Bill
Wiggin: One of the problems that I have in listening to
the Minister is that I should like him to confirm that avian influenza
is not spread through the ventilation system when it is on already. In
the case of the Norfolk outbreak, avian influenza was not being spread
from house to house through the ventilation systems, if they were on
anyway. The way in which it is spread is through faeces; therefore, the
need to cull quickly—because the ventilation system could be
pushing the disease out— may or may not apply in the case of
avian influenza. The
Minister mentioned whole-house gassing but, although there are of
course difficulties collecting catchers, we are in fact comparing
whole-house gassing with ventilation shutdown, not the other types of
culling method, which may be preferable, so the comparison is very
narrow.
Mr.
Bradshaw: On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, I
have already indicated that the Government’s strong preference
would be for whole-house gassing, but there
are some circumstances in which it would not work. He is right that we
do not have evidence to suggest that avian flu is spread on the air or
through ventilation systems. However, the alternative to ventilation
shutdown in those extreme and exceptional circumstances would simply be
to shut the building and leave the poultry inside to die slowly from
the disease. That might be his preferred method, but mine is to do what
one can to speed up the death of those infected birds, which would die
anyway. I should add
that my officials have been working extremely hard since the Norfolk
experience with the poultry industry to address the issue of catchers.
We believe that we now have guarantees from the industry that we would
have catchers available. However, we thought that before the Norfolk
outbreak, but it did not happen. We are talking about contractors, who
do not work with the same methods and within the regular systems that
most of us would recognise. Without the ability to guarantee that we
would have enough catchers available in the event of multiple
outbreaks, we felt that it was necessary to take the
powers. I recognise
that there are strong concerns about animal welfare, but I should like
to make three points about that. First, ventilation shutdown would only
ever be used as a last resort. All other methods would have to be
explored first. A serious and heightened concern over human and animal
health would be needed even to contemplate the use of ventilation
shutdown. In such circumstances, however, it is at least possible that
VSD could be the lesser of two evils. Surely it is better, if no other
means are available, to use VSD to prevent further spread of disease,
protect birds from infection and protect human
health. Secondly, its
use would need to be authorised specifically on a case-by-case basis by
the Secretary of State or a senior DEFRA official. Only the state
veterinary service would be able to implement that method of killing,
and vets would be responsible for supervising and monitoring its
use. Thirdly, if we
were put into a position where we had to consider the use of VSD, we
would do everything that we could to ensure that it delivered as rapid
a death as possible to the birds concerned. It is clearly not our
preferred method of killing birds. That is why our main efforts are now
on further refining methods such as whole-house gassing in co-operation
with the poultry
industry. Mr.
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): I am slightly
confused by the drafting of the proposed legislation. Paragraph 2(3)(h)
permits “ventilation
shutdown provided that no one enters the building in which birds are
housed save for monitoring purposes until it is ascertained that all of
the birds are
dead.” Surely one of the
legitimate monitoring purposes envisaged would be to ascertain whether
all the birds are dead.
If somebody enters the building
and discovers that not all the birds are dead, is that person creating
an offence? Will he have to notify DEFRA? What would be DEFRA’s
response to somebody who entered the building, perhaps for innocent
purposes or to check whether all the birds were dead, and discovered
that they were not?
Mr.
Bradshaw: The paragraph to which the hon. Gentlemen refers
makes it clear that people will be allowed to enter the building
specifically to ascertain whether the birds are dead. Otherwise, they
should not, because obviously any opening of the ventilation shutdown
is likely to prolong the life of the birds rather than speed up their
death. The process will be supervised by state vets, so I would suggest
that the event of some other person accidentally entering the building
would not arise. As I
said, it is not our preferred method of killing. We are working
extremely hard further to refine other methods. The hon. Member for
Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned that the industry had
concerns about it. Of course it has concerns. We have concerns about it
too, but this power is supported by the industry. The chief executive
of the British Poultry Council
said: “We see
ventilation [shutdown] as a last resort, but it’s wrong to
overturn its use in extreme cases, where our ultimate aim is to protect
human health.”
Nigel Horrox, president of the
British Veterinary Poultry Association, said that ventilation shutdown
could be the “lesser of two evils” and
that “there may be more
suffering and welfare problems attached to doing
nothing”.
