Dog Meat Trade

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Robert Flello

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello]

As hon. Members will know, I secured a debate last September on the puppy trade, and I certainly accept we need to get our own house in order, but, although what we do in this country is appalling, what goes on elsewhere takes it to a whole new depth of despair and disgust.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend not just for launching this debate, but for all the work he does on animal welfare. We do have high standards in this country, notwithstanding some abuses that go on. What does my hon. Friend think can be done at the Government level to ensure that countries that allow these abhorrent practices to take place begin to curtail them?

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will return to that point as my speech develops; I am conscious that I have only a few more minutes left.

It is important to note the cruel and inhumane conditions and the way in which these dogs are treated. When a slaughterhouse is used, the conditions are virtually without exception filthy, and dogs already in the poorest of health are waiting in areas covered in blood or faeces watching their fellow animals die. Investigations have shown that a large number of dogs in these facilities were wearing collars, suggesting dogs had been stolen rather than bred for the purpose of meat. It is likely, however, that those animals killed at official slaughterhouses represent just a small percentage of those killed. The vast majority of the killing occurs elsewhere—in even more unsanitary and inhumane conditions.

In some ways, I am loth to tell Members about the conditions, but we do ourselves and these dogs a disservice if I fail to touch on them. For example, families will often purchase dogs to slaughter at home. These petrified creatures are often tied to the back of cars and motorbikes, and dragged home barely alive. This is not an exaggeration; it is normal daily practice.

These dogs are not “farmed” in any sense that a sane farmer would recognise. Numerous reports suggest that, rather than raise dogs for consumption, violent gangs travel around stealing much-loved family pets. In a typical case, four trucks were stopped in Thailand carrying more than 1,000 dogs out of the country, 119 of which had already died of suffocation. Those who transport these dogs across hundreds of miles from country to country have only one concern: pack as many dogs into the trucks as possible.

It is hard to describe the horrors these animals face from overcrowding, lack of food and water, heat and disease—barely surviving in their own waste. The thieves often poison the dogs in order to steal them and sell them to traders or restaurants, and they have no problem with turning their weapons—poison darts, crossbows or machetes—on the dogs’ owners if they are challenged or caught. This is big business, and the health and wellbeing of the animals or their owners is of no consequence to these people. Indeed, in some areas of China, up to 70% of villagers have lost a dog, with the majority believing that it was taken by a gang.

Now if this sickening cruelty is not enough to persuade Governments to ban this evil trade and enforce the laws, perhaps the health risks will persuade them. So unregulated is the dog meat industry that there is a huge risk to human beings from diseases such as cholera and rabies, with the latter found to be present in slaughterhouses and markets in China, Vietnam and Indonesia.

The World Health Organisation has raised serious concerns about the health risks to people eating dog meat. AnimalsAsia found that around 60% of village groups in China had vaccinated at best one in 10 of their pet dogs against rabies. It is thought that the dog meat trade now represents one of the biggest factors in the spread of rabies around the world. Investigations have uncovered a complete lack of proper vaccination or breeding records for the dogs that have even the most rudimentary breeding facilities. There is no quarantining—effectively nothing other than attempting to maximise profit.

It is hard reading, but I recommend the report commissioned by AnimalsAsia, which was based on four years research. It makes clear the truth behind the industry. It shows that the number of farms producing dog meat is far lower than advertised, with many dog-breeding companies referring to the same few companies; meaningful farming barely exists. To quote the report, the

“companies that claim to breed and raise their own dogs are seen as a source of ‘trustworthy’ dog meat by the public, but...not a single dog meat company’s dogs are from their own breeding farms. The dogs are all acquired rural dogs”.

That is a damning indictment of the industry for anyone who claims that it is in any way regulated or that a dog meat breeding or farming system is in place. Also in the words of AnimalsAsia:

“Our investigations strongly point to what everybody familiar with the industry has long suspected—that the vast majority of China’s dog meat comes from stolen companion animals and that misinformation and illegality is rife at every stage of the...supply chain.”

That is the reality of the issue we are dealing with here.

To be clear, this is issue is not just about an aversion to eating dog meat. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that this is a tradition dating back centuries, and that dogs have a very different cultural role in many Asian societies. I do not believe that it is generally this House’s role to tell societies abroad what they should or should not do based on western sensibilities, but we cannot allow tradition to be used as a smokescreen for practices that are barbaric, cruel, inhumane and disgusting—any word we could pick would not come close to what we are discussing here today. The link between the consumption of dog meat nowadays and traditions in those countries is extremely tenuous, to say the least.

Let me briefly draw the House’s attention to the annual Yulin dog meat festival in China. At least 10,000 dogs are consumed during the 10-day festival, which began only a few years ago—largely, believe it or not, as a way of attracting tourists.

It may seem that there is little we can do to persuade the countries that I have mentioned to take action—after all, many of them have dire human rights records, so there may seem to be no point in requiring them to be kinder to animals—but that is not my view. Our country has led on animal welfare issues all over the world, and this issue should be no different. The Government can put pressure on those countries.

