The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Chairman:
† Mr.
Eric Martlew †
Borrow,
Mr. David S. (South Ribble)
(Lab) †
Bradshaw,
Mr. Ben (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs)†
Creagh,
Mary (Wakefield)
(Lab) Gray,
Mr. James (North Wiltshire)
(Con) †
Hands,
Mr. Greg (Hammersmith and Fulham)
(Con) †
Howarth,
Mr. George (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East)
(Lab) Huhne,
Chris (Eastleigh)
(LD) †
Kawczynski,
Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con) †
Keeble,
Ms Sally (Northampton, North)
(Lab) †
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser (Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab) †
Kidney,
Mr. David (Stafford)
(Lab) †
Levitt,
Tom (High Peak)
(Lab) †
Morley,
Mr. Elliot (Scunthorpe)
(Lab) †
Rosindell,
Andrew (Romford)
(Con) †
Watts,
Mr. Dave (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)†
Wiggin,
Bill (Leominster)
(Con) †
Williams,
Mr. Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD) Geoffrey Farrar, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Sixth
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationThursday 29
June
2006[Mr.
Eric Martlew in the
Chair]Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 20068.55
am Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing)
(Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No.
1200). The
Opposition, being respectful of animal welfare, object to the changes
in the slaughter of birds as detailed in the regulations. Not only are
they draconian but they touch on the realm of barbarism and inhumanity.
Moreover, they are inconsistent with the modern-day and progressive
animal welfare laws that hon. Members on both sides of the House of
Commons have been promoting in recent years. They do nothing to enhance
the credibility of England as a world leader in animal
welfare.
This year, we
will be passing the innovative Animal Welfare Bill into law. Back in
April, we had a productive discussion on a European directive on the
protection of chickens kept for meat production. With all these
careful, well-thought-out, science-based and consensual measures either
being introduced or developed further, it is such a shame that this
divisive amendment will be not only a step in the wrong direction but a
giant leap backwards. Many hon. Members on Conservative, Labour and
Liberal Democrat Benches have fought hard through parliamentary
questions and early-day motions and in various committees to improve
animal welfare legislation. To permit this amendment to pass into
legislation through the back door would constitute a real failure in
parliamentary
democracy. No
one disputes that there are, regrettably, occasions when we need to
slaughter animals for the purpose of disease control. What are,
however, in dispute are the methods used to kill in these circumstances
and the details of such circumstances. Following the introduction of
the regulations, not only did my right hon. Friend the Member for
Witney (Mr. Cameron) table the early-day motion which led to this
debate but the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David
Taylor), a Labour Member, tabled an early-day motion urging the
Government not to use ventilation shutdown. Further opposition to these
changes has also been provoked. Both the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has argued that VSD is illegal
under Council Directive 93/11/EC, and Compassion in World Farming are
opposed to
it. Criticisms
of the VSD method on welfare grounds are well founded, and hon. Members
should take note. The process of removing oxygen supply from, for
example, a broiler shed where tens of thousands of chickens could be
present would be seen by most of the general public as inappropriate,
barbaric and inhumane. I am sure that all hon. Members would have great
difficulty
justifying to their constituents—which they will have to
do—giving powers to Ministers to suffocate tens of thousands of
birds. Suffocation,
while cooking birds alive, will cause distress and misery for thousands
of birds for periods of potentially more than a day. The
Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the
hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has admitted that VSD is
unlikely to deliver welfare standards equal to other recognised culling
methods. Previous
amendments to the Animal Welfare (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations
1995 have reduced the suffering of birds due for slaughter or killing.
For instance, the time for which poultry may be suspended before
entering a waterbath stunner has been reduced. Hon. Members will be
aware that this amendment will have the opposite effect and set a bad
precedent for animal welfare. At a time when we are striving to reduce
cruelty and animal stress, VSD brings back memories of the appalling
suffering and cruelty of burying birds alive. I think we were all
shocked when we saw the images from Turkey of birds being buried alive
and from Nigeria, where individual birds were suffocated with polythene
bags. Similarly cruel practices would not be welcome on British
shores. Those who,
like me, have poultry farms in their constituency, will no doubt be
disturbed to see birds being killed in this manner in their locality.
Those who will not be affected directly in their constituency will no
doubt find their mailbags full of mail from all the animal welfare
groups that are unanimously opposed to VSD.
