CCTV in Slaughterhouses

Debate between Henry Smith and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity this evening to raise the issue of the need for CCTV to be installed and monitored in slaughterhouses, in an effort to better aid animal welfare.

I personally have been vegetarian for more than a quarter of a century, because I am concerned about animal welfare issues in the production of meat, and also for food and environmental sustainability reasons, but I recognise that the majority of people eat meat. However, I would contend that the majority of those people who eat meat want to know that their food is sourced to the highest standards when it comes to animal welfare.

Trainee slaughterers are tested to ensure that they know the laws relating to animal welfare before they are licensed, and yet when secret cameras have been installed in slaughterhouses, many of them have been caught flouting welfare laws, often in shocking and sickening ways. All too often, this cruelty is casually meted out to every animal that passes through their hands.

The Animal Aid charity has carried out covert investigations going back as far as 2009. Since then, the group has secreted cameras inside 10 randomly selected UK slaughterhouses and found serious animal welfare breaches in nine of them. The latest evidence from a non-stun Yorkshire slaughterhouse was released to the media just this morning. It showed that the layout of the slaughterhouse was deficient and, in the words of the group,

“was guaranteed to cause unnecessary suffering to animals”.

One wonders how that slaughterhouse was ever approved in the first place. The video from inside the abattoir shows casual, routine violence, with sheep being picked up by the ears, legs and fleeces and thrown on to the conveyor, or hurled head first into solid structures. It shows that the “surgically sharp knife” was often so blunt that the slaughterer had to hack over and over again at the throats of still-conscious animals. It also shows workers tormenting animals: waving knives in their faces; shouting at them; and in one case painting spectacles on the face of a sheep, so that they could laugh at the animal as she bled to death.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I think every one of us was shocked when we saw the CCTV video and the pictures in the papers. I understand that in every abattoir there is an official veterinary officer who is available to monitor what happens inside the abattoir. They have to be of a certain qualified standard, but I understand that some of them are not. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps the way forward with this issue is to ensure that those official veterinary officers have the qualifications to observe and monitor the abattoirs, to ensure that these practices do not happen.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The fact is that the vets who are on site in slaughterhouses are not everywhere at once, and too many incidents have been missed, as I will discuss. Proper training is essential, but having an all-seeing eye and independent monitoring would ensure the maximum quality of animal welfare conditions in our slaughterhouses.

The recording to which I was referring shows appalling violence. The Food Standards Agency has so far suspended the licences of three workers, and I understand it is also building cases for prosecutions. Terrible as those actions are, that slaughterhouse is not, unfortunately, an anomaly.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. My brother is a farmer, and many farmers I have spoken to are deeply concerned that the welfare that they care about when the animals are on their farm is discarded in the final moments in the slaughterhouses—I received an e-mail about that just earlier today. I will come on to address the cost to slaughterhouses, but it would range from a few hundred pounds to a few thousand pounds. Given the scale of the industry, only a small amount would be needed to install CCTV across all slaughterhouses in the UK. I deliberately say the UK, because it is important that Northern Ireland, as well as Great Britain, is included.

Earlier recordings revealed animals being kicked, slapped, stamped on, picked up by fleeces and ears, and thrown into stunning pens. They recorded animals being improperly stunned and coming round again, or suffering painful electrocution instead of being stunned. Cameras have also captured animals being deliberately and illegally beaten and punched, and burned with cigarettes. Workers have been caught hitting pigs in the head with shackle hooks, and using the stunning tongs deliberately to cause pain by sending electric shocks through animals’ ears, noses, tails, legs and abdomens, and even, in one case, through an open mouth.

The key point I wish to convey tonight is that not one of the illegal acts filmed was detected by the Government-appointed on-site vets or the slaughterhouse operators, who have ultimate responsibility for animal welfare. The current regulatory system fails animals badly, and I believe it is time to rectify that. Workers do know the law and they know how to abide by it, yet investigations show that it is routinely flouted when they think no one is watching—in which case, someone needs to be watching. Independently monitored CCTV could help reduce the number of vicious attacks in the first instance by deterring them. Who would stub a cigarette out on the face of an animal if they knew the illegal act was being recorded?

