Examinations of Witnesses (Questions 230-239)
DR JUDY
MACARTHUR
CLARK, MR
GRAHAM GODBOLD,
MR MIKE
ATTENBOROUGH AND
MR DEREK
ARMSTRONG
9 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q230 Chairman: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. This is another of our sessions in an ever-lengthening
series of evidence-taking occasions on the draft Animal Welfare
Bill, and can I welcome to the Committee this morning the Farm
Animal Welfare Council, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, and from the
Meat and Livestock Commission Mike Attenborough and Derek Armstrong,
and that just leaves one un-named witness!
Dr MacArthur Clark: This is Graham
Godbold, who is also from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. He
is one of my members. All members of FAWC are independent of their
allegiances in terms of their membership. I am sure you are aware
that we are appointed by Ministers to give advice on farm animal
welfare. The experience of our different members comes from different
backgrounds related to animal welfare, and Graham's particular
experience is in local authorities who are currently very involved
in the enforcement of the current farm animal welfare legislation,
so I have invited him to join me today.
Q231 Chairman: Very wise. I am delighted.
I would like to start, as we have with all of our witnesses, with
two questions. The first question is, given we have an enormous
amount of material to try to digest, perhaps you would like to
say to the Committee, "Of all the things we have seen in
this Bill here is one thing we would like you not to lose sight
of because we think it is very good", and the reverse question:
what is the key thing as far as your respective organisations
are concerned where you have a reservation? I am aware from your
submissions that there are a number of what I call drafting of
detail points, but if we looked at the one big showstopper issue
as far as you are concerned, what would that be and what would
you like to make certain you do not forget? Perhaps, Dr MacArthur
Clark, you might care to respond first?
Dr MacArthur Clark: Certainly,
and thank you very much for inviting me. As you will gather, FAWC
feels this is a very important piece of legislation and we believe
in many ways government has benefited from having a Farm Animal
Welfare Council for the last 25 years. We were set up in 1979,
and I think that is why we are now in a position where the legislation
protecting the welfare of farm animals is much stronger than in
other animal areas, and I am sure you have heard this already
from other witnesses, so in many ways what we are looking for
is to build on an existing structure and an experience of that
structure. I guess if I was looking at things which I would say
"Please do not lose", one of them would definitely be
the terminology that has been put into the Bill with regard to
disqualification. We believe that that is a very important move
forward; that magistrates, should they choose not to disqualify
somebody having found them guilty of acts of cruelty, should have
to make a statement to the court as to why they have chosen not
to. Clearly there could be circumstances in which they choose
not to but we believe that will put the onus on them to think
very carefully before making that decision and that is extremely
important. We also have concerns about enforcement. We have a
lot of experience, and this is one reason I have invited Graham
to join me today, in enforcement of the current regulations, and
we see a great deal of weakness in that enforcement at the moment.
We have produced reports in 1992 and again in 1999 on enforcement
making recommendations about enforcement and how it should be
beefed up. We are concerned that there should be adequate resources
within this Bill to ensure that enforcement is adequate because
no Bill on its own is going to ensure an improvement in the situation
compared with the current. We need to have carrots: carrots are
going to be codes of recommendation, codes of practice. We see
those effectively as carrots. They are already working in the
farm animal area very effectively and we welcome the extension
of that but we do need to know that the stick is also there and
there is going to be an adequate structure by which enforcement
can take place. I think the other area we are concerned about
is the addressing of genetics and breeding in the Bill where we
see that all of the focus so far is looking at problems of genetic
selection in companion animals, and alongside that, sometimes
a mention of genetic modification. Now, we as a body have spent
the last three years looking at breeding and breeding technologies
in farm animals, and you may or may not be aware that we produced
a very fundamental report in June of this year on that where we
expressed significant concern about the welfare impact of breeding
and breeding technologies on farm animals in this country. If
we look at what causes most welfare problems, it is the breeding
that has taken place over the last 30 or so years. It is not people
physically beating their cows and pigs and so on; it is what has
happened through selective breeding, and we believe there is a
need for there to be a structure which will get a grip on that
and will review what is now happening and lead us back into a
better situation in terms of genetic selection. Interestingly,
since we produced our report, we have had meetings with CAWC,
the Companion Animal Welfare Council, and the APC, the Animal
Procedures Committee, and they have come fully on board with us
in that recommendation so we will be building on that recommendation
to government to make it a recommendation that a Standing Committee
should be set up to look at breeding technologies right across
animal kind. This is not in any way to try and stop agricultural
progress but to try and lead it on a path that will get us back
into strains of animals that do not have the welfare problems
we experience at the moment. I am sorry, that is perhaps a few
more minutes than you wanted there, but I think that summarises
where we are coming from with regard to this Bill.
