STANDARDS FOR HYGIENE AND CONSTRUCTION OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES

HC Deb 03 August 1972 vol 842 cc978-1001 The Ministers shall within one year of the coming into force of this Act make and lay before Parliament regulations substituting for the Slaughterhouse (Hygiene) Regulations 1958 and amendments thereto standards for hygiene and construction of slaughterhouses which shall include—

1. (a) sufficiently large premises for the stabling of animals;
2. (b) slaughtering premises of such a size that work can be carried out satisfactorily, and provided with a special section for slaughtering pigs;
3. (c) premises for the emptying and cleansing of stomachs and intestines;
4. (d) premises for dressing of guts and tripe;
5. (e) separate premises for the storage of suet, and of hides, horn and hooves;
6. (f) locked premises reserved for stabling sick or suspect animals, slaughtering such animals, storing of condemned meat and of seized meat;
7. (g) sufficiently large refrigeration rooms;
8. (h) suitable quarters, which can be locked, for the exclusive use of the veterinary service, 979 including a room equipped for carrying out a trichinoscopic test, when such a test is compulsory;
9. (i) cloakrooms, wash basins and showers and water closets (the latter not opening directly on to the working premises) in which the wash basins must be provided with hot and cold water, with arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting the hands, and with hand-towels for use once only, and must be adjacent to the water closets;
10. (j) arrangements so that veterinary inspection can be carried out efficiently at any time;
11. (k) means of checking access to and from the slaughterhouse;
12. (l) an adequate partition between the clean and the polluted section;
13. (m) in premises where meat is handled:

flooring of waterproof material, easy to cleanse and disinfect and rot-proof, sloping slightly, with an appropriate system for running off liquids to drains fitted with traps and gratings; smooth walls, covered up to a height of at least 3 metres with light, washable paint, and with rounded angles and corners;

1. (n) adequate ventilation and steam extraction in premises where meat is dressed and handled;
2. (o) in the same premises, adequate natural or artificial lighting, which does not distort colours;
3. (p) an adequate supply, under pressure, of drinking water only;
4. (q) arrangements for the provision of sufficient quantities of hot water;
5. (r) arrangements for draining of residual water in accordance with hygienic requirements;
6. (s) in working premises, adequate arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting hands and working equipment;
7. (t) arrangements so that, after slaughter, dressing can be carried out as far as possible on the suspended animal; where skinning is carried out on metal counters, they shall be of stainless materials and of a height such that the carcass does not touch the floor;
8. (u) a network of aerial rails for the subsequent handling of the meat;
9. (v) protection against insects and rodents;
10. (w) tools and working materials, in particular stainless containers easy to cleanse and disinfect;
11. (x) a special section for manure; and
12. (y) space and arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting vehicles.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

With the new Clause we are to consider Amendment No. 14, in Clause 6, page 6, line 44, after 'premises', insert: 'and also comply with the following conditions: Premises for the cutting up of meat, separated from other premises by walls; Sufficiently large refrigeration rooms; Suitable quarters, which can be locked, for the exclusive use of the veterinary service; Cloakrooms, wash-basins and showers, and water closets, the latter not opening directly onto the working precises; the wash-basins shall be provided with hot and cold water, arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting the hands, and with towels for use once only; the wash-basins must be adjacent to the water-closets; In the butchery premises: flooring of waterproof material, easy to cleanse and disinfect, and rot-proof, sloping slightly and with an appropriate system for funning off liquids to drains fitted with traps and gratings; smooth walls, covered up to a height of at least three metres, with light, washable paint, and with rounded angles and corners; Cooling arrangements in the butchery premises to keep meat permanently at an internal temperature lower than or equal to +7°C; Adequate ventilation in the butchery premises; In the same premises, adequate natural or artificial lighting, which does not distort colours; An adequate supply, under pressure of drinking water only; Arrangements for provision of sufficient quantities of hot water; Arrangements for draining off residual water, in accordance with hygienic requirements; In butchery premises, adequate provision for cleansing and disinfecting hands and working equipment; Protection against insects and rodents; Working equipment and tools, in particular fixed butchers' blocks, receptacles, conveyor belts and saws, of stainless material, easy to cleanse and disinfect.' and Amendment No. 37, in page 7, line 29, at end insert: (5) Before the coming into effect of any of the foregoing provisions of this section the Ministers shall consult on questions of hygiene with the heads of preventive medicine of all the medical faculties.

Mr. Morris

These are very important Amendments. As my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have said in Standing Committee, the Government are in a contradictory position. While they passionately advocate entry to the European Economic Community, they seem strangely reluctant to come to terms with its attitudes in this field. At present, two different standards are applied to slaughterhouses in this country. One standard is for meat produced for the home market and the other is a much higher standard for meat intended for the European export market. Of some 2,000 slaughterhouses, only about 40 are approved for the export of meat to the EEC countries. Less than 30 are approved for export to West Germany, where the highest standards apply.

It is highly significant that, although local authorities operate only around 100 slaughterhouses, approximately 30 per cent. of them are approved for the export trade to West Germany. The replacement of some of the public abattoirs by private slaughterhouses, which the Ministry appears to expect because of the change in licensing policy, could reduce the number of establishments which are up to export standard. We were entitled to expect that any change in Government policy would be designed to bring standards up to the export slaughterhouse level and not to reduce the number of slaughterhouses already providing the higher standards. There is no obvious reason why the dual standard, a lower standard for meat for home consumption and a higher one for meat exports, should be retained. Moreover, there can be no reason why the situation should be deliberately worsened by Government legislation.

It is generally acknowledged by all hon. and right hon. Members that the new local authority abattoirs are among the best in the country. They were built and operate to the highest standards in accordance with local authority concern and responsibility for the health of their communities. Against this, there is no dispute that many private slaughterhouses comply only with the lowest standards acceptable under the regulations. The closure of high-standard public abattoirs and their replacement by private slaughterhouses of the minimum standard would be a retrograde step.

There is no evidence that any benefits will accrue to the community because of the change in licensing policy. There is every reason to believe that such a policy woud be detrimental to the public interest as standards are likely to fall. The elimination of dual standards, a lower one for home consumption and a higher one for export, will be further delayed. The cost of enforcing the regulations will increase with the greater number of private slaughterhouses and the closure of public slaughterhouses because of the pressure of inequitable competition. Consequently, debt charges will have to be paid out of rates for many years with no corresponding benefit.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)

The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinary statement. He must know that there have been frequent inquiries into slaughterhouses, which we have all read. We all know the background. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he is saying that the standards of private slaughterhouses will be lower? That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman has not substantiated his case in any way. It is mischievous of him to make such a suggestion.

Mr. Morris

The hon. Gentleman was not on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

No, but I have read it.

Mr. Morris

We debated this matter at length in Committee. I shall, as my speech proceeds, try to show the hon. Gentleman how slaughtering standards will be placed at risk.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Nonsense.

Mr. Morris

If we fail to sustain our argument in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments, standards will be placed at serious risk. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.

Mr. John Mackie (Enfield, East)

Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) realises that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr Scott-Hopkins) was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Slaughterhouses Act was brought in to modernise slaughterhouses and reduce the number of slaughterhouses from the high number to which they had proliferated, which had created bad slaughterhouses.

Mr. Morris

I shall not get involved in this argument between former Ministers at Whitehall Place. I hope to show the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that we agree much more with the policy which he was pursuing at the Ministry than with that now pursued by his right hon. and hon. Friends. The new abattoirs were designed on the strength of the Government policy of restricting the licensing of new slaughterhouses. It could never have been evisaged when these abattoirs were being planned that a complete reversal in policy, from restriction according to need to freedom irrespective of need, could ever take place.

Involved in this debate are important questions of hygiene. If we look at the standards which are required in the European Economic Community, we find that they are deeply concerned to avoid threats to public health. Under the heading "Inspection of Staff", the EEC directive states: Every person working in contact with meat must have a medical examination at least once a year to check whether he is a carrier of any diseases likely to be passed on to the meat". There is no such requirement in the British regulations. When medical examinations were introduced at the Manchester abattoir, prior to obtaining approval for the export trade, two men were found to be carriers and had to be taken off meat handling. This is a very serious matter. Without the examination, these men could have continued to handle meat for domestic consumption. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how many of the private slaughterhouses have medical examination requirements.

It is important to emphasise the interest of the consumer in this debate. Why should the British housewife accept lower standards than the French or West German housewife? What possible argument can there be against adjusting British standards to those of the European Economic Community? We have always been prepared to praise what is good in the EEC and to question and criticise what we think is bad. We are asking the Government to be consistent. I know that Ministers feel that there should be more slaughtering in the producer areas and less in the consumer areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has pointed out, the argument might be valid if one were thinking of driving cattle from the vastness of the American prairies to the Chicago meat processing yards. But the argument does not stand up when one is talking of moving livestock from Chorley to Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman really must be consistent. As this is the first debate of the day, we hope that he will make a constructive response to the arguments we have adduced in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments. As he knows, by 1976 we shall have to come up to EEC standards for poultry slaughtering. Red meat is much more important. Why cannot we say that we are prepared to lift our standards to the export level?

4.30 p.m.

The bringing of British slaughterhouses up to the higher standards in the directive is clearly an important and worthwhile step achievable within a limited period. This should have had a higher place in the Government's priorities than the proposed new legislation which, if enacted, may result in a deterioration of standards by compelling local authorities to close down or curtail their abattoir operations. I argued in Committee that Manchester's first class public abattoir was now at risk. What possible justification can there be for the threat to this and other first-class abattoirs in the public sector? The Minister's policy is one of free-for-all. He seems unconcerned about whether we reduced the public sector, notwithstanding the very high standards of many of its abattoirs.

There was talk in Committee of allowing local authorities to increase their charges. As far as I am aware, local authorities do not wish to increase their charges. They are genuinely concerned, as the Government only pretend to be, about the battle against inflation. A great burden is being carried by the ratepayers which may well increase as a consequence of the Government's policy.

I ask the Minister to take very seriously the point I have made about carriers of food poisoning in the employment of abattoirs in this country. Two men had to be removed from their work in the Manchester abattoir. As far as I know, the Minister can give no assurance whatever that carriers of food poisoning are not employed in some of the abattoirs of this country. This is a further reason for my having emphasised that this is very much a consumer's debate. We are arguing the public interest against a policy which seeks to serve only private interests.

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I again ask the Minister to reply constructively to our submission in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments.

Mr. Thomas Torney (Bradford, South)

I am very sorry that the Government do not seem to learn by their mistakes and that there appears to be scant regard for the interests not only of consumers but of workers in slaughterhouses.

The Government have introduced an extremely controversial Clause dealing with slaughterhouses. I wonder how many people realise that there are different standards for the killing of cattle for human consumption. Prior to this Bill there were different standards for what people would buy in the butchers' shops and for what we were prepared to export. In other words, people overseas demand that our slaughterhouses should be so organised that they give a greater degree of protection to the meat which we export to Europe than to the meat which people buy in butchers' shops in this country. Yet the Government have chosen to ignore this factor.

Those of us who have had to sit through the hours of debate on the European Communities Bill know that many laws in this country will have to be changed by virtue of our entry. Some of them appertain to this Bill. Clause 6 is an absolute nonsense. We had the nonsense of discussing in one room in the Committee corridor alterations in the law relating to killing cattle for human consumption, and in another room the Common Market, which could well do something different, was being discussed.

Moreover, to add insult to injury, when we discussed Clause 6 in Committee, we were not allowed by the Chairman to raise the points with which today's new Clause 1 deals. We were not allowed by the Chairman to discuss items affecting the Common Market.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

On a point of order. I understand that the proceedings in Committee and the rulings of the Chairman there are not relevant to the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Passing references to many things are allowed, but they should not be dwelt on.

Mr. Torney

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall make only a passing reference. It is dangerous for us to ignore the question of entry to the Common Market and how it will affect the slaughter of cattle for human consumption, but at one time we were not allowed to discuss it in Committee. Only much later did the Chairman alter his ruling and allow us to introduce matters appertaining to the Common Market. It is all the more deplorable that we have to curb our debate in this way, because we were promised by the Chairman of the Standing Committee that we should be allowed greater time to debate this matter on Report. I am thankful that the Chair has seen fit at least to select new Clause 1 for discussion.

For the protection of the consumer it is vital that we have slaughterhouses to standards which are at least as high as those on the Continent. However, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) did not make clear concerns the workers in the industry. I have to declare an interest here since I am sponsored by the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, which is the main trade union responsible for the organisation of slaughterhouse workers. That union deplores the fact that this Bill proposes to weaken the control of local authorities over slaughtering. As my hon. Friend said, new Clause 1 seeks to bring our slaughterhouses up to the required standard of those in Common Market countries. They are standards which the Minister will have to adopt sooner or later once we are in the Common Market. It is difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman will not accept them today.

My trade union which represents the workers in the industry agrees with the present system of local authority slaughtering. It is ludicrous now to propose a system which will encourage in all parts of the country the springing up of small, inadequately staffed and poorly organised slaughterhouses which will be a danger to the health of the people and result in far worse conditions for those working in them.

There is another aspect, and that is sanitary control. Anyone who knows even a little about slaughterhouses knows that it is not easy to secure a sufficient number of sanitary inspectors of meat. Local authorities have great difficulty. There is a shortage of this kind of skilled person—

Mr. Deakins

They are not all that skilled.

