Asked by: Lord Trees (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to require all abattoirs to have CCTV recordings of the slaughter process in the interests of animal welfare, and to require storage of such recordings and access to them by third parties.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The primary responsibility for protecting animal welfare in slaughterhouses rests with business operators, who must have operating procedures in place to prevent animals suffering avoidable pain, suffering and distress. Business operators must also have appropriate monitoring procedures in place.
The vast majority of animals are slaughtered in slaughterhouses which have CCTV present, so the Government is not currently persuaded of the case for introducing regulation which would require all abattoirs to have CCTV, but we are keeping the issue under review.
In their report last year, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee recommended that CCTV should be retained, by the slaughterhouse, for a period of at least three months and the Government supports that recommendation. Official Veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency are present in all approved slaughterhouses to monitor and ensure operators comply with strict animal welfare regulations and have the power to seize CCTV footage if they suspect a breach of welfare standards.
Asked by: Lord Trees (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many prosecutions were made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in the last year for which complete records are available; and who instigated those prosecutions.
Answered by Lord De Mauley
1,894 defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts in England and Wales for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in 2013 (latest available).
The Ministry of Justice court proceedings database cannot separately identify whether or not a prosecution is brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, or by a private authority. This information may be held by the relevant courts in England and Wales, and can only be discerned at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Lord Trees (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage adoption of the Code of Practice for Reptiles developed by the British Veterinary Zoological Society.
Answered by Lord De Mauley
I am delighted that the hard work and co-operation of keepers, industry and welfare organisations has led to the development of the Good Practice Guidelines for the Welfare of Privately Kept Reptiles and Amphibians. Along with the six care sheets for six of the commonly kept species, we hope this code will provide valuable information to promote the welfare of these animals and encourage keepers to source captive bred animals wherever possible. The Government will explore with the interested parties how the code can be best promoted. I am placing copies of the documents in the libraries of the House.
Asked by: Lord Trees (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to trigger a European Union referral procedure for the drug diclofenac in view of its recent registration in two Member States of the European Union and its toxicity to vultures.
Answered by Lord De Mauley
Authorisation of a veterinary medicine involves an assessment of the benefits of a product against its risks. Potential risks include risks to the animal, to the user, the consumer and to the environment. The environmental risk is assessed to establish the extent of exposure. If the environmental exposure is not extensive, then no further assessment is required. Without exposure, there is no risk irrespective of the toxicity. If there is information in the public domain to indicate that despite low exposure there may be a potential risk, then the competent authority – the body that authorises veterinary medicines - can request a further assessment of the issues identified.
Products containing Diclofenac are a risk to vultures if there is any exposure of the birds to carcasses of animals containing residues of the veterinary medicine. The toxicity of Diclofenac to vultures is well documented. In Europe there are laws which provide for the disposal of fallen stock. The risk of exposure is therefore minimal as dead farmed animals are not left in the fields. Risk mitigation measures (instructions to the users) could be used to eliminate exposure by instructing users not to feed carcasses of animals treated with Diclofenac to vultures. This is something for the competent authorities of those Member States that have authorised the veterinary use of Diclofenac. The Government has no evidence that there is a serious risk to vultures posed by the authorisation of Diclofenac and therefore does not plan to trigger a referral procedure.
Asked by: Lord Trees (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the recent licensing of the drug diclofenac in two Member States of the European Union; and what assessment they have made of its toxicity to vultures.
Answered by Lord De Mauley
Authorisation of a veterinary medicine involves an assessment of the benefits of a product against its risks. Potential risks include risks to the animal, to the user, the consumer and to the environment. The environmental risk is assessed to establish the extent of exposure. If the environmental exposure is not extensive, then no further assessment is required. Without exposure, there is no risk irrespective of the toxicity. If there is information in the public domain to indicate that despite low exposure there may be a potential risk, then the competent authority – the body that authorises veterinary medicines - can request a further assessment of the issues identified.
Products containing Diclofenac are a risk to vultures if there is any exposure of the birds to carcasses of animals containing residues of the veterinary medicine. The toxicity of Diclofenac to vultures is well documented. In Europe there are laws which provide for the disposal of fallen stock. The risk of exposure is therefore minimal as dead farmed animals are not left in the fields. Risk mitigation measures (instructions to the users) could be used to eliminate exposure by instructing users not to feed carcasses of animals treated with Diclofenac to vultures. This is something for the competent authorities of those Member States that have authorised the veterinary use of Diclofenac. The Government has no evidence that there is a serious risk to vultures posed by the authorisation of Diclofenac and therefore does not plan to trigger a referral procedure.