Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-50)
MR BEN
BRADSHAW MP, MR
JOHN BOURNE,
MR GRAHAM
THURLOW AND
MS CAROLINE
CONNELL
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q40 Mr Wiggin: Exactly.
Ms Connell: In terms of farm welfare,
it is probably not such a problem because that is generally based
on EU directives anyway, so that will have to operate the same
on both sides of the border. So, where you are talking about farmed
animal welfare, Welfare of Farmed Animal Regulations at the moment
implement European directive, so the Welsh will be just as liable
to implement the same directives as such, so you will get the
same standards on both sides of the border. However, I accept
that you raise the point there and the same presumably goes for
farms which straddle the Scottish/English border.
Q41 Mr Wiggin: No because that does not
work. You will find that there are very few farms, I think only
as many as four, that straddle the Scottish border. Also, this
Bill only applies to England and Wales and I think there is a
serious problem here because we do not want people who are interested
in doing the wrong thing moving to the borders in order that they
can hop from one side to the other.
Ms Connell: I accept that. In
actual fact, just for the interest of the Committee, there are
also quite a number of other points that do affect England and
Scotland. So, the fact that it just applies to England and Wales
does not mean that there are not devolution issues to consider
between England and Scotland. Say, for example, the question of
disqualifications, should a Scottish disqualification apply in
England and vice-versa? There are numerous technical problems
on that as well. So, if you would be happy to let us look into
that question further and we can let you have some more information
on that point.
Mr Bradshaw: We do not anticipate
a difference in this. This has been drawn up in consultation with
our Welsh colleagues, but of course it is theoretically possible.
Chairman: Minister, you said earlier
that you did not have a problem with devolution but, given the
length of time that this Bill has been in embryo, I am surprised
that a question like that is responded to with, "Well, we
have to do some more work." These cross-border issues are
not new to the world of devolution.
Q42 Mr Breed: Can I go back on definitions
and such. You have a definition of an animal as such but one of
the things that has not been defined, if you like, is what is
a pet and I believe we are going to get into some difficulty because,
on the one hand, we will see some people and organisations seeing
it as perfectly acceptable to have certain animals as pets and
other organisations feeling it totally inappropriate that that
sort of animal should be in any way treated as a pet by a human.
I am thinking perhaps of exotic animals, exotic pets, chimps and
such. You have not made any list of what you believe might be
animals that would be unacceptable in terms of being a pet. Can
you tell me what work you might have done in that area?
Ms Connell: As a legal issue,
I do not think that the Bill really tries to come to any conclusion
about what is and is not a pet and, as far as I know, there is
no intention to make a list of animals that should not be kept
as pets.
Q43 Mr Breed: In other words, any animal,
whatever that wide definition might ultimately be, could be considered
as a pet if under the control or custody of an individual.
Ms Connell: I think, with respect,
the issue is not what is or is not a pet. Under the Bill at the
moment, the question is, what is a kept animal and what is a protected
animal and therefore which animals fall to be protected from (a)
cruelty or (b) which benefit from the duty of care to welfare.
There is some legislation that deals with what you can and cannot
keep as a pet. The Dangerous Wild Animals Act means that you have
to be licensed to keep animals that are listed in that Act as
pets. So, it would certainly be the case that some local authorities
would say that it is not appropriate to keep certain animals in
the situation that you are planning to keep them.
Q44 Mr Breed: So, any animal not listed
in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act might be considered to be available
as a pet?
Ms Connell: No. The point about
the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is that you have to be licensed
to keep any animal that is listed in a schedule to that Act. You
do not need to be licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act
for any animal not listed in the schedule to that Act.
Q45 Mr Breed: Bearing in mind that we
are talking about pet shops and pet fairs, do you not believe
that there ought to be some work done on what is considered to
be a pet or not?
Mr Bradshaw: That is a separate
legislation. There are already rules about what pets you may or
may not keep legally. This is about ensuring that the welfare
needs of pets that you can legally keep are being met.