Mr. Torney

When we switch to the method envisaged in the Bill and have slaughterhouses possibly at the point of production rather than at the point of distribution, many more slaughterhouses will be spread over a much wider area, some of them in rural districts, and they will be an added weight for the local authorities' inspectors of meat. In some places, the situation is reaching breaking point already. If the Minister requires inspectors to go further afield to many more slaughterhouses, the chances of having proper inspection of the meat that we are to eat will be severely reduced, and greater stress will be placed on local authorities as a result.

4.45 p.m.

In addition to the workers in the industry not wishing to have this change, it is opposed by the local authorities. The great mass of local authorities provide up-to-date slaughtering methods. Most, though not all, have slaughterhouses which come up to the Continental standard which is required by new Clause 1. In effect, that is the Common Market requirement.

Certain sections of the medical profession are opposed to the change, and I am glad to see that an Amendment has been tabled which draws attention to this point. As a result of my small interest in the subject in the Standing Committee, I have had letters from various associations connected with the medical profession. They all say that we are not making this protest strong enough, loud enough and wide-ranging enough. In other words the doctors, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, are worried that this change will mean a lowering of our health standards. For all these sound and concrete reasons, even at this late stage the Minister should postpone any further dealing with the Clause until the Common Market regulations have come fully into effect.

I should very much like to be able to speak for as long as I did in Committee. Already the Whips are looking at me indicating that there is not much time for this debate. However, I want to make this final point.

There has been far too little consideration, examination and consultation with those who will be affected by the proposed change in the law covering slaughterhouses. I am sure that the Minister knows that prior to the passing of the 1958 Act dealing with slaughterhouses there was an interdepartmental committee of inquiry and that prior to the passing of the 1967 Act there was the well-known Verdon-Smith Inquiry. I should like to have read the report of that inquiry, but there is not sufficient time and it is too lengthy. I should like to have read parts of it. Unfortunately, there is not even time for that. I assume that the Minister has read it or that perhaps he remembers the points that I made about it in Committee—

Mr. Prior

I do.

Mr. Torney

In any event, there should have been more consultation. The local authorities have told me that they were not properly consulted. I am sure that the Minister will not challenge that this time. I think that he appreciates that I was correct when I said it in Committee. My own trade union would like to have been consulted a great deal more. Without prejudice to this change in the legislation, could not the Minister put it back a little with a view to consulting more and giving it at least the same sort of study as was carried out prior to the 1958 and 1967 Acts, possibly appointing a Select Committee to do the job?

I am convinced that some kind of inquiry of this nature is necessary, bearing in mind all that is said in new Clause 1 which in effect is a restatement of Common Market policy. After many months and long hours of debate in the course of which we were told that we had to accept Common Market policies, the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that this House should accept a Bill which is contrary to one aspect of those policies. If it were other aspects of Common Market policy, I should be very happy. However, this is one of the few aspects of that policy which lay down more stringent regulations for the well being of workers and the health of consumers and which are better than we have at present. I do not understand the logic of the Government introducing a Bill containing a provision like this after all they have said about the urgency and advantages of our joining the Common Market.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Having listened to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) I judge myself fortunate not to have been a member of the Standing Committee; because, as the hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged, he did not spare either himself or the Committee in expressing his views, nor did he spare the House this evening.

The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) are labouring under two misapprehensions. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe opposes Clause 6 because, understandably, he is obsessed with the position of Manchester Corporation's slaughterhouse. The worry which existed in earlier years about this slaughterhouse still continues.

Mr. Alfred Morris

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in addition to Manchester, other major local authorities are affected?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Certainly. The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the place he knows and understands best—Manchester slaughterhouse, which has been one of the best municipal slaughterhouses. However, the fact that it loses about £1,000 a week must be borne in mind.

Both hon. Members asserted that, if the proposals contained in Clause 6 are adopted, standards will decline progressively and there will be a proliferation of small slaughterhouses. When my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill, I, because of my previous connection with slaughterhouse policy, had misgivings about whether this was the right thing to do. However, having examined the figures and studied carefully the debates in Standing Committee and having listened to the Second Reading debate, I have concluded that what was right in the 1950s and partially right in the 1960s is no longer right in the 1970s.

It is essential to allow private slaughterhouses to operate. There will not be a sudden increase in the number of slaughterhouses. Since 1962 there has been a steady decrease. The Bill for which I had some responsibility in 1963 was designed to reduce the number of 4,700 to a more amenable figure. The number in fact reduced to about 1,500 to 1,700.

When Clause 6 begins to be operated there will not be a sudden upsurge in small, backward, unhygienic, badly run slaughterhouses. It is not practical economics for private enterprise to put money into such a set-up. Those in the industry are hard-headed.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe pertinently asked what is to be done with municipal slaughterhouses on which a great deal of ratepayers' money has been spent and where a great deal of loan money has been used. In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the alternatives are stark. Either a monopoly is created and we have only municipal slaughterhouses and we subsidise them by ratepayers' or taxpayers' money, or municipal slaughterhouses must so arrange their charges that they can compete and become viable. If they cannot do that, they must close, and the sooner the better. If there is a demand for something different, as there will be in certain areas and as the pattern of slaughtering changes and takes place more at the point of processing, the change will take place as economic circumstances dictate and demand will be matched by supply.

Both hon. Members made great play about the difference between our standards of hygiene and those of the Common Market. Over the past few years I have had much to do with Common Market standards of slaughtering. A few years ago we had just over 20 slaughterhouses which came up to Common Market standards. But that number has increased until now the difference between standards here and those in Europe is not all that great. Although they may not come within the letter of the law as operated in Europe, the standards of many of our slaughterhouses are as good as those required in Europe. It is only a question of certain processes being gone through. There will be no difficulty about standards being met and after 1st January, 1973, when we join the Common Market this will not present a problem in either the public or the private sector.

I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will persevere. There is bound to be anxiety among municipally-owned slaughterhouses, but they must put their house in order and become viable or take the obvious alternative course. I believe that the result of what my right hon. Friend is doing will be, with the change in the pattern of processing, not an increase in the number of small slaughterhouses, but an improved and better slaughtering service for small farmers.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)

My principal reason for supporting the new Clause is that I am influenced by its wording. It is a catalogue of the standards of public hygiene which all reasonable people would expect to be introduced in British abattoirs. There is already an excess of slaughterhouses in Britain. What we are short of is good slaughtering facilities.

If we had the standards laid down in new Clause 1 we would be acting in the interests of the British housewife and those who eat meat in this country. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who kindly referred to my constituency interest in this issue of public abattoirs. He will know from his period of ministerial office that in 1961 Manchester Corporation built in my constituency a new public slaughterhouse to bring public slaughtering facilities in Manchester up to the standards laid down in the new Clause. The Corporation built this abattoir at a cost of £4,160,000. At the beginning of this year Manchester ratepayers were carrying a financial burden running at the rate of £1,000 a day for the operation of this public abattoir.

Nearly £400,000 a year is carried by the Manchester ratepayers in providing the standard of public hygiene and slaughtering facilities which the community has a right to expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) comments that it is a tax on the health of the community. I might add in parenthesis that it is not only the animals that have been gentaly led to the slaughter! I would have welcomed the Minister including some positive proposal in this Bill aimed at relieving Manchester ratepayers of the financial burden which they are obliged to carry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe drew attention to what he termed dual standards of slaughtering facilities as applied to this country and the European Community. It is, in fact, a tripartite system of standards because not only are there different standards for this country and Europe but there are also further, different standards applying to slaughtering facilities where the meat is destined for the United States. Why should the British housewife have standards lower than the West German housewife or the American housewife? How can it be justified?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House where our standards are lower than those of Europe? What is he getting at?

Mr. Morris

Perhaps I ought to clarify the position. The Manchester abattoir is one of about 30 abattoirs recognised for the export of meat to the European Communities. There are only four abattoirs in the country recognised as being able to handle meat which is to be exported to the United States.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Where do we fall down?

Mr. Morris

It is not a question of where we fall down on any particular point; it is a matter of the comprehensive facilities available at public abattoirs, provided by municipalities. What I find disturbing is that above new Clause 1 we do not find the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We were all encouraged to see his elevation from the back benches to the Government Front Bench. However in the process we do not appear to be dealing with the same man. The hon. Member who has now ministerial responsibility for the Bill said on Second Reading, on precisely the point covered in New Clause 1, I strongly believe that slaughterhouses should be up to export standard. This will be costly, but the consumer has every right to have a high standard of hygiene, which is a matter of paramount importance. One can almost see him bashing the Despatch Box as he uttered those words.

Mr. Buchan

They did not let him near it then.

Mr. Morris

He went on: I know that in my part of the country the slaughterhouses are up to standard, but I must also point out that only 60 out of the 2,000 slaughterhouses in this country are up to standard compared with those in the Community. This shows what a long way we are behind our future partners".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 82.] I would not suggest for a moment that this contradiction has anything to do with the position from which he spoke on 17th January and the honoured position which he now holds. But they are illogical points of view. I share the Minister's views of 17th January.

