Cattle Welfare (East Anglia) (Hansard, 2 February 2000)

§ Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)
The subject of this debate is of importance to my constituents and to the whole of East Anglia. The over-30-months slaughter scheme was introduced to cull cattle and so to deal with the BSE problem and to take those cattle out of the human food chain. Since then, in a renewal of contracts, the Intervention Board has caused East Anglia to lose all its slaughterhouse facilities under the scheme. The net results are longer journeys for cattle within East Anglia and a considerable financial burden placed on East Anglia's farmers.
In many ways, tonight's debate is a continuation of one that was held before Christmas in Westminster Hall, which was about problems in the west country. However, the problem in East Anglia is quite different. East Anglia is unique in that there is almost no infrastructure for cattle distribution. Of 170 markets in the country, there are now only two in East Anglia that are capable of dealing with such a large geographical area. In previous debates, Ministers have been keen to stress the network of markets that would be available to deal with the problem, but that argument obviously does not apply in East Anglia, with its limited facilities.
On 20 January, I presented a petition of 1,450 signatures protesting against the decision to remove the right of Cheale Meats to perform a necessary service. It is interesting to note that the petition was signed not by members of the general public, but by farmers from all over East Anglia. Given the number of dairy farmers in the region, the number of signatures represents almost all of them. Farmers are rightly upset by the loss of facilities. They are even more concerned by rumours circulating that the casualty slaughtering facility in Cambridge is to be lost, leaving East Anglia without both an OTMS slaughterhouse and a casualty slaughterhouse.
In a written reply, the Minister told me that there were relatively few cattle in East Anglia, which is why the region was lumped in with south-east England. However, it is clear that the Intervention Board put geography second in its consideration of the matters within its remit. A look at a map clearly shows how difficult the issue of journey times is in East Anglia. In another written reply, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me: As a result of the changes being introduced following the tender, some journey times will, inevitably, increase, but in no case will the journey times exceed those laid down by animal welfare guidelines. Some journey times will decrease."—[Official Report, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 183W.]

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation that he describes is mirrored in Devon, where there is no slaughterhouse left operating under the over-30-months scheme? Does he agree that the Agriculture Minister would be better employed addressing that problem, considering issuing a challenge under 1180 article 30, and introducing honesty in labelling, instead of wringing his hands and pretending that he cannot do anything?

§ Mr. Pickles
I intervened in my hon. Friend's debate, and I was struck by the gravity of the situation in the west country. I know that my hon. Friend is pursuing the matter vigorously.
Some journey times will be reduced—16 per cent.—but 84 per cent. of farmers in East Anglia will face longer journey times when they take their cows to be slaughtered. That means extra effort for them and extra stress and discomfort for animals at the end of their natural lifespan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who has been extremely helpful, said recently, it is a matter of humanity rather than of cost.
We have figures showing that if a farmer takes his cow from Yarmouth directly to the designated abattoir in Chesterfield, that is a journey of 157 miles. If he takes the cow from Stevenage to Colchester, then on to an abattoir in Kent, that is 165 miles. The journey from Cambridge is 201 miles and from King's Lynn 181 miles.
In the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), the Minister said: I have asked the Intervention Board about the 130-mile figure—the figure of 160 miles was cited in one press release. I do not believe that a journey of 130 miles will be involved."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 21 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 173WH.] However, it is clear that journeys of well over 160 miles will be commonplace in East Anglia.
It is not surprising that Mr. Barney Kay, the livestock adviser to the National Farmers Union's East Anglia region, commented: A cow that is delivered in the morning to Colchester will be sent down to the abattoir in Kent by the evening, where it may have to wait overnight to be slaughtered the next day. For an old dairy cow this is a protracted and uncomfortable process. That is, perhaps, a nice way of putting it. For many cows, it will be a frightening, painful and confusing experience. It will be the first—and last—journey of their life. They were born on the farm and they are part of a herd.
In all my dealings with farmers, I have been struck by how deeply worried they are about their animals' welfare. I have received many letters on the subject, but let one letter speak for them all. It is from Mrs. Helen Hall of The Orchards, who is a farmer in my constituency. She writes that she has a small suckler herd of red poll cattle. She wants their last journey to be as unstressful as possible. She said: All my cattle now have been born on the farm, live in a family group and only travel to new pasture in the summer. A long journey by lorry whether to Derby or Kent is not a pleasant thought … how many times has one been stuck in traffic jams on the M25 or at the Dartford crossing, let alone on the Ashford road. Think of the poor cattle on hot summer days stuck in an unfamiliar lorry without their herd. That point should be borne in mind.
The Intervention Board's disposal of public money does not inspire confidence. It has awarded contracts to organisations that were not running abattoirs. It awarded a contract to a slaughterhouse in Kent, which, in the words of the Eastern Daily Press is closer to the Dutch coast than to farmers in remote broadlands. The Scottish Farmer reported that it awarded contracts to a company in Kilmarnock that was in deep financial trouble. The Intervention Board did not even undertake a basic credit check before awarding the contract.
1181 In a written reply on 24 January, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), said that while a credit check was undertaken on those companies with which the Intervention Board had no dealings, similar reports were not sought in respect of companies with whom IB already had a satisfactory and long-standing contractual relationships"—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 9W.] Is that the way in which the Government go about awarding contracts? I could not believe it, so I sought answers from various Departments to ascertain whether it was the Government's practice not to undertake a credit check on companies. I am pleased to say that the circumstances that we are considering seem to be exceptional.
Today, I received a reply from the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor whether the credit rating of companies that tendered for services provided by the Treasury was checked before contracts were awarded. The reply stated: Treasury decisions on an individual bidding company's financial standing take account of the latest available audited and interim accounts and any other relevant published information including credit and debt rating. The Treasury carries out a credit check on companies if it has any worries about them even after the contract has been awarded.
The Intervention Board's actions are truly astonishing. I have a report on the credit rating of a company—not the Scottish company—that I shall not name because I do not want to add to its financial troubles. Its condition was described as poor; it showed "significant levels of risk". The report recommended that before extending credit, suppliers seek suitable assurances and guarantees. Yet the Intervention Board did not bother to carry out the most basic checks. The board's financial checking speaks volumes about the way in which they undertake the whole process.
The Intervention Board makes a spurious claim that £5 million has been saved by the process. That figure can be reached only by comparing the old contract price with the new contract price. If one examines the new tendering procedures in which all the companies bid, the figure of £5 million begins to evaporate. We are considering a significant transfer of costs. If all East Anglian farmers decide to send their cattle along the Intervention Board's preferred routes, through the two markets, an extra £1 million will be added to the cost of their haulage.
Let us consider welfare, and the extra time that will be involved in transportation. Eight hours is the permitted time, and extensions are available. If we assume a minimum turn-around time of two and a half hours for identification, live weighing and reloading, travel to Stevenage will mean a total of eight hours, travel to Cambridge will mean nearly nine hours and travel to Aylesbury will mean eight and a half hours.

§ Angela Smith (Basildon)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Pickles
I shall give way gladly because the hon. Lady has been most helpful in the campaign, and shares many of my worries.

§ Angela Smith
The hon. Gentleman and I have spoken to farmers meetings in our adjoining constituencies. 1182 It may not be apparent why a representative of Basildon is interested in farming. However, several farms in my constituency are affected, and 30 per cent. of the work force of Cheale's, which may soon lay off staff, are from my constituency.
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about animal welfare. When the Minister responds, will she deal with the fact that journey times for animals going to slaughter will increase? Surely, we should slaughter animals as near to the point of production as possible, rather than extend the journey time.

§ Mr. Pickles
The hon. Lady is right. I recognise that her constituency interest—the work force at Cheale Meat—is important. Initially, like me, she became interested in the matter because of the company and its work force, but it has rapidly become clear that the issue is really animal welfare.
The Prime Minister said yesterday: We need a new direction for farming to meet the present day challenge. The most pressing present day challenge for farmers in East Anglia is longer journey times and the extra suffering caused to their cattle. The dilatory and incompetent Intervention Board is causing those farmers great grief.
We do not blame the Minister—we do not believe that she has been a party to these bad decisions—but there comes a time when we must join the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has said that we must reconsider and reopen the tenders because to stick with the existing situation is to condemn cattle.
These cattle are near the end of their natural lifespan and many of them are milkers. They need to be milked on such a long journey, but they will not be. They will be very frightened. As we enter the first year of this new century, I do not believe that that is any way to treat cattle.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on securing this debate. I know that he has been active on the issue. Indeed, as he said, he has tabled a number of written questions on the subject. He intervened briefly in the previous debate on the subject before Christmas and he has also presented a petition on it. Other hon. Members and hon. Friends have also expressed concern about the situation in their areas. Indeed, I have had a number of meetings with Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), to discuss the situation.
The debate is entitled, "Cattle Welfare (East Anglia)", although it could just as easily have been entitled, "Changes to the over-30-month scheme and the loss of contracts in abattoirs"—in this case, the Cheale Meat abattoir in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
A number of animal welfare concerns have been raised, as have other concerns associated with employment, geographical distribution and so forth. Many of those matters were mentioned in the earlier debate.
The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the changes in the number and location of over-30-month-scheme abattoirs stem from a competitive tender 1183 held by the Intervention Board at the end of last year. The new arrangements were introduced on 4 January and I am pleased to have this further opportunity to discuss their operation in the light of practical experience of the new contracts so far.
Obviously, I recognise—I have never tried to disguise it—that the reduction in the number of contracted abattoirs is an important and sensitive issue for farmers and for animal welfare. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that I have watched closely the operation of the new arrangements so far, have asked for regular reports from the Intervention Board and have had a number of meetings.
Many of the concerns that were predicted by hon. Members, such as long waiting lists and inadequate access, have not materialised, and, in many respects, the new arrangements are settling in well. However, I assure hon. Members, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, that, as I have said in the past, I am committed to monitoring the situation, and, if it appears not to be working, I shall reconsider it. It will be kept under close review.

