GFA's Response to Defra Code
15 January 2010
The GFA's formal response to Defra's public consultation on a Game Raering Code for England, including an explanation of our stance on laying cages, was submitted today and reads as follows:
About the GFA
The Game Farmers’ Association (GFA) is the representative body for game rearing in the UK. We have over 200 members whose businesses rear the major proportion of all the gamebirds released for shooting in this country. The organisation is nearly 100 years old and has a vast and unrivalled experience of gamebird biology, breeding, husbandry and welfare. No other organisation approaches our length and depth of specialist knowledge on this subject.
Our Support for the Draft Code
Having strongly supported from the outset the idea of a Government game rearing code issued under the Animal Welfare Act, we are delighted with the progress made and we welcome the draft code for England circulated by Defra for public consultation.
We note that it takes as its starting point our own time-tested but voluntary GFA Code of Practice, as Ministers promised it would.
We are pleased that it improves on our own Code through its incorporation of the 2008 recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the advice of the Defra Gamebird Working Group.
As a result of the long and careful preparation that has gone into the draft Code, during which all parties have had ample time to express their views, we see no need to change any aspect of the published text.
A new Government code with legal standing will achieve something that we, as a voluntary association, have never been able to enforce – the sure regulation of game rearing practice.
Generally, a poorly kept gamebird does not perform well, which is why UK game rearing standards are normally high and prosecutions for cruelty and welfare offences are almost unknown. But this code will strengthen the legal backstop to address any wrongdoers and thus ensure that everyone who rears game must do so to a good welfare standard. That is why it is so very welcome.
Our Comments on the Cage Options
The only remaining area of uncertainty in the draft code concerns raised laying cages. Defra offers three options on these. We strongly support Option 2.
Option 2 (that small barren cages should not be used) was the recommendation of the independent experts of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) following their 2008 investigation, the most thorough the industry has ever undergone. This investigation was commissioned by Defra specifically to inform the drafting of the code and in particular its section on cages. No good reason has been given for ignoring FAWC’s advice.
Option 2 was also the overwhelming recommendation of the Defra Gamebird Working Group, which comprised as expert a collection of game industry, animal welfare and veterinary representatives as has ever deliberated on such matters.
Option 2 would prevent all bad practice, such as the keeping of laying birds in cages that were too small or devoid of enrichment features. Anyone not providing fully for their birds needs (the ‘five freedoms’) would be open to prosecution under the 2006 Act if the code incorporated Option 2. There is no need or justification to go any further.
Option 3, if adopted instead, would stop all use of cages however good their design, management and welfare. As the regulatory impact assessment signed by the Minister makes clear, it would thus end all partridge egg production in England because breeding partridges have to be housed in pairs, necessitating a cage of some sort. Partridge eggs have been produced here in properly managed raised units for over 40 years. Some 70 businesses are involved and none has ever been prosecuted for poor animal welfare.
Option 3 would also end any use of raised breeding units for pheasants, even those of the largest and best enriched designs and irrespective of their welfare merits. The Farm Animal Welfare Council deliberately stopped short of calling for this, saying that on the evidence of their investigation only barren cage units should be banned.
Indeed, so broad is the wording used in Option 3 that if implemented it could restrict the use of the traditional single harem pheasant breeding pens, which are the basis of much UK pheasant egg production. It might even restrict the larger wire-fenced, multi harem mating pens that house around half of this country’s pheasant laying flock, were the courts to decide that these too were ‘cage systems’.
If Option 3 did result in all the above, and was then mirrored in Scotland and Wales, UK game egg production as we know it would cease. There would be catastrophic effects for the UK game rearing industry and the £1.6 billion per annum shooting industry it supports.
The shortfall of millions of gamebird eggs would have to be imported from overseas suppliers, who already sell aggressively to the UK and currently have over half the English market. They are just waiting to capture the other half by exploiting the opportunity that Option 3 would present. Overseas game egg production is typically carried out to a lower welfare standard than here, so choosing Option 3 would reduce gamebird welfare overall. It would also place production standards beyond UK control because most overseas game egg producers are located in EU countries from which, under EU trade law, it would be impossible to prevent imports.
Because Option 3 cannot be justified on the available evidence, and goes against FAWC’s recommendation that the Government should implement Option 2, our legal advice is that Option 3 would be open to challenge by judicial review and that claims for compensation by the many gamebird egg producers it would put out of business would be payable. They could in total run to tens of millions of pounds, a sum that the Government can ill-afford at this time.
Implementing Option 3 and restricting all gamebird laying cages without an evidential basis, and against the advice of FAWC, would also send a shock-wave through the UK poultry sector, which would not unreasonably ask whether the Government had similar intentions for them.