Mr. Torney

Would my hon Friend not agree that if the difference between our slaughtering laws and the slaughtering laws of the Common Market are as minimal as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) seems to think, there should be no difficulty in the Government accepting this new Clause?

Mr. Morris

That is a perfectly valid point. The Government have been far too complacent on this question of standards of hygiene in public slaughterhouses. I say to them bluntly that they have an obligation to the community at large with these standards. No Government can afford to be complacent where the health of the community is at risk.

Mr. Prior

I would agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) that no Government can afford to be complacent in what is an extremely important matter. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are not complacent and are seeking the whole time to improve slaughterhouses as soon as possible. We want to see this pushed on rapidly. It is for the convenience of the House as a whole if we do not have long and laboured debates on each item today. In this respect I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for keeping their remarks to a reasonable length. I do not want to criticise the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney). We found him an agreeable companion in Committee, and, although we did not always agree with him, we thought that he spoke with very good humour at all times.

If I may start by slightly twisting the tails of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is interesting to note that, whereas a good many of them could see no good in anything which the Common Market did a few weeks ago, they are now tabling this Clause which broadly lays down standards prescribed for slaughterhouses in the EEC. Obviously, they must see some good in what goes on there.

I would make it absolutely plain that the directive on which the new Clause is based relates only to meat involved in intra-Community trade and not internal trade. So when the hon. Member for Openshaw asks why it is that British housewives have worse conditions than German or French housewives he is not stating the case. It will be generally accepted that the standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses are considerably higher than those on the Continent at the moment. To the extent that we want to participate in intra-Community trade it is necessary for our traders to ensure that meat comes from slaughterhouses which meet the EEC requirements. There is nothing new about this, because we already have to meet those requirements for meat which is exported to EEC countries, and we do so through our export-approved slaughterhouses. It is true that these slaughterhouses are limited in number, but as opportunities for exporting develop we believe that some slaughterhouse owners will find it worth their while to bring their slaughterhouses into line with the EEC requirements. As our association with the EEC becomes closer it will be more important that we should not be tied to a rigid pattern of slaughterhouse development but that our arrangements should be flexible so that what is needed can be provided where it is needed.

Without getting involved in all the arguments we had in Committee I must explain that we are trying to allow the industry to develop in a pragmatic way without putting any one section of it into a privileged position. That seems to me to be a reasonable attitude to adopt. The hon. Members for Manchester, Openshaw and Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) argued that the best slaughterhouses were local authority slaughterhouses. They argued that therefore we would need them for intra-Community trade and we should not prejudice their position.

I do not accept that the Government's proposals in the Bill will prejudice the position of local authority slaughterhouses. But apart from that let us examine the facts. Thirty-eight slaughterhouses in England and Wales are approved for export purposes, of which 25 are private and 13 are public. Therefore, 13 out of 110 public slaughterhouses are approved for the export of meat. Five of those are operated by private concerns, so that there are eight municipal slaughterhouses up to the required standard out of a total of 110. If we put the worst possible construction on the matter and assume that all these local authority slaughterhouses will cease operations entirely, eight out of 38 approved slaughterhouses would cease to operate and that eight out of 110 municipal slaughterhouses would find themselves out of business.

Mr. Deakins

Are not the Minister's figures just a little misleading because, generally speaking, the local authority slaughterhouses, particularly those built in the last 20 years, have a very much larger capacity and throughput than private slaughterhouses. Therefore, although it is all very well to say that only eight might be forced to close down for the export trade, those eight may handle 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the total export trade.

Mr. Prior

The percentage of meat slaughtered at municipal slaughterhouses is about 25 per cent. of the total meat slaughtered in this country. I do not have the precise figures of meat going for export which is slaughtered at municipal establishments as against those in the private sector. But it cannot be argued that any diminution of local authority slaughterhouses would prejudice the export of meat. We have to make sure that we are in the best position to take advantage of opportunities in the Community as they develop. There is nothing incompatible in the removal of ministerial approval for the granting of new licences and the fact that we shall shortly become a member of the EEC. On the contrary I believe that the Government's proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, will considerably help to provide the flexibility we shall need for future developments.

