Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018

Debate between Earl Cathcart and Lord Campbell-Savours

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has already said why the voluntary take-up of CCTV has been disappointing. I am certain that this regulation will satisfy customers, consumers, retailers, certification/assurance scheme operators, NGOs and animal welfare organisations who have been pressing for CCTV in 100% of slaughterhouses. I should probably declare that I farm in Norfolk and we have livestock. We like to give all the livestock a really good life while they are with us on our farm, and when they go to meet their maker, we want that to be to the best possible standards, stress-free and humane. If that does not happen in slaughterhouses, perhaps CCTV will help.

I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is the cost and the second is the effective viewing or reviewing of the CCTV footage. I know that the Government think that the installation will cost only about £2,500 per slaughterhouse, but I think that is way too low. Even a small slaughterhouse needs about five CCTV cameras to ensure that all areas are covered. At £1,000 per camera, that alone will come to £5,000. I have been told that it will cost between £5,000 and £10,000 per slaughterhouse to install.

In 2012, it was reported in the Scottish Parliament that the cost of installing CCTV in a slaughterhouse in Scotland varied between £6,000 and £25,000. Whatever the cost, it will be considerably more than the Government’s £2,500. For small plants, that cost may be prohibitive, and that is not the only cost. There is also the annual cost of maintenance, which will vary according to the number of CCTV cameras and could be between £500 and £1,000 per annum. Then there is the cost of a secure, locked cabinet to store the 90 days of footage per camera to prevent tampering with the evidence. Then there is the cost of training and employing CCTV monitoring staff.

That brings me neatly to my second point: who, if anyone, will be viewing or reviewing the CCTV footage? Obviously where there is a known incident the relevant footage can be pulled out and looked at, but CCTV is really effective only if it is viewed or reviewed, and here is the rub. One of the limitations of CCTV is that it is rarely viewed or reviewed in a systematic, consistent and effective manner by the slaughterhouse operator, enforcement agencies or the official vet. If it were, considerable costs would be incurred in training the staff required to view the footage in real time—that is, as it is happening—or to review large amounts of footage from multiple cameras. Whether this is done by the slaughterhouse operator or the official vet, ultimately the cost will be borne by the slaughterhouse, which already balks at the hourly rate charged by the official vet—£70 to £80 an hour or around £600 for an eight-hour day.

Twenty years or so ago, there were probably six or eight slaughterhouses near my farm in Norfolk; now there is one large one quite near me. In the past 20 years, about 100 small slaughterhouses have shut down, as have a further 100 medium-sized ones. This does no good at all for the welfare of animals as they must now travel further to their final destination. I can understand the need for this regulation, but I hope that an unintended consequence will not be that more slaughterhouses have to close down.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I will deal with the issue of cost. The costs of the CCTV equipment have dropped dramatically over the past seven or eight years. In many areas, they are a quarter of what they were. So it is quite probable that the estimates that have been given by the Government are not accurate, even though the ones that were given in Scotland will have been accurate at the time.

What drew me to this issue was paragraph 42 of the FAWC report of February 2015, where it says:

“Where examples of animal abuse have been brought to light … FBOs, AWOs and OVs”—


that is, food business operators, animal welfare officers and official veterinarians—

“have consistently asserted that they were unaware of such abusive practices”.

That is a shocking statement. Professionals went into slaughterhouses where the law was being breached, yet they were unaware of what was going on. I congratulate the Government on bringing in this extremely important measure, which I warmly welcome. I also welcome the policy position of my own party on this matter: the document produced by Sue Hayman, our spokesperson in the other place, which has come up with some fairly radical measures to deal with this problem in slaughterhouses.

In addition to that concern, I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum the following statement, in paragraph 8.1, under the heading “Consultation outcome”:

“The responses from slaughter industry bodies and abattoirs were more balanced”—


when I hear those words, I always think, “Oh yes, here it comes”—

“with a number arguing against the proposal on the basis of proportionality of application of the requirements to all slaughterhouses regardless of size or record of compliance and the length of time records should be retained for”;

in other words, there was opposition. I would like to know what the scale of the opposition was. Perhaps it is reflected in the fact that, as we were told before, only 50% of slaughterhouses have even introduced these cameras. In the case of the ones that have introduced them, we are told, as I think the Minister alluded to, in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Moreover, those slaughterhouses that have installed CCTV have not generally installed cameras in all areas where live animals are kept and where animal welfare could be compromised”;


in other words, there is a real problem out there and I regard these regulations as a good attempt to deal with it.

However, I have one or two concerns. One is about the retention of documentation. The committee recommended three months. In this measure, is it nine months?

Water Bill

Debate between Earl Cathcart and Lord Campbell-Savours

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I am taken a bit by surprise by this amendment. I had not intended to speak at all but as the noble Lord was developing his arguments I began to realise what the value of this could be. I have a letter here from Keswick Flood Action Group which I referred to in Committee. It makes recommendations on the question of the reinstatement of homes and resilience. I want to read on to the record what it says because most of my contributions on this Bill up to now, certainly in Committee, have drawn on information that has been brought to me by people who have been flooded, because very often they know more than anyone else. Lynne Jones, chair of Keswick Flood Action Group, says that the Government should,

“pass legislation so that insurance companies are required to reinstate homes in a flood resilient/resistant way. Insurance companies, quite rightly, will not pay for ‘betterment’ but these days they have to reinstate with insulation to regulatory standards, even if no insulation was present before, because they are required to do so by law. So why can’t flood measures be treated in the same way?”.