Q46 Mr Breed: I suppose what I am getting
at is that there will be some organisations that feel that the
keeping of a certain animal is inherently cruel and therefore
the fact that you might provide it with what you might consider
to be reasonable living conditions and feed it and everything
else nevertheless is cruel to that animal because it should not
be contained within a domestic situation.
Mr Bradshaw: I think if the Government
were to agree with that, then that would be added to the list
of pets that you could not keep, but that is separate from this
legislation which is about ensuring the welfare needs of pets
that are legal to keep.
Chairman: Ms Atherton has a question
about invertebrate animals that she wants to raise.
Q47 Ms Atherton: Minister, you will be
aware that when the draft Bill was first published, there was
some speculation in the media as to the fate of snails and slugs.
As someone who has fought quite a difficult wet summer dealing
in my garden with these two particular types, can you just clarify
the situation in order that everyone is absolutely clear?
Mr Bradshaw: Nothing in this Bill
will prevent you, Ms Atherton, or me for that matter, dealing
with the problems of slugs and snails in your gardens (a) because
they are invertebrates and (b) because they are in the wild, even
if they are in your garden.
Chairman: There we are, the Minister
has spoken to the gardeners of Cornwall and they are entirely
clear on that if not many other points.
Q48 Mr Mitchell: On the parliamentary
estate, I have noticed dogs being taken into offices and dogs
sat around in cars in this place; will that be covered?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, dogs are pets
and their welfare needs are not being met if they are forced to
come here!
Q49 Chairman: Minister, one of the things
that struck me, having read the RSPCA's evidence—and I believe
that you and your officials have had sight of this—were
the number of some may say technical but I think quite fundamental
points as to where they thought, in terms of the Bill as currently
drafted, bluntly from their standpoint it would not work. I am
just anxious to know whether, in the light of what they have said
and obviously the subsequent evidence they may give to us this
morning and given today the central important role that they play
in the enforcement of animal welfare legislation, you intend to
have any secondary discussions with them to look at what I call
the mechanics because, looking at their evidence and taking everything
they say at face value as being entirely correct, your Bill does
not work.
Mr Bradshaw: The simple answer
to that is "yes" and of course we shall be listening
very closely to the evidence that they and other organisations
give your Committee in the course of your pre-legislative scrutiny.
Caroline earlier outlined a number of the areas where we accept
that we still have some work to do. I do not recall whether she
mentioned the eight day issue—this is one that has been
raised by the RSPCA and one that we are cognisant of the difficulty
with. Another one which I picked up myself going through the Bill
with officials yesterday was the proposal, as it stands at the
moment in the draft Bill, that if someone is disqualified, and
it could be for life, from keeping animals, that they should have
the right to re-apply to keep them on an annual basis. I want
that looked at again. That seems to me as if that could tie up
an awful amount of court time and it is likely to be those people
who are the most serious problems as animal keepers who want to
come back again and again and again to re-apply for a licence
to keep animals.
Q50 Chairman: Just on that point, it
is interesting because I noticed a similar thing that, for example,
in terms of DTI legislation, you can have a piece of law that
says somebody can take such actions as is considered by the DTI
that they are not fit to be a company director. Do you not envisage
a situation where somebody would have committed such awful offences
that they could, for the rest of their life, not be suitable to
keep any form of animal?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes and I am grateful
for that helpful suggestion.
Mr Wiggin: I just want to ask if you
will also give some consideration to the status of auctions of
livestock, particularly animals that would not traditionally perhaps
have occurred to you such as rabbits and poultry, for example.
Eggs are often auctioned, certainly in my constituency. You are
not allowed to sell animals to people under 16, does that apply
to eggs that can be hatched? There needs to be some thinking about
auctions and the way that that falls within this Bill and I would
be grateful if you and your officials would give that some thought.
Chairman: The body language says that
they are going to think about it. I am sure the Minister will
think carefully about it. Minister and your colleagues, thank
you very much for getting us off to a very interesting start and
we look forward to seeing you at the conclusion of our hearings.
Thank you.
| 
