| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I want to follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and echo his hope that the Minister, in his reply, will not look with favour on amendment No. 11.
The Minister will be aware that, earlier this year, the Agriculture Minister announced a programme of increased inspections which, if implemented, would have cost the abattoir industry an extra £20 million. However, I am glad to say that as a consequence of representations, he announced a complete deferral of specified risk material inspection costs for that financial year. Subsequently, we have learned that, in the past few years, there has been tremendous improvement--and rightly so--in the United Kingdom's abattoirs.
The risk that we run now is that, by imposing so many extra costs and regulations, we shall close down the abattoirs and cause something that I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would not like at all: longer journeys, at great expense, for animals on the way from farms to the slaughterhouse. Although it is very much better to have those facilities close to farms, in my own area, for example, we have only two small abattoirs left.
The head of the farm animals department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said that the originally proposed additional costs represented a serious economic threat, and that there was no doubt that the current proposals would result in the closure of some small abattoirs. We therefore believe that the extra burdens proposed in amendment No. 11 would be counterproductive. If we are to maintain standards and have the farming communities on our side, and in the light of action already taken, we must be very careful to avoid imposing further burdens that will have a counterproductive effect.
Mr. Andrew George:
In supporting the purpose of amendment No. 11, I should like also to draw attention to the significance of small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs in meeting high animal welfare standards.
If we had had sufficient time, amendment No. 11 could and should have been debated in relation to amendment No. 32--which I had hoped we would be able to debate. However, as we are now entering the third hour of a three-hour debate, but have reached only the third group of amendments, it is becoming clear that we shall not reach the ninth group, which deals with the fact that--for the reasons already given by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)--small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs meet very high animal welfare standards. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would accept that, because of shorter travel times and a quieter and less stressful environment inside the abattoirs themselves, low-throughput abattoirs meet high animal welfare standards.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) correctly said, on any objective assessment, inspection levels at small, low-throughput abattoirs are
excessively high. Just last week, for example, one small abattoir in my constituency complained that it had four inspectors watching one person work. The week before, the ratio was three inspectors to two workers. Such an inspection level, and the charges consequently imposed, is a burden on small businesses.
An important aspect of the Bill is its provision for both high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. As I said, I had hoped that, were it not for the antics largely of Conservative Members, we would have an opportunity to consider fully all of the amendments tabled on Report, so that we might be able to consider the very deep and serious concerns of small businesses about the Food Standards Agency's impact on them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to a specific amendment and then lament the fact that he cannot go on to further amendments.
Mr. George:
I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand the frustrations felt by Liberal Democrats at the lack of progress.
Having expressed that frustration, I wish to say to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that there is a crucial link between the importance of meeting high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. It not just a question of low-throughput abattoirs. I hope that the Minister will take account of the impact of the Food Standards Agency on small businesses, because small producers, processors and retailers need advice and help, as well as a recognition that they do not want disproportionate charges laid upon them. Such charges could put them out of business and result in lower animal welfare standards all round and a considerable diminution in the fabric of rural life, severely damaging the economy of rural areas.
Mr. Hancock:
The House is well aware of my hon. Friend's championing of the small business man, and of business generally. However, surely he is not suggesting that the Minister should look sympathetically at proposals which would in any way lower standards of animal welfare, as well as those standards that the public would require from small businesses to remain confident that they were supplying a product which was good enough for them to eat and for their families to enjoy.
Mr. George:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend--I want to emphasise, as I have done before, that it is not a question of lowering standards for small, low-throughput producers: it is quite the opposite--small producers usually meet high standards of hygiene. We must take into account the effect of the operation of the agency on small businesses; otherwise it will damage the rural economy and the rural way of life, and jobs will be lost. Through that, the quality of animal welfare will be reduced.
Mr. Rooker:
I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in that it has provided us with this debate. I recall my hon. Friend's contribution at Second Reading, and he has referred to an aspect of the Bill that is in the shadows and does not have as high a profile as some other
The Bill extends the scope of the Food Safety Act 1990 to cover production of food sources. That means that the regulation-making powers of the 1990 Act could, if necessary--for food safety reasons--be used in relation to husbandry matters. There is no question about that. The lead role in the use of antibiotic growth-promoters in farm animals will continue to fall to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, an agency of MAFF. However, the Food Standards Agency will have an effective veto on the regulation of veterinary medicines. A member or placeperson of the agency will be on the Veterinary Products Committee, which gives independent scientific advice to the Government. The agency will be involved closely in any matters concerned with antibiotic resistance, which is clearly a public health matter and goes beyond my Department.
I understand the issues touched on in relation to slaughterhouses. Hon. Members know that, because of the time allocation, they have used up too much time on that subject, and they cannot debate the Meat Hygiene Service.
Mr. Paice:
There is still time.
Mr. Rooker:
The hon. Gentleman does not know when I am going to sit down.
Legitimate points have been made and I understand the frustrations. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Food Standards Agency will have direct and specific responsibility for both policy and enforcement in all abattoirs. The Meat Hygiene Service will be part of the agency and accountable to it. There will be separate arrangements for auditing, which we discussed in Committee but will not have the chance to debate today.
The hygiene and animal welfare rules for slaughterhouses are a direct responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. There is no question whatever about that. That is important because the meat industry is big business. We slaughtered 10,000 cattle today for food. We did the same yesterday and we will do the same tomorrow. There are huge factory abattoirs and small abattoirs where slaughtering may occur only one day a week.
We slaughtered 2 million broiler chickens today; we did it yesterday, and we will do it tomorrow. The hygiene conditions must be tightly controlled and I make no apology for the actions that we have taken in the past two years to drive up standards in the meat industry. I made my own modest contribution by going through a small part of the modules of the Meat Training Council. I got nowhere near slaughtering, of course, but I wanted to show that we are mustard keen on better and more training for everyone throughout the industry. I did not see why a Minister should be kept out of that if I could do something to contribute.
Mr. Gill:
As president of the Meat Training Council, I want to tell the House that we are all in this together. We all want to raise standards and improve training,
Dr. Gibson:
The running dogs of the pig industry.
Mr. Rooker:
No, no. Hang on. In the days when we had them, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was my pair, so leave him alone.
The Food Standards Agency will be able to go anywhere in the food chain--there are no no-go areas in the food production system--and it will interfere or regulate to a greater or lesser extent at different parts of that chain, hardly touching some and getting actively involved in others. If there are arguments about the quality of welfare-friendly meat and mis-labelling, it will certainly have the powers to get that sorted out.
I have been to nine abattoirs--I visited one pig abattoir with the hon. Member for Ludlow--to see matters at first hand. Welfare conditions at slaughter are crucial, not only because of our respect for animals but because meat from happy animals tastes better. A happy pig is a tasty pig. There are chemical changes in animals slaughtered in stressful conditions. That is a plain fact. We must treat such issues extremely seriously.
The amendment is not necessary. The wholly legitimate issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South are covered in the Bill, as the agency will have powers throughout the food chain and in relation to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The Meat Hygiene Service does not currently set its own policy--the policy is agreed between the Department of Health and my Ministry in the joint food safety and standards group--but the Food Standards Agency will take that role and will be able to deal with clean cattle policy and hygiene rules at slaughtering. So these matters are central to the Bill; they are not outwith it.
7.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |