Verbatim report of proceedings

Friday, 20 September 1996 - Strasbourg

4. Protection of calves

  President . – The next item is the report (A4‐0261/96) by Mr Rosado Fernandes on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council Directive (COM(96)0021 ‐C4‐0133/96‐96/0029(CNS)) amending Directive 91/629/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves.

  Rosado Fernandes (UPE), rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, I wish to situate my report against the background of events taking place in terms of beef. This is an important report from a philosophical point of view, in that there are schools of thought and behaviour which can be detected by analysis of this problem. It is obvious that I think that any effort to improve the living conditions of animals is laudable and, of course, I also know that any effort that does not trigger an even more serious crisis in the beef sector is also laudable. The trouble is that it is difficult to reconcile the two.

However, I do think that everything that we are learning and hearing from the committees of inquiry on BSE, concerning the failure to implement proposals made by Parliament, common sense proposals, has led me to be very cautious. I think that we would be dealing a death blow to the white veal meat sector if we brought forward the deadlines which the Commission set in its first Directive in 1991, ignoring the investment channelled into this sector by veal farmers in recent years and not allowing them to pay off this investment – that would obviously do nothing but speed up the crisis. Such a crisis could well be a huge one given that we have at stake here 840 000 tonnes of veal in the whole of Europe. That refers to white veal. Only a small percentage is pink veal and the same would happen in this sector if the crisis were to be triggered; 40 000 families occupied in this sector would be made bankrupt or unemployed. There is no doubt that the powdered milk used so far in the pre‐ruminant phase to feed animals will no longer be sold, and nor will whey be sold or used and, in fact, it will now be considered as a pollutant.

We all know that these measures take a certain amount of time to be applied. We propose that there should be a bit of a breathing space so that farms can adapt to the new rules. This has always been a Commission habit, to find the justification for certain quicker measures and to convene veterinary committees. I have a lot of respect for science but, as people used to say in the Middle Ages, I am a friend of Plato but I am a better friend of Truth. And the truth is that science itself is not always completely impartial. Sometimes science gives in to pressures of a financial nature, especially when those scientists – and I have been one – are civil servants and that does not mean that they do not do a proper job. The truth is that there have been contradictory reports in respect of the wellbeing of calves, in terms of haemoglobin levels, and in terms of the way in which calves are fed.

Of course, if I spoke simply about the way of housing animals this would be looking at the problem from just one small point of view and would not be of interest. I have tried to get away from this kind of dialectic which I think is fallacious and believe that I have succeeded – especially since colleagues have made amendments which have very much enriched the Commission proposal. I thank them for this, even when their opinion is not the same as mine. This is, however, a social problem we are dealing with and one which might make the beef and veal situation in Europe even worse. We all know that animals will have to be slaughtered at a more tender age than has been the case so far and I have no doubt whatsoever that one way of solving the question of the well‐being of calves is to be able to slaughter them at an earlier age and at a smaller weight, so that they are better off and do not have to wait so long. As for ‚socialisation’, I am partly in agreement; taking an approach which I think is one of common sense I have accepted many amendments and am now willing to face the consequences of what I have written.

  Olsson (ELDR), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. – (SV) Madam President, consumption of veal has fallen steadily over the last ten years. One plausible reason for this may be the debate on the conditions in which calves are raised in Europe. The aware consumer of today does not only make a judgement on how the meat tastes or looks; production methods and ethical aspects naturally also play a role. If the confidence of consumers is to be regained effective and credible legislation is needed in the EU.

As the draftsman for the Environment Committee I propose a number of measures intended to improve the conditions in which calves are raised. Calf pens must be designed to ensure that there is a dry area to lie down on. In the legislation the dimensions of pens must be regulated in such a way that it is possible to check that the legislation is being observed. Moreover, calves over eight weeks should be kept in large pens to foster their natural behaviour as herd animals.

My proposals on improved living conditions are aimed first and foremost at ensuring better animal care but also at giving consumers greater confidence in European veal. As the EU's only directly elected body the European Parliament naturally has a special responsibility. Consumers' demands for good food produced with due care for animals and the environment must be taken seriously. The European Parliament's stricter common minimum requirements for the raising of calves in Europe is an important step towards achieving this goal.

  Hardstaff (PSE). – Madam President, I am afraid I have to take issue with our rapporteur when he appears to believe that it is more important to have white meat than to raise animals in the most humane way possible. In fact, it is possible to provide white veal meat without these very cruel methods which have been the practice within the European Union, or certainly within some countries within the Union.

Thanks to one of our colleagues, Mr Sonneveld, I and two of my colleagues from Britain had the opportunity earlier this year of visiting a veal‐raising unit in the Netherlands. There we saw young animals being raised in pens, not in individual crates. They were being fed on maize as well as milk, so that they were not anaemic, and we were assured that the resulting meat was top‐quality white meat for which there was a very good market within Europe.

It is clear that there could be problems for some of the producers who have to invest in new pens from their existing crates, and we have therefore included an amendment which provides for assistance. I ask for your support for that. I ask this House to vote for all the amendments which ask for these proposals to be brought forward and against all those which propose either putting back even further into the future these improvements for animals or, indeed, allowing loopholes so that they can continue forever.

We should not in the European Union be continuing a practice of raising animals in a very cruel way of which we should be ashamed. I ask your support for the amendments I have mentioned.

  Provan (PPE). – Madam President, I thank the rapporteur for his report. Whilst I do not entirely agree with the rapporteur on this issue, I can say that on the whole I agree with the Commission's proposal, although rather like Mrs Hardstaff I would like to see the matters implemented on an accelerated basis.

It is quite clear from the report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee that rearing veal in individual crates does cause serious welfare problems and therefore I believe that the phasing‐out period should be no longer than five years. Most people may not be aware that calves of one to three weeks of age travel in veal crates from various parts of perhaps the entire Community to one farm. Three weeks is a sufficient period for the calves to settle down and for any health problems to be recognized and treated. It is therefore preferable at that stage to get all calves into groups as soon as possible. A young calf is a gregarious animal and it goes with the herd instinct as quickly as possible and I believe that to deny the calf that possibility is creating a hazard for the future.

I think that we have a report and some amendments before the House that we can all accept. It is not as vitally urgent an issue as some other matters we have been discussing this morning. These concerns have been around for a long time and it is appropriate that we should take the decisions here and now. I also believe that it is appropriate that we do something to try and encourage the future of veal production and that we should do something to encourage the consumer to recognize that veal will be produced in a healthy and wholesome way, without infringing animal welfare issues.

  Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Madam President, for me this issue is a question of whether one regards animals as living, sentient beings or as dead objects. I believe they should be seen as living creatures. Consequently, the principle must be that one should take account of their natural behaviour, their need for space, and ensure that they can behave as herd animals. Their natural food should also be taken into consideration.

In practice, objections to this are made on purely economic grounds, whereas we argue from an ethical standpoint. I should nevertheless like to ask those who use these economic arguments to think again. What in fact is it that is persuading people not to eat this kind of meat these days? Yes, among other things it is cruel rearing methods, unnatural additives in fodder and the long, unnecessary journeys which animals make. It is this that threatens a properly functioning meat sector in Europe, not the fact that we may no longer keep calves in crates or engage in other cruel methods of raising them. We will therefore vote for the amendments aimed at tightening up the rules and against those that will make the Commission's proposals even worse.

  Barthet‐Mayer (ARE). – (FR) The night before last I was not far from here, in the Vosges mountains, visiting a farmer in the Munster Valley. The calves were happily lined up in the byre with their mothers while others were accommodated in pairs in straw‐filled pens measuring about 6 m2 . They were healthy, beautiful and, I have no doubt, potentially delicious.

A young animal which is suffering will not produce quality meat. The current system of raising calves, whereby they are hobbled in individual pens, has got to be changed, but there is no need for sentimentality. We will have to allow a reasonable period for the farmers to make the change, and we shall have to provide them with financial aid for that purpose, without penalizing them unfairly.

I have tabled a number of amendments along these lines on behalf of my group, the first of which relates to a definition of the types of calf – to eliminate ambiguities – while the other concerns a physical breeding limit – up to 110 kilos of carcase – which is easier to monitor than the age of the animal or other factors. In the near future, I should like to see all calves being kept as in the example I have just given, reflecting a new ethical standard of production and consumer protection, and encouraging the traditional method of raising suckler calves.