Cameras could help prevent routine suffering by detecting institutionalised poor practice, such as the illegal stunning and slaughter methods used in at least four of the slaughterhouses videoed by Animal Aid. Any vet who saw these methods would have been able to step in and advise retraining for the staff involved. And, of course, those who do cause deliberate unnecessary suffering to animals are much more likely to be caught. The recordings, when properly monitored, provide evidence that will allow food business operators and the Food Standards Agency to take decisive action. Since Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals welfare standards introduced the requirement for installation of CCTV in abattoirs from 2011, all Freedom Food scheme-approved slaughterhouses have had to install effective CCTV systems and store recordings, and make them available to Freedom Food and RSPCA field staff.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is being gracious in allowing my interventions. Perhaps he is coming on to this, but will someone be paid to monitor and observe the CCTV? Will there not be a cost factor in that, too?

[Henry Smith]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The importance of CCTV is that what is recorded is stored for a period of time and then made available to independent inspectors. I know of a number of groups that would be willing to provide that service at no cost to the taxpayer because of their concern for animal welfare.

Let me return now to the RSPCA and the Freedom Food scheme. The two organisations have direct practical experience of seeing and assessing the issues associated with the operation of CCTV systems in a range of slaughterhouses. Based on first-hand experience, the use of CCTV in abattoirs is likely to bring many benefits to animals, inspectors and food business operators. Many of those benefits have already been realised in abattoirs that have installed such monitoring.

The presence of an effective CCTV system in abattoirs is also likely to improve confidence among consumers, enforcers, the food industry and the farming industry that poor practice is being avoided—or at least is more likely to be identified and properly dealt with.

One RSPCA farm livestock officer who monitors Freedom Food approved abattoirs, and who has many years of experience of viewing practices and assessing compliance with welfare provisions in slaughterhouses both before and after CCTV, said:

“In my opinion it has improved welfare considerably.”

The slaughter industry has not made a good name for itself. In recent years, the media have reported on: the deliberate adulteration of meat products with horsemeat; the scandalously high levels of Campylobacter in chicken; the theft of firearms from slaughterhouses; the use of a captive bolt gun to commit a murder; and a number of abattoir workers being killed or seriously harmed at work, sometimes through misuse of equipment, poor training or irresponsible behaviour. Add to that the repeated revelations of cruelty to animals and it is clear that there needs to be better monitoring.

The supermarkets have already taken decisive action. All the major chains—Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Morrisons, Marks and Spencer, Lidl, Aldi, Waitrose and Iceland, as well as wholesaler Booker—now insist that their slaughterhouse suppliers have CCTV installed. This so-called “voluntary” scheme has led to a significant increase in the number of slaughterhouses installing CCTV. The latest Food Standards Agency figures suggest that 19% of red meat slaughterhouses have CCTV, which accounts for around 48% of red meat volume, and 29% of white meat slaughterhouses, which accounts for 59% of poultry meat volume.

Although that is a positive step, a voluntary scheme has its obvious limitations. Not everyone will install cameras and, as was noted by an FSA board member, it is likely that those who resist installing CCTV are most in need of additional regulation and scrutiny.

There seem to be just three arguments put forward against implementing this much-needed legislation. The first is that CCTV cameras do not work because they were already in one of the slaughterhouses filmed by Animal Aid. My reply is that of course poorly sited cameras with no one monitoring the footage will not work. The answer is ensuring that cameras are in the right place, that recordings are kept for a significant period, and that an independent body, which is focused on the protection of animals, gets to select random or appropriate sections. There is no argument that anyone should view the recordings in their entirety. Clearly, that would be an impractical, onerous task.

The second argument is that veterinary surveys show the same level of compliance in slaughterhouses that have cameras as those that do not. However, we know from investigations that vets do not see the commonplace abuse that takes place in slaughterhouses, so how can they report with any degree of accuracy on levels of compliance? The answer is simply that they cannot.

That exact problem was highlighted again recently when the official number of recorded mis-stuns in slaughterhouses was made public. Vets in slaughterhouses record the cases in which the animals are not stunned properly and at the end of the year those figures are counted up. In 2009, those veterinary figures stated that there were just five mis-stuns of pigs across the whole country for the entire year, but in 2009 Animal Aid placed hidden cameras inside three slaughterhouses, one of which mis-stunned more than 99% of the pigs while another mis-stunned more than 10%. In 2010, the veterinary figures once again suggested that there were just five mis-stuns of pigs across the whole country for the entire year, whereas secret recordings measured 762 mis-stunned pigs in a single slaughterhouse over just three days. It is clear that vets do not see what is happening, which is why we need independently monitored CCTV.