The Scottish and Welsh devolved
Administrations have yet to propose VSD and, as it is not a method
recognised for disease control by the OIE—the world animal
health organisation—of which the UK is a member, questions have
to be asked about its legality. The OIE guidelines for the killing of
animals for disease control purposes
state: “When
animals are killed for disease control purposes, methods used should
result in immediate death or immediate loss of consciousness lasting
until death; when loss of consciousness is not immediate, induction of
unconsciousness should be non-aversive and should not cause anxiety,
pain, distress or suffering in the
animals.” They
continue: “In
designing a killing plan, it is essential that the method chosen be
consistently reliable to ensure that all animals are humanely and
quickly
killed.” Further
legal questions need to be answered when we view these measures in the
context of Council directive 93/119/EC, which does not authorise
killing methods that cause a protracted death or considerable
suffering. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, most birds being killed
by VSD are likely to perish through hyperthermia, or being cooked
alive, or suffocation. I am therefore not convinced that VSD fits in
with these guidelines, as suffocation and hyperthermia are not quick or
humane ways to die. Whereas gassing and poisoning are deemed
acceptable, VSD is
not. Furthermore, the
introduction of VSD has been kept rather secret by the Government. No
doubt hon. Members were as shocked as I was to discover that it is not
mentioned in the exotic disease generic contingency plan published only
back in December 2005, nor has it been included in the avian influenza
and Newcastle
disease contingency plan. It does not appear on a search of the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website, and there
is no evidence that the Government have fully consulted on this
amendment. Moreover, it was not until after this statutory instrument
was laid that the Minister acknowledged in written parliamentary
answers, that VSD was part of the contingency planning. There has been
little indication that DEFRA has been considering the introduction of
VSD, and the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory
Instruments raised concerns about this amendment and the work that
DEFRA has done towards it. When the Minister replies, I hope that he
will respond to these points and criticisms and explain the lack of
information from DEFRA on its considerations for using
VSD. As the amendment
has been rushed and not thoroughly consulted on, concerns have been
arising regarding its application. It was issued over a bank holiday
weekend, stakeholders were not consulted and it therefore appears to be
a response to the bird flu outbreak in Norfolk. There was no
accompanying written ministerial statement, so I think the Minister
needs to justify why this matter has not been looked at and consulted
on in more detail in recent months and why it is being introduced
through the back door.
Although we
have been assured that these measures will be used only in exceptional
circumstances and with the written authority of the Secretary of State,
these exceptional circumstances have not been explained or specified.
Paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum leads us to believe that
the prevalence of avian influenza with reference to the outbreak in
Norfolk has led to the legalisation of VSD as a method of disease
control. Why then are the regulations not written specifically for the
purpose of avian influenza control and why is there not a distinction
between highly pathogenic and low pathogenic diseases and viruses?
Moreover, at what point is an outbreak classed as an
“exceptional circumstance” in which VSD is to be used
“as a last resort”, and does a shortage of poisonous
gases count? Also, we do not know whether food and water will be
withdrawn during VSD. The Minister needs to explain to us how this
killing method will prevent the spread of the H5NI virus through bird
faeces. In addition,
this debate gives us the opportunity to ask the Minister how well
planned England is for an outbreak of bird flu. Surely if we had enough
resources for more humane killing techniques, such as poisonous gases,
the Department would not even have to consider this most cruel of
killing methods. I hope that he can update us on
that. We also need to
know about the associated risks to human health for poultry workers.
Should there be an outbreak, they would all require treatment.
Following on from the foot-and-mouth disease killings and the mounting
bovine TB crisis, there is little trust in DEFRA’s abilities to
carry out effective disease control, and faith in Government safeguards
has been severely diminished. How can we be sure that these powers will
not be used
recklessly? Eight
hundred and fifty million chickens are reared for meat production. In
the event of an avian influenza outbreak, I would like to think that
the chickens that have to be killed would be killed efficiently and
humanely and without VSD. At the moment, there are
too many unanswered questions, too many doubts and too much inhumanity
in the regulations for them to be worthy of parliamentary
approval. I urge
Labour Members to save the Minister from these regulations. I hope that
his heart is not genuinely in the proposals. There are by-elections to
attend to, there are other reasons to absent oneself and there are
still other ways of avoiding these regulations becoming law. I suggest
that as we are not in the middle of an outbreak now, the need for
urgency is somewhat abated and that, with our help, the Minister can
withdraw to reconsider why his Department is planning for a total
failure of all his contingency plans. We could then return with a
well-thought-out and helpful scheme that will protect poultry workers
while allowing us to continue to set the highest standards of animal
welfare in the world. Our poultry sector is a great one. We can and
should be proud of it, and prevent it from becoming a focus of such
inhumane
practices. 9.6
am Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): It is a
great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew, but not
quite such a pleasure to debate an issue that to my thinking, and that
of many other hon. Members, is a step back in terms of animal
welfare. I, too,
question why this statutory instrument is being rushed through at this
stage without the full consultation with the industry, which would have
been helpful. The people who keep animals and those who are responsible
for introducing legislation on animal welfare have a duty to ensure
that the animals enjoy the highest standards, not only during their
lifetime but when it comes to their death. Some animals are slaughtered
for food production, some for their own good and some, as in the case
we are discussing, so that a disease is not communicated to other
animals, domestic and wild.
