The European Union seems to have backed down in a row with Westminster over free range perching regulations.
Earlier this year the European Commission officially warned the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) by letter of possible legal action if it did not comply with the Commission's interpretation of EU rules on the welfare of laying hens. But Defra dug in its heels, with the help of statistical evidence provided by the British Free Range Egg Producers' Association, and the Ranger has learned that the Commission has now dropped the threat of infraction proceedings.
"We have been informed that the Commission has closed the pilot case against us, thus formal infraction proceedings will not ensue," said Robert Gooch, BFREPA's director of policy. "I think the information we provided was very helpful for Defra. ADAS also provided evidence that supported our case, so it is good to hear that it has now been dropped," said Robert, who was one of a number of egg industry representatives called to a meeting at Defra following receipt of the warning letter from Brussels.
The letter was the latest attempt by European Union officials to force Westminster into submission in a long running dispute over London's interpretation of the EU's rules on the welfare of laying hens. Whilst English and Welsh egg producers are allowed to class floor slats as perches in non-cage systems, the Commission insists that they must use aerial perches. The row has been complicated by the fact that the Brussels interpretation has been adopted by politicians in Scotland, where agriculture is a devolved responsibility. Free range egg producers north of the border must comply with the aerial perch requirement.
Brussels threatened to haul Defra before the European court unless it complied with the Commission's interpretation, but Defra refused to back down. It said it continued to take the view that the legislation allowed a raised slatted floor to be classed as a perch in non-cage systems. Defra has now been told by the Commission that the case will no longer be pursued, although we understand that there is still the possibility that the issue could be taken up by a different EU department.
"Apparently Defra has been told that the issue may be referred to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), but I am pretty relaxed about that," said Robert Gooch. "EFSA is involved in food safety, although it is now advising the Commission on where poor welfare can impact on animal health and thus human health. This is pretty new. I think the link between perching and health is weak though. I am very relaxed about the possibility of EFSA getting involved. "
In defending itself against the threat of legal action, Defra said that there was no definition of a perch in the laying hen directive, it said there was some scientific evidence to suggest that welfare may be compromised by the use of aerial perches in non-cage systems, Defra pointed to the financial and practical implications for the egg industry of having to install aerial perches and it highlighted the variable interpretations of the perching rules across the European Union.
When the European Commission issued the warning letter this year, BFREPA, whose members produce 70 per cent of the free range eggs laid in Britain, insisted that the interpretation agreed between the egg industry and the Government in London many years ago was the right one, and Robert Gooch urged Defra to stand by that interpretation. At the same time, the association conducted a survey of its membership to ascertain the current position on perching. The results showed that free range producers in England and Wales were just as compliant with the Commission's interpretation as producers in other European Union member states.
Nearly 42 per cent of the birds in the survey were in multi-tier houses and just over 58 per cent in flat deck systems. Of the birds in flat deck units, respondents calculated that 35.8 per cent of birds were aerial perching at 15cm per bird. In his submission to Defra at the time, Robert Gooch said, "Assuming 100 per cent aerial perching on multi-tiers, this means that 62 per cent of the birds in the sample are aerial perching." However, he said, "We suspect that our sample surveyed may be a little unrepresentative, as the proportion of responses from multi-tier producers to our survey may be higher than the overall position in England and Wales. We have therefore taken more conservative figures to reflect a national split of 30 per cent MT and 70 per cent ST. If adjusted to reflect this split, then the total proportion of birds using aerial perches drops to 55 per cent," he said.
Robert said that this compared favourably with other European Union states. ADAS figures from 2010 showed that there was no aerial perching requirement in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway or Sweden, he said. Where there was an aerial perching requirement, as in the KAT accreditation scheme, only 50 per cent of the perches provided were aerial perching, he said.
Robert said that if the Commission insisted on pursuing legal action against England and Wales, then it would have to take action against other EU member states with less aerial perching than England and Wales or face accusations of discrimination.
