Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the instrument. We fully support the aim of ending beak-trimming and the general desire across government to do so. As the Minister explained, without this instrument the ban would legally have come into force although, given the difficulties, I imagine that even had there not been a change of Government we would have been in a similar situation, particularly given the responses to the consultation that the previous Government held earlier this year. There is the difficult equation of balancing a possible deterioration in animal welfare standards by not continuing with the derogation and the concern that changing the system at this point could have meant that we would have had extra imports coming in from countries with lower welfare standards. I can therefore see some of the difficulties that were involved in calculating how to take this issue forward for the future and, for that reason, I understand the action that the Government are proposing in these regulations. As the Minister said, however, there is considerable public and parliamentary interest in this issue. That is not surprising because there is a strong degree of commitment to animal welfare among the public and in Parliament and to seeing increased animal welfare standards for the future. Certainly, that concern was reflected in an Early Day Motion in the other House, which was proposed by a Conservative but endorsed by Members from many parties, particularly my own. Their desire is that beak-trimming should be brought to an end as soon as practicable. Indeed, that underlines the idea of creating some kind of deadline for this to happen, which the Government have done in deciding on the review period and the ban date as the Minister outlined to us. Obviously, 2016 is some time off. I am not trying to make a party-political point because I know that the process has already been a long one. None the less, if there are any other ways of trying to shorten the timetable I would certainly encourage the Government look at them. One aspect of the work that needs to be undertaken between now and then is the study tour of EU and other European countries that do not have beak- trimming. I would have thought that that work could start soon and I understand that it will be proceeded with expeditiously. I understand what the Minister said about the three-year research project. That obviously takes us to some time in the future. However, having said that, I certainly hope that at the very least the timetable that has been set out can be adhered to. I do not know whether the Government considered putting the deadlines in the regulations, but I hope that it will be made very clear that this is the deadline to which the Government are working. It would not be good for a signal to be sent out that nothing much will be happening immediately so therefore people do not need to worry about it. That has been a problem in the past and we do not want it to be a problem in the future. On another issue, I strongly support what the Minister said in terms of favouring the infra-red method as opposed to the hot-blade method. As he said, 95 per cent of production is subject to the infra-red method. However, the regulations say that in the case of a sudden outbreak, it would be possible to use the hot-blade procedure. I understand from the debate that took place in the other House that such emergencies have not occurred recently. None the less, I note that the British Veterinary Association, in its response to the Government, is concerned that the regulations could be interpreted as allowing the arbitrary use of hot-blade beak-trimming after 10 days to control moderate or even minor outbreaks of injurious pecking. The association felt that in order to counteract that, the term ““emergency”” should be more clearly defined. Has consideration been given to that as a way forward? Or is it that, as was described in the other House, the concerns of the British Veterinary Association are not causing too much worry to the Government at present because this procedure is not really being used at the moment? The regulations state that holdings with fewer than 350 birds are exempt from the regulations. I would like to ask the Minister a little more about that. Why should not the infra-red technique be prescribed for those holdings as well? I do not know whether there is routing beak-trimming in holdings with fewer than 350 birdsI note that in the debate in the other place the Minister said that such holdings would in any case be covered under the Animal Welfare Act, which was passed by the previous Government with all-party support. If the provisions in that Act were sufficient, why would these regulations be necessary? I am not quite sure why the older Act is sufficient in the case of holdings with fewer than 350 birds but not for holdings with more than 350 birds. The very helpful Explanatory Memorandum says that there are 1,323 holdings housing more than 350 laying hens. Does the Minister have any statistics for how many holdings have fewer than 350 birds? I could not see that information in the Explanatory Memorandum. If it is there, I apologise for having missed it. Paragraph 13.6.4.1 states that, "““we have reduced the number of producers that have caged holdings, from 627 to 32””." That seems a very marked reduction, calculated presumably on the basis of information that was gained during the consultation. Perhaps the Minister could explain that figure to me, because I found it quite puzzling. An important issue is compliance with and respect for the regulations once they are brought in, as well as monitoring that they are being properly implemented. If the Minister has any further information about how the Government plan to take that compliance and monitoring work forward, I would be very grateful for it. As I said earlier, I recognise the threat that would have come from imports if a ban had simply been imposed straightaway. We could have faced an increase in imports from countries where birds are beak-trimmed anyway and where there might be other animal welfare concerns. What plans do the Government have to monitor imports and, given the nature of this debate, to help educate and inform the public about the importance of bringing beak-trimming to an end? Consumers have shown themselves to be very sensitive over the years to animal welfare issues, as we have seen in increased purchases of free-range eggs and the interest taken in food labels which certify certain animal welfare standards. There needs to be a process for making information available to the public so that, as we move towards a ban, people are better informed and choose to buy products which conform to the highest standards. As we move towards ending the derogation it is important to try to ensure that other EU countries do likewise, so that we are not disadvantaged competitively. We should build up alliances both at government level within the European Union and the European Parliament. I remember from my own days in the European Parliament belonging to the European group on animal welfare, so I know that there is pressure to respect animal welfare issues there. Building up those alliances will be important as we move towards the date when the ban comes into force. The Opposition will not oppose the regulations for the reasons that I have outlined. We hope that the Government will make rapid progress along the lines that have been described to us today.