more the requirements of the noble Duke. I have tabled the amendment so that I might ask the Minister some very specific questions in order to throw light on his discussions on this very important topic. Has his department looked at the Danish law on minimum spacing for game birds in egg production? Can he confirm that the last outbreak of Newcastle disease in the south of England was from caged birds? How many game farmers who use cages are not members of the Game Farmers’ Association? Which does he think is the better system—open flock pens or battery cages? Will he rule out reference to the Farm Animal Welfare Council by the working group as, of course, game birds do not count as farmed animals? What information does he have on the length of time partridges are kept in cages? Can he confirm that the only motive for using battery cages is to reduce costs for game farmers and the large commercial shoots? As to that last point, most shoots of course do not use battery cages; most are small businesses using traditional practices and manage the land to the great benefit of biodiversity. I am not addressing here the vast majority of the shooting industry, which I think both economically and environmentally bring large benefits to the countryside; I am addressing only a handful of very large egg producers using battery cages. If that practice spreads, it is likely to bring the industry into disrepute. I beg to move.