She goes on to make a very simple proposition which, when I think of the flooded properties that I surveyed when I was an MP, seems to me quite logical:

“For example dropping the electrics down from the first floor so raised sockets rather than rewiring from ground up; replacing wood floors with solid waterproof concrete etc”.

Then she goes on to suggest that the Government,

“provide people with independent advice on property reinstatement, maybe via Local Authorities’ Buildings Regulations Officers”.

If there is a surplus, why not consider spending some of it in this sort of area? She goes on to say:

“What people need is knowledgeable counsel from somebody who isn’t going to profit from the works. Flood victims are the target for every rogue trader under the sun post-flood and not everyone knows what products are available/would most suit their needs. Such decisions come at a time when they are exhausted, stressed and suffering financial hardship, they are truly at their most vulnerable”.

As I said, when I was an MP and also afterwards I visited homes where people had been flooded and we know there is tremendous distress. If there are these surpluses, perhaps we should ask whether they can be deployed as part of the process of advising people so that the rogue traders do not go in and do the work and rip people off. That is a far more professional approach. The simple idea of feeding electric wiring upstairs as against downstairs seems absolutely elementary. I wonder how many properties have been done up with grants from government and bills paid by insurance companies over recent years where those very simple, remedial steps to dealing with problems in particular homes have not been taken.

In many ways I think this is a very interesting amendment. I had not really thought of the surpluses. We do not want to waste money but surely it can be used in such a way as to promote the policy of developing actions for resilience.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot support this amendment. To me it shows a misunderstanding of the role of insurance more generally and of Flood Re in particular, which must build up its funds from premiums to cover current and future losses smoothly. The scheme already has five-yearly reviews so that all assumptions can be reworked and contributions adjusted, either upwards or downwards. Diverting funds into the totally separate adventure of pre-emptive risk mitigation is not a function of insurance and nor should it be for Flood Re. The analogy is asking car insurers to invest in better road signs or road infrastructure. It might help mitigate the risks but it is not the role of the underwriting industry; it is the role of government, national or local.

Water Bill

Debate between Earl Cathcart and Lord Campbell-Savours

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 160A. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but I shall speak to the amendment as it is written. The Flood Re scheme should be eligible for all houses built and occupied before its introduction.

We live in a blame society. Even now, the media are trying to pin the blame for the current flooding on someone. Is the worst rainfall for 200 or 300 years the fault of the Government, the Environment Agency or local government? It must be somebody’s fault.

With Amendment 160A, we are debating whether houses built after 1 January 2009 should be included in the Flood Re scheme. As was said earlier, PPS25 has made it quite clear that development should not take place in flood risk areas, and yet we all know that it still goes on. One has to ask why. Who is responsible for the houses built on flood risk areas when the rules are quite clear? Everyone is trying to pass the blame on to someone else—“It’s not my fault, guv”. Who is at fault? Is it the Government for not ensuring stricter adherence to PPS25? Is it the Environment Agency? That may be the case. Although 97% of applications that it objects to are refused, it looks at only 6.6% of the 450,000 applications, which is quite clearly not enough.

Is it the fault of local government planners? That is probably the case. One has to ask why they continue to pass applications on flood risk areas contrary to PPS25. Is it the fault of the owner for buying a home built after 1 January 2009 on a flood risk area? It probably is. Caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware: he should have known. If he did not, is it the fault of his conveyance lawyer when carrying out the searches? It raises the question of whether lawyers should be required, as a matter of course, to inform buyers if the house is on a flood risk area and, in this case, when it was built.

One can lay the blame on homes being built on flood-prone areas on any or all of the above but, as sure as eggs are eggs, it is not the fault of the insurance industry. Why should insurers pick up the tab? They have been quite clear on this. Indeed, they are the only ones who have drawn a line by saying that, if a home is built in a flood risk zone after 1 January 2009, under the statement of principles, flood cover will not be available and the property will not be eligible for the Flood Re scheme. Underwriters were quite clear that they did not want to encourage unwise and irresponsible development. Why should underwriters or contributors to the scheme pay for other people’s stupidity? The Government must decide whether PPS25 is to be adhered to or not.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, there is an element of confusion both outside and inside this House as to where the words which define the exclusion of leaseholders are to be found. I understand that Defra put out a notice in which it excluded leaseholders, but can the Minister tell us where this provision is made? The public are confused. The assumption when anyone reads this Bill that freeholders are included will be interpreted by flat-owners who have purchased their freehold but manage their blocks through leasehold companies—companies which have been established to manage the freehold, owned by the residents who have 999-year leases—to mean that they are also included. They will assume that because they are freeholders they are included. My understanding from my reading, although, as I say, I have not found the authoritative piece of literature, is that they are not included. In other words, people out there who believe they are included—freeholders of blocks of flats; not corporate interests but individual share-of-freehold owners—will think that they are included when they are not. That needs to be sorted out.

I cannot understand why they are excluded. Indeed, I would argue that they are probably less of a risk to insurance companies, even though they may well live in buildings on flood plains, because very often you find blocks of flats where no one is living on the bottom floor at all and the first flat in the block is on the first floor, above the area at risk of being flooded. If I am correct in what I am saying, will the Minister tell us why share-of-freehold owners in blocks of flats are being excluded when, in fact, they are freeholders and when, as I say, people reading the Bill will presume that they are included?