Furthermore, because Option 3 would have major and immediate consequences for many game egg producers it could not possibly be introduced on the planned date of April 6 2010. Doing so would require that all laying partridges simply had to be released from their units forthwith, with graphic and catastrophic welfare implications for the many thousands of birds involved. No doubt these would all be laid at the Government’s door, quite possibly during a General Election campaign.
Option 2, on the other hand, would meet past Ministerial pledges to address the problem of small barren cages on the basis of independent expert veterinary advice, such as that of FAWC. It would leave open to Government the alternative route of Regulation on cages in the unlikely event that the code, incorporating Option 2, did not ensure good practice.
We are aware that a complex alternative to Options to 1, 2, and 3 has lately been proposed by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), including attempts to define ‘cages’, specifying space allowances and requiring breeding partridges to be kept in large flock pens outside their laying period. Experience has shown that the last of these would cause serious welfare problems and uncontrolled aggression, particularly between cock birds.
The BASC is not the representative body for game farming, it lacks practical expertise in this area and its proposals have no evidential base. Nor have they ever been tested. Space allowances were not recommended by FAWC or by the Defra Working Group so BASC’s proposals cannot resolve this issue. They do not have the support of the industry’s own representative body (the GFA) or most other members of the Defra Gamebird Working Group. They have not been put to public consultation and therefore, under Government rules, cannot be implemented in the short term.
BASC had its opportunity to make its case via the Defra Gamebird Working Group. It failed to convince the rest of the group that its suggestions held water. Finally, as with Option 3, implementation of BASC’s suggestions would be open to legal challenge and compensation.So the clear route forward for the Government is to go with Option 2.
The GFA’s Answers to Defra’s 17 Questions
A1 A code of practice is much better than regulation. It meets Hampton principles, has the support of the industry and there is no evidence that anything further is needed. In the unlikely event of a code not working, the ‘backstop’ of regulation is always available.
A2 The code’s layout should reflect the game rearing process. The code is intended for practical game rearers and this layout will make most sense to them and allow for easy reference.
A3 The draft code is clear and understandable.
A4 The order of the draft code is logical and should be left unchanged.
A5 The annex listing other relevant legislation is important and useful.
A6 There is nothing that needs to be added to the draft code.
A7 Barren cages should not be used for housing laying pheasants. Properly managed, enriched cages should continue to be allowed. (See our general comments on cages above).
A8 Barren cages for partridges should not be used. Properly managed, enriched cages should continue to be allowed. (See our general comments on cages above).
A9 A definition of a cage is not necessary and would cause problems. Using the EFSA definition could restrict systems currently in widespread use and not subject to this debate so far (such as single pen harem systems for laying pheasants of varying designs). The way a laying system is managed is much more important in terms of bird welfare than the details of its construction. Any system used must be able to meet the ‘five needs’ in the Animal Welfare Act. That is what the code already requires and there is no need to go further.
A10 Space alone is no guarantee of good welfare and people should not be misled into thinking it is. Overall good management is what ensures that in any system the ‘five needs’ are met. Specific space allowances that have lately been suggested by others have no current evidential base and were not recommended by FAWC or the Defra Working Group.
A11 A space allowance per pheasant should not be set in the code. (See A10 and our general comments on cages above).
A12 A space allowance per partridge should not be set in the code. (See A10 and our general comments on cages above).
A13 The draft code says that spectacles should not generally be used. That is the correct approach to the issue.
A14 The use of bits for young pheasants is essential and should always be capable of justification by the user, who should indeed monitor their use.
A15 The draft code says that bumpa bits should not generally be used except in response to a specific need. We support that line.
A16 The assumptions on the numbers of UK cage users in the draft impact assessment are broadly correct, although we understand that improved, independent data may shortly be made available to Defra from ADAS.
A17 The estimates of the financial effects arising from the code are broadly correct but may be capable of improvement in the light of the ongoing ADAS work. There is, however, a reference to licence fee income which we find baffling as licensing of game rearers has never been suggested in the many discussions surrounding this subject.
Scotland and Wales
We applaud the intention of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, expressed at meetings of the Defra Gamebird Working Group, to adopt gamebird codes in line with the English code. This really is essential if we are not to have widespread confusion and unlevel playing fields for game production in the different home nations. We believe the draft code for England is very well thought through and has a sound basis in evidence and experience. We see no reason why the codes for Scotland and Wales should be different, as game rearing in those countries mirrors the English pattern exactly. We therefore urge the Scottish and Welsh Government’s to adopt the text of the English code as drafted, with Option 2 on cages.
Further Assistance
We hope this response to Defra’s consultation clarifies the game farming industry’s views of the draft code. We will be happy to provide further details on any point should it be required, or indeed to meet with Defra to discuss our response further should that be helpful.
Date Added: January 15th 2010