Slaughterhouses (Hansard, 16 December 1992)

§ Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the regulation and supervision of slaughterhouses. Earlier this Session, I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate. I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to my Conservative colleagues who have given me such amazing support.

We are interested in maintaining high-quality food which is safe to eat. At no point have we tried to back away from the Government's commitment to safe food hygiene, but we are faced with massive over-regulation. The fresh meat hygiene and inspection regulations implementing EC directive 91/497 are over-regulatory—and it is not just this country that is discovering the associated problems. The German Health Minister has said in the German Parliament: EC experts will be overseeing our small butchery businesses and butchers' slaughterhouses. I do not believe such supervision to be rational, given that these businesses only trade on the domestic market. Such monitoring—abiding by the subsidiarity principle—should remain the responsibility of the national monitoring authorities alone". That was said not by a member of the agricultural lobby but by the German Health Minister, who is concerned above all else with public health.

Deregulation, like charity, ought to begin at home. It is not good enough for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to blame the European Community for all the problems facing our agriculture. The current regulations, emanating from the European Community via the common agricultural policy and augmented by MAFF, make George Orwell's vision seem like that of Adam Smith. We seem to be facing ever greater regulation.

We are told that choice is important, but what about the choice that people should enjoy to visit different types of butcher, besides Tesco or Sainsbury? The Minister replying to my Adjournment debate said that consumers increasingly favour one-stop shopping. That is all very well for those who happen to live close to such shopping, but those who live in isolated rural communities that depend on the local butcher or the local farmer do not have this choice. We want realistic choices for real people in real communities.

Particular ways of life in this country need defending. We do not all, thank God, live in sprawling suburbs, and woe betide us if we try to apply one pattern to the whole population. That is the way to lose the stability that traditional ways of life have brought us.

As on previous occasions, I note that the Opposition Benches empty as soon as we debate rural issues—Opposition Members have no interest in them. Creeping urbanisation, represented by most Opposition Members, threatens our way of life in the countryside.

How will the regulations affect farmers with a small number of stock? Where will they go if their small abattoirs are closed? What will happen to casualty stock? What will all those who are worried about animal welfare have to say if the Government bring in regulations that mean that animals must be transported longer and longer distances to slaughterhouses? That will lead to more and more stressed animals at the point of slaughter and that will not help to guarantee the hygiene and quality of the food that consumers receive.

448 We must also remember the "minor problem" of employment. The south-west will be hard hit by the regulations, and if the costs are applied across the region, we will lose up to 1,000 jobs. The Opposition are always great when it comes to fighting for jobs in urban areas, but they do not seem too concerned about those in rural areas; it is left to Conservative Members to defend them.

It is important to consider the implications of the proposals relating to ante and post-mortem inspections. There is a fundamental difference between our practices and those of Europe. Since the 19th century, United Kingdom controls have developed through local government, under medical guidance. The principal players are the medica officers of health, environmental health officers and meat inspectors. In other countries, such inspections are not carried out by veterinary surgeons. In Holland, for example, the public health veterinarians are part of a different tradition and a different system from our own. The regulations are trying to apply a model on to the United Kingdom that does not fit our heritage and our tradition. Many of the problems with the regulations stem from that.

Our system works well in general, and it does not need profound change or to be subject to the profound centralisation envisaged by the regulations. It is important to consider the competence of those who will be asked to carry out the inspections. A written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) revealed the Government's belief that The degree qualification obtained by every veterinary surgeon fully equips him or her to perform both ante and post-mortem inspections."—[Official Report, 9 December 1992; Vol. 215, c.718.] The House might be interested to know that that experience may often be equivalent to one week's training before graduation. That does not match the 30 years of experience of some of our meat inspectors. I do not believe that those inspectors will take kindly to being told by someone who has had one week's experience or even a subsequent course on inspection, which may last just a couple of weeks, that he now takes precedence in terms of carrying out those ante and post-mortem inspections.

The supervision of slaughterhouses must continue to give out with minimum regulation. It should pay full regard to the maintenance of competition, consumer choice, employment prospects and economic viability of abattoirs. That supervision should be conducted in a way that is consistent with nationally established practices, traditions and heritage. In the United Kingdom, that will mean restricting veterinary inspection and continuing to use environmental health officers and meat inspectors to carry out the necessary supervision.