South Korea wants to be seen as an open, democratic, western-friendly society, but if that is to happen, it needs to start acting properly and behaving itself. Tens of thousands of holidaymakers from our shores go to Thailand each year. I understand that the law enforcement agencies there are now using DNA testing equipment to check the source of meat and make sure that dog meat is not being passed off as legal meat, but Thailand needs to do more: it needs to stop the trade with other countries. My constituency is in Stoke-on-Trent, and a large amount of ceramic ware is made in Indonesia. We need to ensure that countries like Indonesia understand just what potential British purchasers of their goods will or will not do when they learn what happens in those countries.

I hope—indeed, I know—that the Government will arrive at some positive conclusions, and they have uttered positive words in the past, but we need more than words now: we need some action. We should take heart from the fact that in China—which undoubtedly presents the biggest problem that we face in tackling the dog meat trade—members of the expanding middle class are beginning to speak out, and it appears that young people are beginning to shy away.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Robert Flello

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Government’s position, as set out by Lord Faulks in the Second Reading debate on the predecessor Bill in the other place, is that

“any change in the law in this emotive area is an issue of individual conscience. In our view, it is rightly a matter for Parliament to decide rather than government policy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2014; Vol. 755, c. 919.]

No doubt the Minister will confirm that today. The Opposition also believe that it is a matter for individual conscience, and it is right therefore that Front-Bench comments have been constrained to allow the maximum number of Back-Bench contributions.

We have not yet had 85 speeches, let alone the 133 speeches over 10 hours the other place devoted to the subject last year, but the number and quality of speeches we have heard today leave no doubt that this is a matter of great weight and controversy. We reflect, as we should, the views of our constituents; like, I am sure, all Members, I have had hundreds of representations making a passionate and compelling case on both sides of the argument.

I warmly and sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) for bringing this issue before the House after 18 years. He has had something of a rollercoaster ride of defeat and victory over the last two elections and he could have chosen a less controversial and easier life. Instead, he is totting up his staffing budget to see whether he can afford the additional assistance to deal with his engorged postbag. His aim, in his own words, is to do better for dying people.

Let me also acknowledge the work of Lord Falconer, who chaired the Commission on Assisted Dying and piloted the predecessor Bill through Second Reading and into Committee in the Lords.

There are many, including some who have spoken today, for whom the principle of assisted dying or the slippery slope argument are the start and end of their consideration. The current Archbishop of Canterbury has said that we are crossing a “legal and moral Rubicon” today, but that side of the argument does not enjoy monopoly support even among archbishops. Lord Carey has said:

“Some people have said on the issue of compassion that actually pain is a noble thing, to bear pain and to say that we are suffering with you is, in my view, a very poor argument indeed.

There is nothing noble about excruciating pain and I think we need as a nation to give people the right to decide their own fate.”

Many Members have expressed concern as to the role of the medical profession, saying that there would be a fundamental change in the doctor-patient relationship. Indeed that is an important consideration, but I equally take on board the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who says there is currently an inconsistency in the law as a result of his own guidelines. There is an opt-out for medical practitioners, and some would say that that heralds a more mature relationship between doctors and patients. My hon. and learned Friend explained with his customary precision the limits that he was able to achieve even with the excellent guidelines he introduced as Director of Public Prosecutions.

That brings me to my concluding point and, I think, the salient point for us to bear in mind today. Other bodies have tried to address this issue. The Director of Public Prosecutions has tried, as has the Supreme Court. We should bear in mind the words of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, who said that it was

“institutionally inappropriate at this juncture”

for the Court to declare that clause 2 was incompatible with article 8, as opposed to giving Parliament the opportunity to consider the position without a declaration. Lord Sumption referred to the “inherent difficulty” of the question, and to

“the fact that there is much to be said on both sides”—

for making—

“Parliament the proper organ for deciding it.”

Without drawing a conclusion on the rightness or wrongness of the Bill, I urge the House to take the same course that the other place took last year, which was not to vote down the Bill at this stage but to allow it to go forward into Committee where these matters could be debated further. That was the cogently expressed view of a strong opponent of the Bill in the other place, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who stated:

“I am deeply opposed to the Bill but strongly in favour of it being afforded a Second Reading so that we may have the opportunity to discuss the many vitally important issues that it raises.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2014; Vol. 755, c. 778.]

We abdicate our responsibility if, after 18 years, we do not fully discuss these matters in detail and look at the safeguards and the possibilities in the Bill. It is wrong that those of our constituents who can afford to do so have the option to go to Switzerland when others do not have such options. We at least owe them the courtesy of discussing these matters more fully. I personally will support the Bill’s Second Reading, but I will be doing so in order to have a stronger, fuller debate.

[Robert Flello]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) to give his personal views at the Dispatch Box, when he is there in a party position?