5.15 p.m.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the losses of some of the municipal slaughterhouses, including Manchester. He spoke about £1,000 a week, but the figure is much nearer to £1,000 a day, or more. As I understand, it is about £400,000 a year. No steps we can take would prevent that from continuing, and we must take a broad look at the future and hope that other municipalities will perhaps learn from the experience of Manchester and other municipal authorities and leave this to private enterprise, which will establish a slaughterhouse only where it thinks it can make it pay.

The question was raised about the health of workers in slaughterhouses. This is an important point. Where slaughterhouses are up to export standard all employees have to be medically examined once a year. But under the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act, 1958, paragraph 34, which deals with personal hygiene and conduct, says: as soon as any person engaged in or about any slaughterhouse in the handling of meat or the handling of blood intended for human consumption becomes aware that he is suffering from, or is a carrier of"— a number of diseases including typhoid fever or any— staphylococcal infection likely to cause food poisoning, he shall forthwith give notice of the fact to the occupier or person in charge of the slaughterhouse and such occupier or person in charge … shall immediately after receipt of the notice notify the medical officer of health of the district in which the slaughterhouse is situated to the same effect. This is a help, and, of course, even a yearly medical inspection does not cover an illness or infection picked up within the year. It is important that the paragraph relating to personal hygiene in slaughterhouses is carried out regardless of the yearly medical health check.

No one is trying to be dogmatic about this. We debated it at great lenth in Committee and there is a division of opinion between the two sides. I believe that our proposals are a practical answer to the problems. I hope that with this further explanation, the House will allow us to get on.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)

I raised the question of the problems of the rural areas in Committee. The Minister of State said that he understood the problems I was trying to convey to the Committee. He said: I must add that I have been impressed by the point made … about possible difficulties in which rural areas might find themselves, and the Government see the case for a transitional period during which both the public and the private sector of the industry can reassess future requirements in the light of the new policy. We shall, therefore, consider putting down an Amendment on Report postponing both the removal of control over licensing and the removal of obligation on local authorities to ensure adequate slaughtering facilities in their districts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 15th February, 1972; c. 294.]

Mr. Prior

The hon. Gentleman will find that we met that point at the end of the Committee stage by putting in the date of 1st January, 1974. This will give time for any difficulties, which we do not envisage but which were envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, to be dealt with.

Mr. Fred Peart (Workington)

I welcome the Minister's view that we should not have the long debates we had in Committee, but those debates were well worth while, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) made a powerful case in Committee, and we expected the Minister to be converted. However, he has not been.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has put succinctly the case for the new Clause and the Amendments associated with it. He rightly argued for the setting up of improved facilities to enable us to participate in the export market and to get rid of the dualism in our system. This was the view of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who is now a Minister. No doubt he will use his influence to convert the Department to his point of view—until there is a change, and then there will be a reversal of policy.

The Minister said that there is a clear division between the two sides of the House on this matter. That was also apparent in Committee. We defend our public abattoirs and slaughterhouses. My hon. Friends represent large cities like Manchester, Bradford and Glasgow, where local pride has enabled the citizens to build important public abattoirs which are vital to our meat industry. We pay tribute to those local authorities.

That is not to decry private slaughterhouses. The Minister is right in his percentages. There are varying degrees of ownership, and inevitably this will be so. We are worried in case the Minister's action results in a proliferation which would in turn affect public slaughterhouse capacity, and that has been argued time and again. We are right to press the point about standards.

The Minister has chided the Opposition for their stand on entry into the European Economic Community, but this has nothing to do with entry into the EEC. We can export meat products to the Community without being in it. I will not argue about the European Community Communities Bill. After all, I like French wine better than British wine, but that does not mean that I like the Community's agricultural policy, Mr. Pompidou's policy or our Prime Minister's policy. It is because we are seeking to export to different parts of the world that we want to improve standards. If there are improved facilities in the Community, I hope that we shall surpass them. I agree that we should not exaggerate this, and here I am near to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West.

The National Farmers Union has ex-expressed concern about the proposal in a memorandum, and the local authorities association has stated its case repeatedly. I should like to develop a major argument about other matters which affect our public abattoirs. For example, the day will come when we shall have to take a new look at the meat inspection service operating in our abattoirs, whether private or local.

I believe in a State veterinary service. We have a State veterinary service, and I am certain that one day it must take control over meat inspection. I am not denigrating the work done by public health inspectors and meat inspectors. They are dedicated people, and they do the work well, but ultimately we must have inspection by veterinary surgeons, or at least the administration must be in the charge of the State veterinary service, which will be apart from the local authority organisation and responsible to the Government and the Ministry. This happens in other countries, even in Western Europe.