§ Mr. Pickles
I, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and other hon. Members are keen to meet the Minister with a group of farmers to discuss the problem. Is she minded to meet us in the reasonably near future?

§ Ms Quin
In principle, I am certainly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's request. I have met farmers around the country, including in my own area. I should point out that one of the abattoirs that lost a contract was in my constituency, which rather gives the lie to some of the criticisms in the south-west press which suggested that somehow or other I was personally completely immune to the process. That is not so. For such reasons, I have considered closely what the Intervention Board has done, but I believe that it has acted properly in the negotiation of the tendering process.
Arrangements before this tender round dated back to 1997. As is common practice, they were reviewed to ensure that they represented good value and continued to meet the need. As I said in the earlier debate, as a Minister I have to respond to the Public Accounts Committee, which, as the hon. Gentleman may know, has in the past been critical of the high rates paid to OTMS abattoirs. The Public Accounts Committee's report previously marked the service out as one which required close attention by officials, and I need to respond to such concerns. Following the expression of those concerns, the Intervention Board rightly recommended to UK Agriculture Ministers that the slaughtering contract should be re-tendered.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, carefully considered the board's advice and accepted its recommendation. The tender process was started last August and concluded with the announcement of the award of contracts at the end of last year.
I stress that tenders were evaluated against published objective criteria and final decisions were taken by a project board, comprising representatives of the Intervention Board, the four Agriculture Departments and 1184 expert bodies such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Meat Hygiene Service. It is important to stress that, because so often, in the earlier debate and this debate, statements have been made as if the Intervention Board is somehow acting in a vacuum and is not involved with other interested bodies with a real interest in seeing that the service works well.
I have examined in detail the way in which the tender process has been handled, and, the evidence that I have—I am always willing to look at evidence—shows that it has been conducted professionally and impartially, in a way which will stand up to scrutiny, which may well come about through bodies such as the Audit Commission and the PAC, which have already scrutinised the processes in the past. It is true that the tender has resulted in further efficiencies, but that has not been at the expense of animal welfare considerations or quality of service.
The hon. Gentleman understandably spoke a great deal about the welfare of animals going for slaughter. I accept that fewer abattoirs have been contracted, but capacity is broadly the same. Furthermore, tenders were considered geographically to provide sufficient capacity to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised. Clearly there is a balance to strike between the number of contracted abattoirs and the efficiency of the operation. The hon. Gentleman referred to my written answer. Numbers are lower in East Anglia compared with the south-west, the midlands and parts of the north of England. Although some animals face a longer journey time to the point of slaughter, many face a shorter journey.

§ Mr. Pickles
The right hon. Lady must recognise that 84 per cent. of farmers taking animals to slaughter face longer journey times. Surely she cannot be saying that journeys of 160, 180 or 200 miles are acceptable?

§ Ms Quin
The hon. Gentleman refers to journeys of 200 miles, but I do not know where that figure comes from. The abattoir in his constituency regularly took cattle not only from Sussex and Kent, but the Thames valley and even Wiltshire. Animals will now travel shorter distances to slaughter and there is sufficient capacity in each area of the United Kingdom to deal with animals that come forward. Obliging animals to undertake lengthy journeys is the last thing I would want and in theory we look for a limit of eight hours. In practice, very few journeys get remotely near that.
This is not simply a matter of distance as the conditions in which animals are transported are also relevant. A brief journey in appalling conditions can be more stressful than a somewhat longer one in better vehicles. Many aspects of animal welfare such as vehicle type, vibration, noise, movement, temperature and humidity, space and separation, food and rest, animal handling and loading and unloading were not referred to by the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members. All those issues are vital, which is why I commend the work done by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in co-operation—

§ Mr. Pickles
Will the right hon. Lady give way?

§ Ms Quin
I have only two minutes.

§ Mr. Pickles
May I make a brief point?

§ Ms Quin
I give way, but if we run out of time I shall be accused of not addressing the issues in full and I should be sorry about that.

§ Mr. Pickles
That accusation will not be made by me. The Minister did not mention the age of the animal involved. Does she agree that that is rather important?

§ Ms Quin
I certainly agree, but the age of an animal is also important in relation to the different types of conditions of transport. We want to ensure that older animals are carried in conditions that are as satisfactory as possible. The Government have been working actively with organisations such as the Humane Slaughter Association precisely to tackle some of those animal welfare issues. Overall, animals travel shorter distances than they did a few years ago. The whole thrust of Government policy on animal transit—not only for 1186 over-30-month animals, but generally—is going in entirely the right direction and I pay tribute to what my colleagues have done in that respect.
Obviously I recognise that concern has been expressed, but I spoke to farmers before and immediately after Christmas, and more recently, and the number of concerns has dropped dramatically. In many parts of the country, farmers feel that the arrangements are working satisfactorily.

§ Mr. Pickles
Not in East Anglia.

§ Ms Quin
Waiting times are an important aspect of the debate. There is no waiting time in East Anglia at present for over-30-month cattle. I am glad of that and it is—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Twelve midnight.