B1551 – Welfare of Commercial Laying Hens Bill 2020. Watch

This discussion is closed.
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
Ultimately, if a cage farmer cannot give a hen a dignified life, regardless of any future commercial purpose, they do not deserve to own animals. Animal welfare is an absolute must and I stand by the Conservative and Unionist Party in their efforts to enshrine basic standards as set out by the RSPCA in law.
2
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 weeks ago
#22
Delighted to see issues that I wouldn't describe as mainstream being put before the house and I welcome the Conservative party's move to branch out from Foreign Policy this term.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
Aye, it's time we sorted out this area. Let's make sure that our farming practices are responsible.

The only change I'd make is that I would place the decision whether to accept the annually reviewed definitions in the hands of the relevant minister.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
you can't expect the farming industry to change in one year without bankrupting a substantial amount of the industry. does the author of this bill know how many years it took to implement the last change?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by abucha3)
It took me a while to find the spelling error... thank you, I will amend for the Second Reading.

The definitions are based on the RSPCA's Welfare Standards, so if these standards are revised then it would be appropriate to allow scope within the legislation for the definitions to be amended in line with any revisions made to the standards. Fundamentally, the definitions are not likely to change but could possibly be enhanced based on future research perhaps.
The scope for change is called a statutory instrument whereby the relevant secretary of state can update definitions. In the MHOC it's writing a report. Laws don't hand power to define things to independent organisations with special interests and their own agenda. That's a stupid thing to do
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
There should be a derogation for existing barns until a certain time period.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
2(2) and 2(3) seem like they've been pointlessly included considering that free range and barn eggs are already legal.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
I feel it also unfair that you've prohibited enriched cages which do meet suitable welfare standards. There should be at least some kind of transition period like in other countries.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
'Hens' should be defined.

This could also broaden in scope to potentially include other poultry animals.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
'Hens' should be defined.
Why does it? Surely everyone knows a hen is a female chicken.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by abucha3)
It took me a while to find the spelling error... thank you, I will amend for the Second Reading.

The definitions are based on the RSPCA's Welfare Standards, so if these standards are revised then it would be appropriate to allow scope within the legislation for the definitions to be amended in line with any revisions made to the standards. Fundamentally, the definitions are not likely to change but could possibly be enhanced based on future research perhaps.
Should we let the LWF dictate minimum wage? Trussel Trust dictate food bank policy? Whoever the main City lobbyist dictate financial regulation?

The idea that a pressure group would not change definitions to achieve their aims if given the power to is, quite frankly, incredibly naive.

there is an even more fundamental question to be answered about the bill:

What is the inherent issue with cages? Not cages as per the average population density 10 years ago which is now illegal, but the inherente issue with cages? Would it be unacceptable for there to be a single chicken in a barn sized cage? No, the issue with cages is nothing to do with the cages themselves rather the practices surrounding them.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Why does it? Surely everyone knows a hen is a female chicken.
I wouldn't be surprised if many don't, after all we are talking about the heterophobic party that seems to reject the notion that local law applies in diplomatic missions despite the fact that is the interpretation of pretty much everybody, including the FCO
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 weeks ago
#33
SoggyCabbages Jammy Duel
The rule of thumb is to only define things if they are used in a Bill in a way that's different to how they are used in everyday life (hence why definitions are often preceded by ”For the purposes of this Bill”)

This Bill refers to hens in the same way as the word ”hen” is used in everyday life and so no elaboration is needed.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
SoggyCabbages Jammy Duel
The rule of thumb is to only define things if they are used in a Bill in a way that's different to how they are used in everyday life (hence why definitions are often preceded by ”For the purposes of this Bill”)

This Bill refers to hens in the same way as the word ”hen” is used in everyday life and so no elaboration is needed.
I'm well aware of the rules of thumb, I'm taking the piss
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
SoggyCabbages Jammy Duel
The rule of thumb is to only define things if they are used in a Bill in a way that's different to how they are used in everyday life (hence why definitions are often preceded by ”For the purposes of this Bill”)

This Bill refers to hens in the same way as the word ”hen” is used in everyday life and so no elaboration is needed.
A hen can be numerous types of fowl - grouse and turkies also. It does need to be defined, don't try to patronise me.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
A hen can be numerous types of fowl - grouse and turkies also. It does need to be defined, don't try to patronise me.
Grouse and turkey are not kept as laying hens but for meat or sport hunting.

Don't be pedantic, it doesn't suit you
0
Cabin19
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 weeks ago
#37
I also would say while this warrants it's own motion but will mention it as we seem to be talking about other bird's but its abit hypocritical if we also don't look to the cruelty duck's and Geese go through in the creation of pâté that we import. As they are also caged and forced fed.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 weeks ago
#38
Three days to consider the question of what the inherent problem with cages is and there is no answer, I guess the bill killing question was easy to find
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#39
This item has entered cessation.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (478)
66.48%
No (241)
33.52%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed