15 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 | Minister's letter of 23 May 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xxxii (2007-08), chapter 3 (22 October 2008) and HC 19-xii (2008-09), chapter 2 (25 March 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 22-23 June 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 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 has since
been 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
15.2 It therefore brought forward in September 2008 this draft
Regulation, which would apply to all animals killed in a slaughterhouse,
on 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.
15.3 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.
15.4 In addition, the proposal lays down a number
of more specific conditions applicable to slaughterhouses and
to so-called "depopulation" and "emergency killing".[61]
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 and 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 1,000 livestock unit or 150,000 poultry units a
year. 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.
15.5 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. However,
it also suggested 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. It therefore wished
to ensure that an appropriate balance was 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.
15.6 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 certain human rights issues. However, since
an early decision in the Council appeared unlikely, we decided
it would be sensible to defer a final view until we had received
the Impact Assessment which the Government had promised to provide.
15.7 As we noted in our further Report of 25 March
2009, that Assessment was provided under cover of a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 10 March 2009 from the Minister for
Farming and Environment at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Jane Kennedy). This suggested that the proposals
would give rise to one-off costs to industry of £33.3 million,
and an annual average cost of £9.5 million, and 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). It went
on to observe that many of the welfare benefits cannot easily
be given a monetary value, but that, based on the Commission's
estimates of the quality related savings which improved welfare
at slaughter would bring, savings of £2 million-£7.5
million could be achieved annually in the UK. It also said that
defining welfare outcomes, rather than detailed operating procedures,
would allow food operators to take more responsibility, and that
more work will be done to assess the value of the benefits that
will accrue.
15.8 The Minister added that the Government would
be seeking to negotiate changes to the proposal which would maintain
existing welfare protection in current legislation, but which
would introduce improvements where the welfare benefits are proportionate
to the costs involved. She said that 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 being realised on livestock farms and in poultry slaughterhouses.
15.9 In noting this information, we said noted that,
before we could clear the document, there were two other points
on which we would welcome further information. First, the Minister
had previously told us that the proposal would not include some
of the current UK welfare requirements, and that enforcement of
these might not be possible under the new Regulation, and we asked
whether this last concern had been met. Secondly, we asked if
the Minister had anything to add about the potential conflict
under human rights legislation arising from the derogation from
the prior stunning requirements for killing methods permitted
by religious rites.
Minister's letter of 23 May 2009
15.10 We have now received from the Minister a letter
of 23 May 2009, providing an update on the present state of play.
She says that discussions at official level have now been completed,
and have resulted in significant changes to the text, the latest
version of which addresses a number of issues of concern to the
UK. In particular, the Minister says that, although the proposed
Regulation is less detailed and prescriptive than current UK legislation,
it does now establish a basis for ensuring that current welfare
protection can be maintained.
15.11 She adds that, despite this, a number of technical
issues remain to be resolved, and that it is likely that the Council,
in seeking to reach agreement in principle on 22-23 June, will
need to take decisions on a number of key points, including the
approach to religious slaughter, the procedures applicable to
the slaughtering of farmed fish, and the scope for stricter national
rules (which she says may be a red line point for many Member
States).
15.12 That said, she considers that overall the proposed
Regulation represents a worthwhile step, and says that the UK
supports its introduction. In particular, she points out that
the proposal will extend to all Member States the licensing arrangements
for slaughtermen which currently apply in the UK, and the Animal
Welfare Officer concept (adopted voluntarily by many slaughterhouses
in the UK and Germany; and that the proposed alignment of slaughterhouse
control procedures in relation to hygiene and welfare issues will
reduce bureaucracy by applying a common risk-based approach to
both. She also says that, as it is unlikely to be possible to
secure the harmonisation of all measures throughout the Community,
the Government proposed to support the inclusion of top up provisions
for Member States which are sufficiently wide to ensure that the
UK can maintain and enforce its current welfare standards.
15.13 Finally, the Minister addresses the question
of religious slaughter, and the possible human rights issues to
which this gives rise. She points out that the latest draft of
the proposal removes the derogation for religious slaughter, but
would allow Member States to exercise discretion through stricter
national rules. She repeats that the key human rights issue is
whether the derogation from the prior stunning requirements for
killing methods permitted by religious rites would conflict 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. She also points out that the manifestation of either
right is subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by
law and are necessary in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others, adding that any
limitation would need to satisfy this two stage test.
15.14 She says that the Government would prefer to
see all animals stunned before slaughter, but recognises the rights
of those wishing to eat meat prepared in accordance with their
religious beliefs, and has no plans to change that approach. She
also points out that, although labelling falls outside the scope
of the current proposal, proposals for a Community welfare labelling
scheme are likely to be published next year, and that the issue
will be considered further in that context. In the meantime, she
suggests that, as the Government is proposing to maintain its
current approach to religious slaughter, the risk of a challenge
under the European Court of Human Rights is low.
Conclusion
15.15 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information, and note that, although a number of issues
still have to be agreed by the Council
later this month, the Government supports the proposal as a worthwhile
measure. In view of this, and in particular the Minister's response
to the questions we raised in our previous Report, we are now
clearing the document.
61 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
|
