ANIMAL WELFARE (Hansard, 26 April 1977)

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)

I beg to move That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the export of live animals for slaughter; and for connected purposes. It is appropriate that, mid-way through Animal Welfare Year, the House should be able to consider again the question of the export of live animals for slaughter. When the House decided in January 1975 by a narrow majority to resume this vile trade, it was against a background of the recommendation in the O'Brien Report that the go-ahead should be allowed, but with conditions stated in paragraph 21, which said: … the issue of further export licences should continue to be suspended until accept able and enforceable conditions can be introduced to ensure that the welfare of the animals is safeguarded with greater certainty. That statement in the O'Brien Report is often overlooked.

It is true that there have been big developments in welfare regulations within the EEC, but as the British Farmer & Stockbreeder, the official 1033 journal of the NFU, stated in its issue of 24th April 1976, Unhappily, being bound by a directive does not automatically mean that it is universally obeyed, and there is no doubt that vigilance is still needed. That is the understatement of both last year and this year. Our own vets, either with the Ministry or privately, try to enforce compliance with the various animal regulations, but they do not succeed. The Ministry does not know, for example, even the number of separate consignments of animals sent abroad for slaughter. All it knows is the number of animals sent abroad.

In the first 18 months since this trade was resumed, veterinary officers went with 39 consignments to the port or airport where they were embarked. They went with 17 consignments of breeding animals to the port of disembarkation. In just three of these 56 cases, the animals were accompanied to their destination—I say "destination", but it would be more accurate to say their "declared destination" because the export documents simply ask for a declaration of destination and there can be no certainty of where the animals actually end up. On that rate of inspection, how can anyone claim that the acceptable and enforceable conditions for which the O'Brien report called are in operation?

Indeed, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made this point in our debate on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year, when he said: … we are not responsible for what happens on French soil. We can only seek to influence the veterinary profession and the authorities in other countries"—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3rd February 1976; c. 401.] That was an honest and prophetic statement. While acknowledging my hon. Friend's genuine concern for animal welfare, I must comment "He can say that again".

Only this morning I have received a report of one specific incident of wanton breaches of animal welfare regulations, both national and international, on French soil. It comes from Chief Superintendent Butfield of the RSPCA, and concerns a consignment of nine Charollais bullocks which were put 1034 aboard a ferry just before midnight at Dover on the evening of 20th April. That means that their last food and water at the lairage would have been at about 10.30 p.m. local time.

The animals came off the ferry at Calais at 04.30 local time on 21st April, and did not leave the customs area until 10.17 in a Bedford lorry, index number EUT 523C. Chief Superintendent Butfield and his companions, Deputy Chief Superintendent Flint and Mr. Tasker, report that the lorry drove at an exceedingly slow rate. About 40 kilometres from Calais, it had to brake hard at a junction, when the body broke away and the bullocks were thrown forward. Jack chains were used to straighten the body and bars were welded on to the lorry in a seeming attempt to hold it together. At no stage were the animals removed from that lorry.

The two men driving the lorry drove, with stops of a maximum of 30 minutes, to Ventimiglia in Northern Italy, arriving there just before midnight on Friday 22nd April—in other words, 48 hours after the animals had been taken aboard the ferry. The drivers were unable to water or feed the animals. That means that for 48 hours these animals were not offloaded, fed, watered or rested. When they arrived at Ventimiglia there was about 18 inches of slurry on the floor of the lorry. Four bales of hay or straw were on the roof of the lorry but they were untouched. Chief Superintendent Butfield believes that the lorry was unsuitable for its purpose, and that seems to be the reason that it was travelling so slowely.

I stress that at no time from Calais to Ventimiglia was the lorry out of the sight of the three trained RSPCA observers. This was not a posse of people who could be described as animal welfare cranks. The three men were trained and experienced in the special investigations and that lends added weight to their evidence. My example was one case followed at random.

How can each consignment on a journey of that kind be checked in practice? There is a system of export certification of animals in the United Kingdom. With as many as 1,000 animals a week being dealt with on different sites there is no way in which the vets involved can actually inspect each animal for which they 1035 sign a certificate. Every animal is supposed to have a veterinary examination to ensure that it is fit to be shipped. Every animal is supposed to have at least 10 hours' rest in an approved lairage before shipping.

Does anyone doubt that these regulations are being breached? How can it be possible for every ear tag to be checked and for every animal to be inspected when such numbers are involved? It would be incredible if the Ministry or the private veterinary surgeons had either the numbers or the time to carry out that job.

In the Veterinary Record of 12th March, Mr. W. B. Cartmell of the Veterinary Hospital, Wickham, Hants, stated that at Dover 40 calves out of a batch of 75 were rejected for being under weight. He said that two days later they were sent from lairage at Southampton. Vets are being asked to sign, blind, documents which attest to them having ensured that the lorries in which the animals travel are disinfected and that calves are under 14 days of age when there is no recording system to check.

These are the facts of this trade behind the so-called assurances contained in the rules and regulations. These abuses are happening when animals that are being sent abroad for slaughter are on our shores and under our control. How much greater must be the risks once they have left to cross the Channel?

It is said that sections of the agricultural industry rely on this trade. Last year 250,000 calves, 300,000 fat sheep and lambs as well as a number of horses were sent abroad. How can it pay a farmer to sell his stock on the hoof with the quality no more than guessed at in a market place, against the sureness of selling on a deadweight and grade basis and then moving the carcass?

One might ask whether our abattoirs can cope. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made available £20 million to help with the modernisation of abattoirs. There is still much to be done. When asked last week whether there was sufficient abattoir capacity to deal with all animals that are sent for slaughter abroad, the Minister said.

1036 I have little doubt that they could have been handled by export-approved abattoirs if the trade had so determined."—[Official Report, 21st April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 343.] The situation is worse than that. The British Farmer and Stockbreeder reported on 26th March this year that at a Liverpool slaughterhouse the staff had been cut by 22 to 50 while the Manchester abattoir was running at only 43 per cent. capacity and losing £400,000 a year. It is not only that. We are spending more than £2½ million a day on importing meat and meat preparations. We have also the additional lunacy of buying back skins, hides and by-products which affects employment here. For example, a skin can represent as much as 10 per cent. of the value of a lamb.

Public concern about the welfare of animals that are exported for slaughter led to the setting up of the Balfour Committee in 1957 and the so-called Balfour assurances which were supposed to allay our concern. About 16 years later in 1973 the trade was suspended and another inquiry was set up because of public concern.

I hope that no one doubts the strength of public concern about this issue. That concern is reflected by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and a range of other local and national organisations. The General Synod of the Church of England is due to debate animal welfare in the summer. Last week I collected a petition that was signed by 2,000 of my constituents living in a small part of the area. Events such as those involving the bullocks aboard the MV "El Tambo", in which the Prime Minister took such an interest, appeared on television and action was taken. But day after day other incidents go undetected.

These animals cannot speak for them selves, but we can speak for them. I urge the House to allow me to bring in this Bill. Just as the trade in human beings 150 years ago shamed those who were engaged in it, the same applies today with this vile and shameful trade in animals.