Finally, we come to the cost. The cost of CCTV installation is not prohibitive—it is just a few hundred pounds for the smaller slaughterhouses and £2,000 to £3,000 for the larger ones. Supermarkets report no resistance to their request that slaughterhouse suppliers install cameras. Although those one-off costs are low, there are various funding options that could be explored. They include individual slaughterhouses funding their own cameras, the industry funding them and the Government making available loans or grants. Although money at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is understandably limited, between 2011 and 2014 DEFRA gave more than £900,000 in funding to slaughterhouses through the rural development programme for England. That sum would sufficiently pay for CCTV installation in every slaughterhouse in England that does not have it. In any case, there could be phase-in times and derogations for the smallest slaughterhouses to help facilitate the change.

As for the cost of independent monitoring of the recording, there are options to be explored but we should remember that the taxpayer is already paying in the region of £30 million a year to regulate slaughterhouses, and that in terms of animal protection at least that money is clearly not working. It is much better to re-evaluate the system and use those millions to ensure that animal welfare laws are upheld.

In conclusion, CCTV is a practical, sensible and proportionate response to a serious, widespread problem. It will not stop the suffering inside slaughterhouses, but it will deter gross acts of violence that were all too commonly recorded, help vets advise and retrain, and help the FSA clamp down on lawbreaking by providing evidence for prosecutions, should they be necessary.

As its obvious benefits are becoming more widely known, support for making CCTV in slaughterhouses mandatory is growing. More than 170 right hon. and hon. Members have signalled their support for it, whereas a YouGov poll of British adults last year showed that 76% support mandatory CCTV for slaughterhouses with independent monitoring. I note that a petition to No. 10 in support of the measure has now attracted more than 80,000 signatures. I therefore believe that this will be an issue that the House will debate again in the very near future.

Midwife and Maternity Services

Debate between Henry Smith and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to hold this debate on midwife and maternity services. It is particularly important because, as I speak, there is a baby boom in the UK. Last year, a baby was born every 40 seconds—the highest number in 20 years—and in certain areas of the country maternity units are under considerable pressure and midwives are working harder than ever. England has seen a 22% increase in the number of births, compared to Wales at 17%, Northern Ireland at 15%, and Scotland at 12%. The number of live births in England in 2010—the latest year for which figures are available—was well over two thirds of a million, representing an increase of 22% since 2001.

The Royal College of Midwives recently published its “State of Maternity Services” report, and I was pleased to be at its launch in Westminster Hall. The report looks at a number of indicators of the pressures on maternity care and the resources available to cope, and for the first time it does so for all four nations of the Union. The report finds that a significant increase in the number of births in each of the UK’s constituent parts and a trend towards older mothers are increasing the pressures on maternity services significantly. The extra work load placed on midwives by more older women giving birth has been exacerbated by an increased complexity in their work load.

The number of births to women aged 40 or over rose by more than 70% between 2001 and 2010—a level not seen since 1948. In England that has led to a substantial deficit in the work force needed to provide a safe level of care to women and their babies. Furthermore, the existing midwifery work force in England is ageing. We can therefore anticipate an even greater strain on services over the next 15 years, if the situation is not properly addressed. One region of England actually cut midwife numbers between 2001 and 2010. Between those years, the north-west experienced a 19% increase in the number of live births, but a reduced number of full-time equivalent midwives.

The only way to get large numbers of new midwives into the profession is through training student midwives, yet the record on student midwife numbers is patchy. In the 2005-06 academic year, for example, there was even a 16% cut in student midwife numbers, and it took five years for those numbers to climb back up to their 2004-05 level. With an ageing profession, a substantial and consistent rise in student midwife numbers is the only way of rectifying the enduring problem that there are too few midwives working in the NHS in England.

I very much welcome the increased number of midwives and trainee midwives introduced by the Government. That is fundamental. I also very much welcome the increase in NHS funding over each and every year of this Parliament, including the greater investment in maternity care as part of the solution. However, the financial limits resulting from the historically high debts that the previous Administration left us mean that innovative ways to address the work force shortages need to be considered.

I know that the Royal College of Midwives, for its part, is realistic about the financial challenges facing the NHS. The “State of Maternity Services” report recommends, for example, providing more midwife-led units and appropriately integrating maternity support workers as two ways to make better use of the limited financial resources available. The report also recommends at least maintaining, and in some regions increasing, the number of student midwives to ensure that more midwives are available to meet future needs.