Bill
Wiggin: I do not think that anybody here would dispute the
need to put the welfare of human beings first, so I absolutely agree
with what the BPC said. However, we are not really talking about human
health. Catchers would and should be protected by Tamiflu, protective
clothing and all the other measures that should be taken. We are
talking about cases in which people would not be going into chicken
houses, and I find it difficult to understand the Minister’s
view that VSD would be the lesser of two evils when the correct choice
should be VSD or
gassing. It is not
right to say, as he did, that we would be content for birds to be left
to die. Methods exist that are satisfactory, legal and understood by
the OIE to be legitimate, but VSD is not one of them. It is wrong, and
I hope that the Minister will think again about what he said about the
BPC.
Mr.
Bradshaw: It is not what I said about the BPC but what the
BPC said. It is extraordinary that the Conservative party, including
its new leader, has set itself on a collision course with our poultry
industry.
Bill
Wiggin: I have listened with disappointment to the
Minister. He has defended the indefensible. It is absolutely wrong to
consider just turning off the fans as a humane and legitimate way
forward. The Minister
talked about hand-catching as an alternative. I think that we in the
Committee all understand that that is not the equation that we need to
balance. We are discussing whether the Government should do more work
to improve their methods of whole-house gassing. Yes, perhaps a
different sort of gas should be used in batteries, where chickens can
be in cages almost up to the ceiling. Perhaps what the Government
should be doing now is seeking proper slaughter methods that are humane
and that protect the interests of the workers in the poultry industry.
Most important of all—and this is my greatest
fear—inhumane methods will drag down our poultry sector in a way
that it does not deserve, and that would be damaging in the long
run. We know that the
regulations have been introduced to enable the Government to deal with
avian influenza. The Minister confirmed today that the virus does not
pass through the ventilation system. Therefore, the risk of leaving it
on is negligible and not what concerns the Minister. If gas were used,
the problems would be solved. I urge the Committee to think carefully
about the
regulations. Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): I am interested in the hon.
Gentleman’s arguments. Clearly, this is a difficult decision. He
suggested using gas for the whole building, but all inert gases have
the same effect on the birds, in that they replace the oxygen in the
room. If the ventilation system were kept on, surely it would remove
the gas that was used for killing the
birds.
Bill
Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is right. The ventilation
system is turned off when whole-house gassing takes place. The idea is
that the gas works more quickly than the heat effect of turning the
ventilation system off. I am sure that he has been into a poultry
house, so he will know that the bottom 12 inches is quite cool—a
comfortable temperature for poultry. The rest of the house is generally
very hot. At my height, head height is extremely uncomfortable, stuffy
and unpleasant. We
seek the most humane and legal method. That means that one has to do
more than just turn the fans off and let the chickens get hotter and
hotter. We object to that, and that is why I urge the Government to
think about gases that would make the process faster than would be the
case with natural suffocation or
hyperthermia. The hon.
Gentleman makes an important point, but I would like the Government to
do much more work rather than put in place this knee-jerk reaction.
They have the facilities to do so. We are not in the midst of a crisis
so do not need to rush this through. We can afford a little more time
for the Government to perfect their
proposal.
Mr.
Bradshaw: So let’s wait for
it.
Bill
Wiggin: I hear the Minister say from a sedentary position,
“So let’s wait for it.” That is exactly the
opposite of what we mean. We want him to ensure that he has a proper
method.
Mr.
Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman says that we are not in a
crisis so we do not need to do anything. He seems to be suggesting that
we should wait until we are in a crisis, by which time it will be too
late.
Bill
Wiggin: The Minister was not listening carefully. I
clearly said that because we are not in a crisis now, the Government
have time to undertake proper research and find a better way of mass
slaughter. If the Government then do nothing and wait until we are in a
crisis, they will have been extremely
irresponsible. Daniel
Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): My hon. Friend
mentioned earlier that it could take hours or even a day for the birds
to die using the method proposed. That is of great concern. I presume
that death would come almost instantaneously if some gas were
used.
Bill
Wiggin: I do not have absolute timings. It would depend on
the size of the house and the quantities of gas put in, but turning the
ventilation system off would result in different times for different
birds and would be much slower. By introducing a poisonous or inert
gas, we would have a more consistent, more uniform and much faster
death rate in the house. This is an unpleasant and horrible
consideration for the Committee to have to make, but the idea that
turning the ventilation system off is the lesser of two evils is
utterly wrong. I urge hon. Members to reject the
motion. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
5.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or
Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No.
1200). Committee
rose at half-past Nine
o’clock
| 
