2 Protection of animals at the time of
killing
| (29969)
13312/08
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(08) 553
| Draft Council Regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 10 March 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xxxii (2007-08), chapter 3 (22 October 2008)
|
| To be discussed in Council | See para 2.13
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 According to the Commission, large numbers of pigs, sheep,
goats, cattle and poultry are killed in Community slaughterhouses
each year, and the control of contagious diseases may also require
the killing of many more. It says that measures have been in place
since 1974 to regulate these activities, but that there have since
been a number of significant developments, notably an increasing
public concern for animal welfare, the introduction of wider food
safety legislation, and the questions raised about mass killings
during epidemics. It also notes a number of other issues, such
as the lack of harmonised methodology for new stunning methods,
the lack of clear responsibilities for operators, the level of
competence of the personnel involved, and inadequate welfare conditions.
The current proposal
2.2 It therefore brought forward in September 2008 this draft
Regulation, which would apply to all animals killed in a slaughterhouse,
on a farm or for disease control purposes. It aims to improve
their protection; to encourage innovation in relation to stunning
and killing techniques; and to provide a level playing field within
the internal market. In addition, it identifies a number of more
specific objectives, notably the development of a common approach
to new stunning methods; better integration of animal welfare
concerns; the upgrading of slaughterhouse construction and equipment;
increased competence of operators and officials; and improved
animal welfare during mass killing operations.
2.3 These objectives would be achieved by a number
of general requirements, including the avoidance of any unnecessary
suffering; provision for physical comfort (including feed and
water) and protection from injury and disease; the need for killing
to ensure instantaneous death or after stunning (subject to a
derogation to permit killing without prior stunning where prescribed
by religious rites); killing to be carried out only by those holding
a certificate of competence; and the need for equipment used for
restraining or stunning to have appropriate instructions.
2.4 In addition, the proposal lays down a number
of more specific conditions applicable to slaughterhouses and
to so-called "depopulation" and "emergency killing".[11]
Those relating to slaughterhouses would apply immediately to new
premises, and from 1 January 2019 to existing establishments,
and would cover:
- approval of their construction
and equipment, including maximum throughput, the categories of
animals and weights for which the available restraining and stunning
equipment[12] may be
used, and maximum lairage capacity;
- an obligation on operators to ensure compliance
with the relevant rules;
- appropriate monitoring procedures to ensure effective
stunning; and
- the designation of a suitably qualified animal
welfare officer for each slaughterhouse handling over 1000 livestock
unit or 150,000 poultry units a year.
2.5 In the case of depopulation, an action plan would
need to be drawn up, followed by an annual evaluation report to
the Commission, with a note of any derogations granted where compliance
would affect human health or significantly slow down the eradication
of a disease. Member States would also be required to appoint
a national reference centre to provide the scientific and technical
expertise needed, to designate a competent authority responsible
for ensuring that approved training courses are available, for
delivering (or withdrawing) the necessary certificates of competence
and for monitoring. Member States would also be required to lay
down appropriate penalties and ensure that the provisions in the
Regulation are implemented.
2.6 As we noted in our report of 22 October 2008,
the Government says that, subject to further consideration of
some of the detailed technical provisions, the proposal would
bring welfare standards across the Community into line with some
of those currently applying in the UK (or considered to be best
practice), and places more responsibility on operators, in line
with Government policies on cost and responsibility sharing. However,
it also suggests that the proposal would not include some of the
current UK welfare requirements, that enforcement of these might
not be possible under the new Regulation, and that it would increase
regulatory and administrative burdens, such as new reporting and
notification procedures, the proposed licensing provisions, and
the provisions on depopulation. It therefore wished to ensure
that an appropriate balance is struck, and it also noted that
the derogation from the prior stunning requirements for killing
methods permitted by religious rites could potentially conflict
under human rights legislation with the freedom of conscience
of those who consider that the only humane way to slaughter an
animal is with prior stunning or instantaneous death, should the
method of slaughter not be clear to those obtaining the meat.
2.7 We were told that an Impact Assessment would
be provided in spring 2009, and would include a full consideration
of the financial implications, based on a formal consultation
exercise. The Government also believed that little progress was
likely in the Council until the second half of 2009. We commented
that the proposal made some significant amendments to the current
Community legislation, and, as such, raised, not only the usual
questions regarding the relative costs and benefits, but also
some potentially controversial human rights issues. However, since
an early decision appeared unlikely, we decided it would be sensible
to defer a final view until we received the promised Impact Assessment.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 10 March
2009
2.8 We have now received from the Minister for Farming
and Environment at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Jane Kennedy) a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 10 March 2009, enclosing that Assessment. This points out that
the proposed regulation will affect all the 450 slaughterhouses
which are currently approved in the UK, and will impact on the
welfare of some 900 million poultry, 20 million sheep, 8.5 million
pigs, and 2.3 million cattle slaughtered or killed annually. It
will also affect 180,000 livestock farmers and 40,000 poultry
holdings, 350 knackers yards and others involved in the slaughter
of animals outside a slaughterhouse. In addition, there will be
an impact on companies manufacturing equipment for use in slaughterhouses,
on Government agencies responsible for approving facilities and
enforcement, as well as those responsible for disease control.
