Slaughterhouses: EU Regulations (Hansard, 26 April 1999)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue)
My Lords, the Government recognise the valuable contribution which small slaughterhouses make to the economy. But they cannot be exempt from the requirements of European Union law.

§ Lord Beaumont of Whitley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but not as much as I thank the Government for the statement made by Mr. Brown on 21st April at col.993 of the Commons Hansard, which went considerably further to announce the Government's intention to ensure that small specialist slaughterhouses did not suffer. He announced that there would be an interim period during which the Government would carry the costs. I am surprised the Minister did not refer to that in his Answer. He also said that there would be a review. Will the Minister say when the review will start and when it is expected to report?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, my right honourable friend announced that the proposed charges on specified risk materials were to be deferred for a year, and that the increased charges for meat hygiene inspection were being deferred while a review was undertaken on the impact of charges on that industry and on the ways in which we can rightly impose the requirements of the European Union, but not over-implement them. I did not refer to that statement because I was confident that the noble Lord would take the opportunity so graciously to thank us. We hope that the review will be completed within two months.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, will the review look into the case of fallen animals and, in that regard, the provision of slaughterhouses on a purely geographical basis? For instance, if there is a fallen 8 animal on the Isle of Wight, I do not believe there is a slaughterhouse on that island. That produces great difficulties for both farmers and fallen animals.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. That issue does not arise specifically within the remit of the inquiry, but I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the department for consideration.

§ Lord Davies of Coity
My Lords, having in the past represented the interests of those employed in slaughterhouses, I am of course concerned with the security of employment. At the same time, the question of closures and bankruptcies in slaughterhouses ought to be kept in proportion. Therefore can my noble friend advise the House on how many slaughterhouses were closed under the previous administration and how many have been closed under Labour?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. If we take England and red meat slaughterhouses, which are the heart of the industry, under this Government some 30 slaughterhouses have closed—not been closed; the number has gone down from around 380 to 350. Under the previous administration, 600 were closed: down from 980 to 380; that is roughly two-thirds of all slaughterhouses.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, will the Minister help the House by explaining which of those numbers he describes as "efficient management"?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I do not have a definition for "efficient management". However, we now have a hygiene assessment system which assesses all slaughterhouses according to their hygiene efficiency. This Government put that in place.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords—

§ Lady Kinloss
My Lords—

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords—

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, there is plenty of time because the fourth Starred Question has scratched.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to explain in clear terms who exactly is expected to benefit from this absurd legislation? It will not be the animals; it will not be the customers; it will not be the owners. If he cannot answer the question, perhaps he will go to the authors and get them to do so in clear, intelligible terms. It will make quite a change.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I shall do my best to meet the high standards that the noble Lord always expects. In fact, the European Union directive derives from way back in 1964 and has been in place since that time to ensure that we have proper standards of meat hygiene. It has been amended and was last amended in 1991. The identity of the beneficiaries is quite clear. The 9 beneficiaries are public health and, therefore, the public. Animal producers are also beneficiaries in the sense that the legislation helps to maintain—and, in our case, helps to restore—the confidence of consumers in meat. I believe that the legislation is perfectly well justified.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when the Government have undertaken this welcome and detailed examination during the next few months, questions of animal welfare where abattoirs are very distant from the communities that they serve and questions about rural employment could open the possibility, if it were necessary, for a derogation?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, we certainly bear in mind most closely questions of animal welfare. We are well aware that it is not always in the interests of an animal for it to be shipped a long distance. Rural employment concerns us considerably; indeed, we have in operation a major consultation exercise to help ensure the prosperity of rural society. As regards derogations, that is not a matter for us. There is a derogation in relation to small abattoirs. Our legal advice is that that applies only to structures and not to the level of charging. The department has written to the European Commission to ask for advice on the matter and to ascertain whether it would in any way allow less onerous terms about levels of inspection.

§ Lord Hoyle
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the announcements made today, especially in relation to SRM, will be greatly welcomed by the industry?

§ Lord Donoughue
Yes, my Lords. Indeed, I can assure my noble friend that the announcements were most welcome. The delay on SRM charges alone is worth £20 million to the industry. I believe that the review we are undertaking will encourage those concerned because, although we will abide by European Union rules, as we must, we shall also ensure that we do not accidentally over-implement. Both of those factors will be most welcome to the industry.

§ Lady Kinloss
My Lords, can the Minister say why the veterinary hourly fee is not the same throughout local hygienic abattoirs, at least in North Yorkshire? Further, can he say why there is no uniform tariff? Does the Minister agree that the increasing fees charged to small. hygienic abattoirs will eventually force many more to close, with the inevitable loss of jobs? I should declare an interest here in that my elder daughter uses one of the small abattoirs and fears that, if it closes, she will have to take her animals much further and, therefore, cause them much more stress.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I agree with the points made about the role of abattoirs, and especially about the importance of small abattoirs. We are well aware that the imposition of a higher level of fees impacts 10 disproportionately on small abattoirs. That is why we have delayed the introduction of the new charges and why we are undertaking this review.

§ Lord Luke
My Lords, we welcome the review on this side of the House as we do the other parts of Mr. Rooker's announcement with regard to specified risk material. However, if the review shows that the overall burdens on small abattoirs in this country are greater than on their equivalents in Europe, will the Government pay for that excess? Alternatively, how else will they be able to relieve the burden?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, we must await the results of the review. As regards comparisons with other countries, the department has carried out its own review with such information as is available. I also understand that the Meat and Livestock Commission is undertaking a more thorough review, although we do not have the results as yet. The general indications are that our continental neighbours do in general impose the levels of inspection and the standards of charges as are required. For example, our impression is that Belgium and Denmark impose higher standards, while Germany imposes standards which are equivalent to ours.
It is possible that one or two other countries, such as Spain—the noble Baroness mentioned Portugal during an earlier discussion—and Ireland may have differences within the system. We are looking further into the matter in that respect. However, if we receive any evidence, or if the noble Lord can give us any, to show that countries within the European Union are not properly imposing the European directive on charges, we shall certainly go straight to the Commission and demand action.