  Fischler , Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as we all know, the protection of animals is a subject which is becoming increasingly important politically. Parliament, like many animal welfare associations, has repeatedly expressed a desire for the Community to adopt efficient legislation in this sector. The Commission shares your view that effective Community rules are needed to cover the protection of animals.

The general public in the European Union, and consumers in particular, take a very close interest in this difficult topic. The Commission completely understands these concerns and, I assure you, will treat animal welfare as a high priority. The present proposal on the protection of calves, which has been formulated on the basis of the best available scientific and practical reports, will substantially improve the standards under which calves are farmed. I would therefore like to offer my sincere thanks to honourable Members, and especially to the rapporteur, Mr Rosado Fernandes, representing the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and Mr Olsson representing the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, for their painstaking and positive attention to this proposal.

In my opinion, Amendment No 2, the second part of Amendment No 7 and Amendment No 25 all genuinely contribute to improving and strengthening the text, and I accept those amendments gladly. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the other amendments, for the following reasons. Amendments Nos 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24 and 26 cannot be accepted because they would dilute our proposed prohibition on keeping calves in individual pens. In the view of the Commission, keeping calves in individual pens is detrimental to the wellbeing of the animals and also unnecessary in health terms, except in the case of very young calves or if the veterinary surgeon has decided that an animal must be isolated for health and behavioural reasons so that it can receive appropriate treatment.

Amendment No 4 would restrict the scope of application of the Directive to herds of more than 10 calves. In our view, however, the Directive is important for all calves and not just for those in herds of more than 10. Amendments Nos 3, 21, 28 and 33 are not acceptable to the Commission because it is the Council that decides which parts of the Commission's Directive may be amended. Amendments Nos 5, 7 (first part), 22 and 31 cannot be accepted because these are covered by the provisions of the annex to the Directive, which can only be amended by the Commission following a procedure within the Standing Veterinary Committee.

As far as Amendment No 6 is concerned, the rules governing farm installations built or renovated between 1994 and 1998 are already laid down in the present Directive. They state that these installations may continue to be used only until 31 December 2010. In my view there is no reason to depart again from this 10‐year transition period at this stage and set a later date.

Amendment No 8, in my view, is already covered by the existing Directive and merely repeats the provisions of Article 7. Amendment No 13 cannot be accepted because the effects of the Commission's proposal on the costs of keeping calves are acceptable, in our view. Amendment No 18 cannot be accepted because the proposed article is a standard formulation which is not necessary here.

Amendment No 27 cannot be accepted because the proposal regarding space is not based on the report by the Scientific Veterinary Committee. Amendments Nos 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 32 and 34, which are designed to change the timeframe for implementation, also cannot be accepted. The Commission has decided on a ten‐year phasing‐out period for two reasons. First, the new proposal, including the date 2008, corresponds to the present Directive, which provides for the same period, and secondly this ten‐year phasing‐out period was chosen to ensure that farmers would not incur any additional costs because of additional investments that would have to be brought forward.

  President . – Thank you very much, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

We shall now proceed to the vote.

Explanations of vote

  Martinez (NI). – (FR) Madam President, in this matter of battery calves, and indeed in most agricultural matters, everybody is a victim: the calves are victims, the farmers are being forced into a crazy form of hyper‐productivism – and mad cow disease shows us where that leads – and I am not sure that the consumers are any better off.

I am sensitive to Mr Rosado Fernandes's arguments about the 100, 000 tonnes of whey which are going to poison the planet, the 800, 000 tonnes of meat that are going to make the market a little more unstable, the 42, 000 families who are going to be back on the dole, the haemoglobin, the iron, etc..

And yet the real choice is not between productivity and sentimentality but between a natural order of things and an unnatural one. The priority must go to the natural order of things, which does not include keeping calves in concentration camps.

The situation is clearcut: a budgetary problem arises regarding the adaptation of the pens, and we need to settle that problem and put an end – starting with the calves – to this nonsensical form of agriculture which has brought us to the point of mad cow disease. That's all, Madam President.

  van der Waal (EDN). – (NL) A significant proportion of the problems surrounding animal welfare are the result of the general trend towards more intensive and larger‐scale farming. A development which has been very much encouraged by the policy trends of recent decades. It would thus be unfair to lumber the calf‐rearing sector alone with the welfare problems arising in that sector. Serious consideration must also be given to the social and economic consequences of the new rules.

