This week has produced yet another devastating exposé of cruelty to animals in a UK slaughterhouse - another piece of outstanding work by Animal Aid.
Covert cameras installed at Bowood slaughterhouse in Thirsk, Yorkshire recorded horrific, intentional brutality towards sheep at the end of their lives. It is inconceivable that these acts would have been committed in front of an official veterinarian or other independent monitor. But a single veterinarian cannot see every part of the slaughterhouse at once and it is frequently impossible to watch operations in the slaughter pen without being observed. And people behave differently when they know they are not being watched.
This is of course one of the reasons for the almost universal call for CCTV to be installed in all slaughterhouses. And by coincidence, this week also sees publication of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) Opinion on CCTV in slaughterhouses. Requested by the four UK administrations, the report summarises the many advantages of having additional monitoring of both worker and animal behaviour. The authors point out, for example, that it may be easier to identify injured animals in the lairage area using cameras, as the inbuilt flight instinct can lead to injuries being camouflaged by the animals when humans are in proximity. Staff training and security are other advantages.
Even so, the main purpose of CCTV is to prevent mistreatment of animals at slaughter. In our response to the FAWC call for evidence, OneKind stated: “... the priority in our view is to ensure that the system, firstly, deters poor practice or outright cruelty and, secondly, ensures that high-quality recorded footage is available for any proceedings following incidents of potential ill-treatment of animals.”
OneKind did not demand legislation for CCTV – the main priority in our view being to secure universal installation and consistent use across the industry. Nonetheless, we pointed out the value of a mandatory system:
“The benefit of making CCTV compulsory would be that the legislation would specify the areas to be monitored, including unloading, lairage, stunning, bleeding and shackling. While uptake of CCTV is increasing, not all existing systems cover all of these areas at present.”
OneKind is pleased therefore to see the FAWC recommend that, in order to realise the potential benefits to animal welfare and to businesses, all approved slaughterhouse operators should install CCTV in all areas where live animals are kept and where animals are stunned and killed.
The CCTV should be installed in a manner that allows for the clear and uninterrupted recording of all actions and areas involving live animals and animal killing, and the slaughterhouse should ensure that footage is regularly and securely monitored according to an established protocol.
The FAWC also recommends that all assurance scheme operators, food retailers and others in the food chain require that CCTV be installed in the slaughterhouses associated with them.
Finally, the FAWC recommends that the slaughter industry should produce a common set of good practice protocols for the review, evaluation and use of CCTV footage and gives examples of issues that should be covered.
On Tuesday night in a Westminster adjournment debate introduced by Henry Smith MP – who made a passionate and well-informed argument for mandatory installation of CCTV, saying “... a voluntary scheme has its obvious limitations. Not everyone will install cameras and, as was noted by a Food Standards Agency board member, it is likely that those who resist installing CCTV are most in need of additional regulation and scrutiny.”
The Minister George Eustice MP responded: “The report by the FAWC concludes that there are many benefits to CCTV in slaughterhouses, but also sounds a note of caution, stating that CCTV is no panacea, and while it can be a useful tool to complement existing enforcement and management, it cannot replace other management procedures and inspection regimes.”
No-one is saying it would be a panacea – in our submission to the FAWC, OneKind was clear that CCTV should not be seen as a substitute for monitoring by official veterinarians and others, but as an additional protection. It needs to be vigorously and uncompromisingly promoted by government and if uptake and application are not comprehensive and consistent, there can be no further reason to delay legislation.
That unwatchable footage from Yorkshire can leave us in no doubt. Change is needed – and soon.