Finally, the potential improvements in animal welfare will have
an impact on the general public, in the light of the value placed
on animal welfare.
2.9 The Assessment recalls that the proposals would
introduce a number of changes and new measures, including standard
operating procedures to be prepared at an individual plant level;
an Animal Welfare Officer in every slaughterhouse over a minimum
size; certificates of competence; and slaughterhouse construction,
layout, equipment and operating rules, including a move to constant
current stunning equipment. It suggests that these would give
rise to one-off costs of £33.3 million, and an annual average
cost of £9.5 million, against the £4.4 billion annual
value of UK livestock production (at farm gate prices).
2.10 These costs would be broken down between these
measures and between sectors as follows:
| One Off Cost
| Annual Recurring Cost
|
| Proposed Change
| | |
| Standard Operating Procedures
| £7.5 million |
£6.2 million |
| Animal Welfare Officer
| £182,000 | £225,000
|
| Certificates of Competence
| £5.6 million |
£3.0 million |
| Capital Costs
| £20 million | Nil
|
| |
|
| Sector of Industry
| | |
| Poultry Slaughterhouse
| £6.3 million |
£317,000 |
| Redmeat slaughterhouse
| £15.0 million |
£1.1 million |
| Knackers yard
| £67,000 | £300,000
|
| Poultry Unit
| £1.3 million |
£1.0 million |
| Livestock Farm
| £10.5 million |
£6.7 million |
Assuming that the cost of setting up and administering
the certificate of competence arrangements, training and testing
will be met through fees, the Assessment suggests that there would
also be a one-off cost to Government of around £390,000 and
an annual recurring cost of about £250,000, but no change
in current enforcement costs of £127,000 per annum.
2.11 The Assessment observes that many of the welfare
benefits cannot easily be given a monetary value. It notes that
the current regulatory framework reflects the fact that society
generally expects animals to be treated humanely, but points out
that higher welfare standards can improve meat quality and reduce
losses from carcase damage. However, based on the Commission's
estimates of the quality related savings which improved welfare
at slaughter would bring, it suggests that savings of £2
million-£7.5 million could be achieved annually in the UK.
It also says that defining welfare outcomes, rather than detailed
operating procedures, will allow food operators to take more responsibility
for welfare in line with the needs of their own individual business,
and that more work will be done to assess the value of the benefits
that will accrue.
2.12 The Minister says that the Government will be
seeking to negotiate changes to the proposal which will maintain
existing welfare protection in current legislation, but introduce
improvements where the welfare benefits are proportionate to the
costs involved. These include deferring certain requirements on
the stunning of poultry; removing the requirement for standard
operating procedures where animals are killed on farm; removing
the need for a certificate of competence where an owner slaughters
an animal for personal consumption. These changes would reduce
the one-off costs to £19.6 million, and the recurring annual
cost to £2.6 million, with the main reductions in the former
case (of £10.5 million and £3 million respectively)
being realised on livestock farms and in poultry slaughterhouses.
2.13 On the timing of the proposal, the Minister
says that the plenary session of the European Parliament is expected
to consider it on 25 March, and that this could lead to consideration
by the Council in late April or May.
Conclusion
2.14 We are grateful to the Minister for this
information, and have noted that the UK will be seeking amendments
to the proposal, aimed at achieving a better balance between the
costs involved and the expected welfare benefits. However, before
we are in a position to clear the document, there are two other
points on which we would welcome further information.
2.15 First, the Minister told us in her initial
Explanatory Memorandum of 14 October 2008 that the proposal would
bring welfare standards across the Community into line with some
of those currently applying in the UK (or considered to be best
practice), but that it would not include some of the current UK
welfare requirements, and that enforcement of these might not
be possible under the new Regulation. We would be glad to know
whether this last concern has been met. Secondly, we would also
be interested to know if the Minister has anything to add to her
previous comments about the potential conflict under human rights
legislation arising from the derogation from the prior stunning
requirements for killing methods permitted by religious rites.
11 Depopulation is defined as the supervised killing
of animals for public health, animal health, animal welfare or
environmental reasons, whilst emergency killing is the unavoidable
killing of those which are injured or have a disease associated
with pain or suffering. Back
12
This includes mechanical, electrical and gas methods. Back
|