The housing of calves in individual pens must be curbed. This production method falls short of the basic requirements concerning the freedom of animals to move around, their access to food, etc. I thus broadly agree with the Commission's proposals. By opting in principle for the year 2008 as a starting date for the new directives, the Commission has chosen a realistic approach which will allow farms enough time to adapt.

It is doubtful, however, whether farms will be financially able to make the necessary investment. Notwithstanding the public abhorrence of veal crates, the question is whether the consumer is prepared to pay more for more humanely produced meat. I thus urge the Commission to look at the financial implications more closely and if necessary put forward proposals for a temporary subsidy to encourage the switch to group housing.

I am also concerned for the farms which have already voluntarily switched to group housing. Because these farms have made a substantial investment, building barns, for example, their finances are currently very tight. Many of these fattening enterprises do not yet meet the proposed standards. If these pioneers also have to meet the new welfare requirements in 2008 they will be forced to depreciate the humane measures they have already taken ahead of time. This means they will be penalized for their good deeds. We should thus endorse the rapporteur's proposal for farms already operating group housing to be given a postponement to the year 2013.

Lastly, I also have my doubts as to how well the new rules can be monitored. The Commission proposes that the minimum size of pens should be set in relation to the size of the calf. This means the standards will, as it were, grow as the calves grow, which makes it difficult to monitor compliance. Rules specifying pen size in centimetres would make the monitoring operations easier. The fact that the amendment put down to that end by the Environment Committee was rejected represents a missed opportunity.

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

***

  Breyer (V). – (DE) In my view, we have an urgent interest in ensuring that the subject of bioethics is debated before the end of today. It may not have been clear to many people during the earlier vote that the interpreter service ends at 1.00 p.m., and you thought that the interpreters would work longer, so that there would be a danger that, for the second time, we would be unable to adopt a resolution. I would therefore like to urge you most strongly just to take the Lulling report – because it is urgent – without debate and to postpone the other reports, or alternatively to take them without debate as well. I would strongly urge you to make sure that we are clear again about the sequence of events, because we are running the risk that the subject of bioethics is going to be deleted from the agenda.

So, for this reason, I appeal to you once again – I know, we could find ourselves starting a debate on the Rules of Procedure – to treat this matter as urgent and try to take the report without debate and then move on to the bioethics item.

  Lulling (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I absolutely agree with that, because I only need to say a few words about my report. The fact is that I need to make an oral correction to our amendment. That is the only thing. I must do that, though, otherwise the House will not know what it is about. I would agree with the suggestion.

  President . – That is very difficult. We have a very full agenda. I am sorry, but that is what the House decided, with the agreement of the group presidents. I still have another eight items on the agenda, and I cannot simply ignore them and move forward one particular item. We can't work like that. If the item on the agenda is called and there is still time, then everyone will have to show restraint and work quickly. In practice, we can take items without debate if the speakers agree, but I cannot change the agenda at this stage, because, after all, we voted on it previously. We simply must not waste any time. If we work quickly, then we can vote on it. I see no alternative at present.

  Liese (PPE). – (DE) Very briefly, I think we need to be completely clear now about whether the House agrees the other reports to be taken without debate. Then we can get through this very quickly. Anyone who does not accept that, though, will have to bear the responsibility if the European Parliament completely fails to express an opinion on this explosive subject of ‚human dignity and biomedicine’.

  President . – Mr Liese, although that is a very attractive suggestion, I can only say that the report was prepared by the committees and people do have the opportunity to speak here. There is one thing I can do: when the report is called, I can ask whether the speakers are willing to forego their speaking time. That is the only thing I can do.

  Martinez (NI). – (FR) Madam President, not long ago my colleague Jean‐Pierre Cot, who had two reasons for being angry, made a very sensible point. If a subject like bioethics is as critical as we hear – and it is – we certainly cannot skip over it in an empty House, between trains or between aircraft. Mr Liese, I agree with you so strongly that the matter is of crucial importance that I am against skipping over it. That is why it is stupid to deprive some of us of our speaking time in order to skip over a crucial debate.