Maternity services in England are approaching a critical point. London, along with many parts of the south and east, is particularly overstretched, with some maternity units currently having a midwife vacancy rate of over 20%. Maternity services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in better shape. According to the Royal College of Midwives, an average ratio of one midwife to 28 births is a safe level. At the moment the figures for the UK are as follows: in England there is one midwife for every 33 births, in Wales there is one for every 30 births, in Northern Ireland one for every 28 births, and in Scotland one for every 26 births. There are clear variations in care across the UK that need to be addressed. It is clear that with adequate midwife numbers to match the birth rate, mothers and babies receive a higher standard of care.

The situation in England is a concern, but it is certainly not hopeless. The midwifery shortage can be solved; it is simply a matter of policy will and using resources innovatively. For example, giving expectant mothers real choice when deciding where to give birth could alleviate the shortage problem in England. In essence, a mother has three main choices when choosing the location of birth: a midwife-led unit, a consultant-led unit or at home. Most women choose a local hospital, usually for convenience and because of the perception of safety and security. Encouraging more births at midwife-led units, however, would help with NHS work force planning. Births at home or in midwife-led units require fewer interventions and are less demanding on midwife time. According to calculations, for every 10,000 births moved from a consultant-led to a midwife-led unit or to the home, the required midwifery work force would be reduced by the equivalent of 71 full-time midwives.

There are significant variations in home birth take-up, which suggests that the message of choice is not getting through to all mothers. For example, in Somerset 11.4% of births are at home. At the other end of the scale, however, in Wansbeck, just 0.1% of births are at home. By encouraging real choice we could enable mothers across the country to receive higher levels of care during and after their pregnancy.

Choice of location of birth—that is, of course, a specific coalition policy set out in the NHS White Paper—is far too important to be denied to mothers, particularly when it is readily available in other parts of the country. According to the Office for National Statistics the percentage of home births decreased to 2.5% in 2010 compared with 2.7% the previous year.

Research by Oxford University’s national perinatal epidemiology unit has given further weight to the evidence that suggests women at a low risk of complications should be given full and frank options when it comes to choosing where to give birth. The general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, Professor Cathy Warwick, welcomed the research, saying:

“This ground-breaking research makes a very important contribution to the evidence base for women and health professionals about the safety of childbirth planned in different settings for women at a low risk of complications. The RCM hopes that its findings will be widely used and will help health professionals support women to make informed choices about their options when considering where to give birth. It should also influence the planning of high-quality maternity services across the UK.”

Maternity support workers who have been adequately trained, and are appropriately supervised and suitably deployed, can also provide a significant reduction of the pressure on midwife time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. He will be aware that some 70% of midwives oversee the birth of a child without a doctor’s support. He has not mentioned that it can cost up to £45,000 to train a midwife. Some of our midwives, certainly some from Northern Ireland, are going to Australia to gain experience. Does the hon. Gentleman see some way of retaining midwives here in England, where, as he has said, there seems to be a shortage? Might there not be some way for the regions to help each other in this respect?

[Henry Smith]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which reinforces my view that there must be proper investment—the Government are already making a good start—to ensure that student midwives learn how to help mothers give birth in a safe environment so that in most cases there are no complications. It should be emphasised that consultant-led maternity units, although obviously vital, do not represent the full picture, and that midwife-led units play an important role in increasing capacity. Midwife training in each part of the United Kingdom should be at least maintained, and in some regions increased. It is necessary to maintain the numbers who begin training to ensure that an adequate supply emerges at the other end, and I repeat my commendation of the Government in that regard.

Let me end by referring to a matter related to my constituency. Yesterday evening, during the Opposition day debate on the NHS, I mentioned that 10 years ago, in 2001, the maternity unit at Crawley hospital had regrettably been closed and moved nearly 10 miles up the road to East Surrey hospital. The move has created extra pressure at that hospital, and mothers and their families have a more difficult journey to attend the unit at for check-ups and for births.

I am personally very grateful to East Surrey hospital. It is where my children were born. My daughter Georgia was born there in 2003, my son Isaac was born there in 2006, and I feel that it is important also to mention that my son Ethan was stillborn there in 2005. The care that the hospital provided for us was second to none. Nevertheless, I think it important for mothers and families to have access to midwife-led services that are closer to their communities. It is certainly one of my hopes and desires that we may be able to establish a midwife-led unit for Crawley—and, indeed, many more such units throughout the country.