HL Deb 24 July 1996 vol 574 cc1402-6

4.22 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny ommittee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Britain has a long history of using legislation to provide safeguards for public health and animal welfare. However, there are some requirements which, although introduced for good reasons many years ago, are now outdated or have been superseded by the introduction of subsequent legislation.

The draft order before the House would repeal provisions of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980 which no longer provide adequate protection or which are now outdated and provided for in other ways. In doing so the order will also remove burdens on slaughterhouse operators—a sector which is already well regulated—without compromising any of the necessary safeguards for public health and animal welfare.

I turn now to the detail of the order. There is at present a dual licensing system for slaughterhouses. Since 1993 slaughterhouses have been licensed by the appropriate Minister, under procedures introduced to meet Community obligations. However, under the 1974 Act there remains a continuing requirement for slaughterhouses to be licensed annually by their local authority. In Scotland there is a continued requirement for slaughterhouses to be registered by the local authority. The order would remove the burden of dual licensing by repealing the local authority licensing or registration requirements.

The order would also repeal the powers for local authorities to make by-laws in respect of the sanitary operation and management of slaughterhouses. Adequate safeguards already exist as those aspects are now covered by the new arrangements for licensing, hygiene and inspection to internationally agreed standards, and uniform enforcement arrangements now apply in all slaughterhouses.

Local authorities are currently required to take certain animal welfare requirements into account when issuing animal licences to slaughterhouses. To ensure that those important matters continue to be taken into consideration the order would amend the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 to make compliance with the relevant requirements of the welfare at slaughter legislation a condition of the issue of a licence by the appropriate Minister.

The order would also provide for non-compliance with those animal welfare requirements to be a reason to revoke a slaughterhouse licence. Compliance with welfare requirements is monitored on a regular basis by the Meat Hygiene Service, and audited by the State Veterinary Service.

The order would remove two outdated burdens on slaughterhouse owners in England and Wales, restrictions which were never imposed in Scotland. First, it is proposed to remove the restriction on the use of part of a slaughterhouse as a dwelling. That prohibition was introduced to protect anyone from having to live in a slaughterhouse. No objections have been received to the proposal to lift that prohibition. In fact it has been welcomed as an opportunity to improve the security of slaughter premises. Should anyone want to live "above the shop", all appropriate planning, building and hygiene controls would continue to apply.

Secondly, licensed slaughterhouses and knacker's yards in England and Wales are obliged to display a legible sign in a conspicuous position stating that the premises are licensed. That requirement dates from food and drugs legislation of the 1930s and has its origin in public health controls of the previous century.

It has been suggested that that provision should be retained as people have a right to know where slaughtering is carried out. When the requirement was introduced there were many thousands of individual slaughterers. It is possible now to request lists of all licensed slaughterhouses or knacker's yards—which are many fewer in number—from the appropriate agriculture department. The right to that information therefore continues to be publicly available.

The order also provides an opportunity to correct an error in the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980. A revised definition of "slaughterhouse" was inserted into the 1980 Act by the Food Safety Act 1990, but that definition contained a drafting error which had the effect of imposing the same standards of construction on all premises where animals are slaughtered for human consumption.

That means that in Scotland any farm buildings where the occasional beast may be slaughtered for the owner's own consumption must meet the same structural standards as a commercial slaughterhouse. No such imposition has been made on the farming community in England or Wales. This order will lift that unnecessary burden.

Since it was first laid before Parliament in October 1995, this order has been the subject of careful study by the House of Commons Deregulation Committee and this House's Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Subject to some minor points which have now been incorporated into the order, both committees recommended acceptance. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the order. Following the last debate, he will be aware that the public need reassurance on the whole question of the slaughtering of animals. We had the problem in relation to beef, and now sheep's food, and the order does not seem to be well timed in that regard. The Minister suggested that the media have a thirst for "going over the top". Because of the timing of the order, they may have a field day tomorrow. However, the Minister's explanation by and large was very full.

I am concerned about a number of points. When the local authorities lose control, how will the order affect the frequency of inspections? Will not there be a loss of local knowledge in regard to the people who work in the abattoirs and slaughterhouses? Will they now be a little removed from the inspectors? As I said, the public need reassurance and I hope that the Minister will make the point that the frequency of inspections will he just as rigid as it is now.

Is the order introduced not only to tidy up the legislation in relation to slaughterhouses, but also to save money? That seems to be another of its objects. Finally, on the question of slaughtering cattle, I know that the right for owners to slaughter cattle is an ancient right, but that was perhaps more acceptable when farms were more remote and transport was very bad. The situation is different now when one can slaughter an animal in Campbeltown or in the wilds of Kintyre and have it in the city markets extremely quickly. Can the Minister say what control there will be over that? I speak as someone who does not have anything like the knowledge held by the farming community or the Minister, but these are the kinds of worries that the public have. Otherwise, I have every faith that the Minister is doing his best with the knowledge and information that he has. However, I would like some explanation if he can help me on that.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, gives to this order. I agree with him that every opportunity is needed to reassure the public as to the safety of food and their own health. In moving the order, I hope that I stressed the fact that at no stage in any part of this order are public health or animal health being compromised. We are merely removing duplication where later requirements and measures, with which the industry has to comply, supersede existing and earlier measures.

As regards the frequency of inspection, the Meat Hygiene Service and the State Veterinary Service carry out ever more frequent inspections on the entire industry. Since 20th March there has been a large increase in resources available to the Meat Hygiene Service. It was established in April 1995 as a single agency to enforce hygiene in slaughter in all licensed slaughterhouses. One of its main objectives was to do so consistently across the United Kingdom. It was felt that there was some lack of consistency when each local authority was in sole charge of the operation. The official veterinary service and the meat inspectors are present in all slaughterhouses. That can certainly reassure the noble Lord as regards the principal concern that he had in this area.

The noble Lord was also worried about the loss of local knowledge if some of the local authority controls were removed. The repeal of that power does not affect any other by-laws and neither does it affect planning controls. The local authorities will continue to have the opportunity to be involved to the extent that they feel necessary in the operation of local slaughterhouses. The order is not designed purely to save money; it is designed to save unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication. Where the same job is being done twice we seek to save on bureaucracy and resources and put them to better use.

The noble Lord also asked about owners' private kills. I can reassure him that owners and farmers and others making use of private kills, have to comply with all normal hygiene and animal welfare requirements. It is also worth mentioning that we as the Government recently sought views from interested organisations on the continued availability of the private kill provision. We have received a range of responses on that and we shall be considering them very carefully.

On Question, Motion agreed to.