Support the introduction of slaughterhouse CCTV in Scotland – deadline 20 June.

Yes

• Although 68% of slaughterhouses in Scotland have cameras in some part of the slaughterhouse, cameras may not be installed throughout, and they may not be turned on, pointing in the right direction or functioning
• FBOs can – and do – refuse to hand over the footage to regulators when required, and vets can request the footage only when they have suspicions.
• Only a law can remedy these shortcomings.
• Investigations in England between 2009 and 2017 showed that 93% of slaughterhouses filmed by covert CCTV were breaking animal welfare laws, and often animals were deliberately attacked or abused.
• These breaches were detected by the presence of cameras, which were placed and monitored by animal protection organisations.
• Cameras can be sited in places where vets cannot be, and they can remain in place all day. Moreover, the footage can be stored and used to train, retrain, settle disputes and provide evidence for prosecutions.
• Installation of cameras is essential for better deterring and detecting breaches of animal welfare laws, but so is independent monitoring of the footage.

Yes.

Yes.

• It is imperative that footage is retained for 90 days, and it costs the Food Business Operator very little to do so.
• Vets and others must be able to look back over a period of time to determine whether a questionable action brought to their attention was a one-off or part of a systemic and ongoing problem.

Yes

• Ensuring officials are able to watch in real time means problems could be picked up as soon as they occur.
• And recorded CCTV footage can be used for future training and correctional purposes. It can be used to investigate tip-offs and determine whether a situation was a one-off event or indicative of an ongoing and / or widespread problem. Stored footage provides evidence, should it be required, for criminal prosecutions.
• To ensure the footage is monitored independently, the Scottish Government should set up an external body to oversee this aspect of regulation. [More information can be found in the 2016 report CCTV Monitoring in Slaughterhouses authored by Prof. Ian Rotherham of Sheffield Hallam University] This would help safeguard animal welfare in cases where vets were implicated in not acting when they should. For example, ABP Sturminster continued to slaughter cows using a stun pen that was not set up legally. And the layout at Bowood Yorkshire Lamb was so poor that unnecessary suffering was inevitable. A vet should have recognised these issues and prevented operations until they were rectified.
• A truly independent body that operates outside of the often-charged slaughterhouse atmosphere would be able to spot-check footage, and act without fear of reprisals on the ground.

• The cost to individual slaughterhouses is modest. Animal Aid found that a fully-installed four-camera system with remote viewing and night vision would cost in the region of £700-£900. An eight-camera system would cost around £2,500. These are one-off costs, and the annual maintenance costs are negligible.
• The many scandals emanating from the slaughter industry –from welfare abuses and deaths of workers to the horsemeat contamination, bullying of staff and widespread campylobacter –have led to reputational damage across the whole industry. The cost of not installing cameras would be significant, especially when England has already taken this step.

Yes

n/a

Yes.

• Animal Aid’s investigations revealed that workers at slaughterhouses of all sizes break welfare laws when they think they are not being watched.
• I agree with the Consultation document – exempting smaller businesses from any compulsory CCTV recording would undermine the overall effectiveness of a requirement for compulsory CCTV.

n/a