The question
is how the animals should be killed. We have not heard from the
Minister yet, but I understand that the case he will be making is that
the proposed system will be used only in the most exceptional
circumstances. Some of the reasons put forward—for example, the
lack of suitable poisonous gases or the lack of labour—certainly
would not be available in usual circumstances for a chicken farmer or
someone else responsible for animals. The Minister therefore has to
plead exceptional circumstances. If the circumstances are indeed
exceptional—that is, they occur only on a very limited number of
occasions—surely we should ensure that the resources exist and
are available so that this form of slaughter is not necessary and is
not practised. Certainly, most of the animal welfare bodies are very
concerned about the proposals and that the powers are being made
available to the Secretary of State, although I understand that they
will be used only with his specific permission.
As a method of causing death,
closing off ventilation has a profound effect on the environment in
which chickens are reared. If, for instance, ventilation is
accidentally closed down because of, say, a power failure, chickens
suffer very quickly. Although we do not want to dwell on this manner of
death, it is not one that is acceptable to many hon.
Members.
First, we must
consider the increase in heat. Ventilation ensures that the temperature
is kept at a level which is suitable for chickens. When the ventilation
is shut down, the temperature rises very quickly in the premises.
Secondly, there is an increase in the carbon dioxide in the building
and in the bodies of the animals. A reflex applies to respiration so
that when carbon dioxide levels build up in the blood of an animal
their respiration rate increases as well. We have a picture of animals
getting hotter and hotter, unable to control their body temperature
because the external temperature is rising quickly, and at the same
time their respiration rate is increased.
All the
advice that we have is that when chickens are going to be slaughtered,
carbon dioxide is not acceptable as an agent because of its harmful
effects on the welfare of those chickens. The recommended gases are the
inert gases, such as nitrogen or one of the rare gases. Without
detaining the Committee for too long, and having given the hon. Member
for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) time to get his respiration back in order,
I want to reflect on the unease felt about the practice in the House of
Commons, in the industry and among the general public. It does not do
the Minister any honour to be associated with it. He has a reputation
for looking after animal welfare issues, as have many. Members present
from all parties.
I ask that
hon. Members carefully consider the regulations and listen to what the
Minister has to say. The question is whether the circumstances are
acceptable enough to betray the animals for which we are responsible
and to take Britain back one step in terms of animal
welfare.
9.12
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I hope to be able to reassure
the hon. Gentleman and perhaps to explain some of the background that
led the Government to feel that it was necessary to take such a step
and have this extra tool available in exceptional circumstances. In my
view, not only the welfare of the birds but the danger of disease
spreading to infect more birds, negatively affecting bird welfare,
would be worse if this tool was not available.
Every member
of the Committee accepts that avian flu is a serious disease that poses
a serious threat to our poultry industry and potentially also to human
health, and that the best and most effective way to tackle avian flu is
to identify the virus quickly and to eradicate it by slaughtering the
birds on infected premises as quickly as we possibly can. As the hon.
Member for Leominster mentioned, we have a number of methods available
to do that under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing)
Regulations 1995, otherwise known as WASK. Most of those methods
require hand catching of birds. That can be a slow process and could
seriously limit the rate at which killing could take place. More
importantly, it places the personnel involved in extremely close
contact with birds and, in the case of highly pathogenic strains, that
should be reduced as much as possible.
The use of
containerised gassing units has become our main technique for dealing
with medium to high volumes of birds. That was the method we used
successfully in the recent Norfolk outbreak. Following work with the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and the university of Bristol, the state veterinary service has now
acquired 50 of those units, which provide us with enough capacity to
deal with 1 million birds a day. More than 60 veterinary and technical
officers have been trained in their use. One of the
other methods available to us is whole-house gassing, which has been
effectively used in other countries. It involves the introduction of
gas with anaesthetic properties, such as carbon dioxide, into sealed
poultry houses to kill large numbers of birds humanely. We are still
doing further work on that and how we can best use it, although the SVS
is in a position to deploy whole-house gassing operationally were the
need to arise. However, whole-house gassing is not appropriate or
practical in all circumstances. There are some types of poultry houses
and laying houses in which layers are on different levels, or houses
that have deep litter, for example, where whole-house gassing might not
be effective.
So, I now
come to the method that has provoked this debate: ventilation shutdown.
If there is advice that a serious threat to public health exists, if
our resources are stretched beyond capacity as a result of multiple
outbreaks or if insufficient catchers are available to catch birds,
this method can be justified. Let me say a bit about the recent case in
Norfolk, which is the most densely populated poultry region in the UK.
Although we never considered ventilation shutdown as an option in those
cases, an issue arose to do with securing sufficient poultry catchers
quickly to deal with the catching and slaughter that needed to take
place. In
fact—I do not think that this is in the public domain
yet—slaughter on the infected premises was delayed by 24 hours
because of unforeseen difficulties in locating and assembling the
catching teams to do the work. Ministers at that time decided that it
was intolerable that we could not carry out the necessary slaughter to
prevent further disease spread from the premises and to reduce the
possible risk to poultry workers and those involved in the
slaughter. In the
light of those events, we felt that it was important to get the power
as quickly as we could, because we did not know at that time whether
the disease would spread. Thankfully, we successfully contained and
eradicated
it.
|