We believe that we have made out our case in Committee and today. My hon. Friends have put the case fairly and constructively. We do not regard this as a party issue and we hope that there will be some give. That is why I argued on Second Reading and in Committee that before any action is taken by the Government there should be another inquiry.

There was an interdepartmental inquiry which led to legislation. There was the Verdon-Smith inquiry, which led to the setting up of the Livestock Commission. Even the Minister of State, who was Parliamentary Secretary when the Bill was first introduced, argued that the meat industry in the last 13 years has changed considerably. It is foolish for a Government to rush in when such changes are taking place. I can understand the argument about improving our public abattoirs and our standards because of entry into the EEC and the danger to our export trade, but to rush in quickly

when the meat industry as a whole is changing and when there are great arguments about marketing and distribution is unwise. It would be proper for the Government to have a major inquiry. I am not suggesting that such an inquiry should be like the Verdon-Smith Inquiry, but there should be an interdepartmental inquiry. It might have been proper for a Select Committee of the House to look into the matter, but I would prefer an interdepartmental inquiry which would report to the Minister.

The Minister has not been pragmatic, as he says he is. He is good-natured enough but he has been dogmatic and has not budged. He has made a small concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), but otherwise he has been dogmatic. I have seen minutes of discussions which have taken place with the Department from which I come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman has been not pragmatic but doctrinal. For these reasons we are bound to register our protest by dividing the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 123.

Division No. 333]	AYES	[5.30 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sulton)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Padley, Walter
Atkinson, Norman	John, Brynmor	Palmer, Arthur
Bidwell, Sydney	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Pavitt, Laurie
Buchan, Norman	Jones, Barry (Flint E.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Cohen, Stanley	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Concannon, J. D.	Judd, Frank	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Kaufman, Gerald	silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Kerr, Russell	Silverman, Julius
Cronin, John	Lamond, James	Spearing, Nigel
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Latham, Arthur	Stallard, A. W.
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Lawson, George	steel, David
Deakins, Eric	Leonard, Dick	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lestor, Miss Joan	Strang, Gavin
Dormand, J. D.	Lipton, Marcus	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Dunn, James A.	Mackenzie, Gregor	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Edelman, Maurice	Mackie, John	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Torney, Tom
Ewing, Harry	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Tuck, Raphael
Faulds, Andrew	Mendelson, John	Urwin, T. W.
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)	Mikardo, Ian	Varley, Eric G.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Millan, Bruce	Wallace, George
Foley, Maurice	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Weitzman, David
Foot, Michael	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	Wellbeloved, James
Gilbert, Dr. John	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Whitlock, William
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Golding, John	Moyle, Roland
Grant, George (Morpeth)	O'Halloran, Michael	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Heffer, Eric S.	O'Malley, Brian	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Horam, John	Orbach, Maurice	Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oswald, Thomas
NOES
Adley, Robert	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Haselhurst, Alan	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Hawkins, Paul	Percival, Ian
Atkins, Humphrey	Hayhoe, Barney	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Benyon, W.	Hiley, Joseph	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Body, Richard	Holland, Philip	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hornby, Richard	Raison, Timothy
Bowden, Andrew	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Redmond, Robert
Bray, Ronald	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Brewis, John	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Iremonger, T. L.	Rost, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	James, David	Scott-Hopkins, James
Channon, Paul	Jopling, Michael	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Chapman, Sydney	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	shelton, William (Clapham)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Kilfedder, James	Simeons Charles
Churchill, W. S.	Kimball, Marcus	Soref, Harold
clegg, Walter	Kinsey, J. R.	Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert	Knox, David	stanbrook, Ivor
Cormack, Patrick	Lamont, Norman	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Costain, A. P.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Sutcliffe, John
Crouch, David	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Longden, Gilbert	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Dixon, Piers	Luce R. N.	Tebbit, Norman
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	McCrindle, R. A.	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Drayson, G. B.	McLaren, Martin	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Mather, Carol	Tugendhat, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald	Maude, Angus	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Farr, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Wall, Patrick
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Ward, Dame Irene
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Warren, Kenneth
Fortescue, Tim	Moate Roger	Weatherill, Bernard
Fowler, Norman	Molyneaux James	White Roger (Gravesend)
Fry, Peter	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Wilkinson, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan	Morrison Charles	Winterton, Nicholas
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Murton Oscar	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Green, Alan	Neave, Airey	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Grieve, Percy	Normanton Tom
Gummer, Selwyn	Nott, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gurden, Harold	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Mr. Kenneth Clarke and
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Osborn, John	Mr. Marcus Fox.
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Question accordingly negatived.