Q232 Chairman: Very helpful. Thank you.
Mr Attenborough?
Mr Attenborough: Good morning.
I think many of you know what the purpose of MLC is. We were set
up under the Agricultural Act of 1967 to promote greater efficiency
in the livestock sector having due regard to the interests of
consumers, and that is very important in the way we attend to
what we do. We are very much consumer driven. I am the technical
director of MLC, responsible for our research programmes and for
the management of scientific issues within them and the impact
on the industry. Derek Armstrong is a veterinary scientist leading
two very important programmes. One concerns the wasting disease
of pigs called PMWS and the response to it, and he is also in
charge of the programme introducing a salmonella control programme
in pigs, and he also does work associated with consultative matters.
As far as the draft Animal Welfare Bill is concerned, we welcome
it because we feel it brings together important pieces of legislation
into one place. We note and support that it is built around the
five freedoms, which we think are fundamental. Over the last perhaps
10-15 years the farming community, together with other sectors
of the whole chain, have been working together to develop assurance
schemes, some of which are farm-based and some of which are whole-chain
based, but nevertheless fundamental to those are the elements
of the five freedoms, so I think as a point of differentiation
going forward farm assurance is very important. One factor not
to lose sight of is the issue of a level playing field across
Europe. There are comments in here that relate to some technologies
and some factors which are not permitted in this country which
indeed are permitted in other countries, and certainly those factors
can disadvantage the producer in this country. So perhaps one
issue is the issue of a level playing field across Europe. Perhaps
on the reservation side is the issue of balance—that on
the one hand doing a certain thing will have one effect but can
also have another effect. For example, if you tail dock a lamb
you can see that there will be a welfare impact from that. If
you do not, you could have an impact in another direction with
infection and migration of flies, so there are a lot of balancing
factors in this whole equation. By way of introduction those are
two aspects I have.
Mr Armstrong: As Dr MacArthur
Clark has said, wilful cruelty and neglect is very rare on the
farming side but it does occur, and there does need to be a safety
net like this Bill, but we are particularly pleased that the Bill
seeks not just to be a set of punitive sanctions but also seeks
to promote welfare through codes of practice, and it is creating
that culture of good welfare, and really that should be the focus
in relation to farming. There is a culture of good welfare there;
we promote it through farm assurance schemes; we inspect it through
farm assurance schemes; but the prosecution side of things is
just a safety net. It is promoting good welfare that should be
the focus, and we think this Bill seeks to achieve that balance.
Q233 Chairman: I would like to ask you,
Mr Armstrong, because I think you have veterinary background,
just so I understand, you mentioned the importance of the docking
of lamb's tails and we have not had anybody who has told us we
should not be doing that, but yesterday and the day before we
had a lot of people telling us that tail docking for dogs was
not a good idea. Why is it all right for lambs?
Mr Armstrong: I suppose it is
a question of risk assessment. What you are trying to do is find
a balance between the insult to all lambs that are tail docked
against the much more severe insult where, as a result of faeces
collecting on the tail, flies eggs are laid in those faeces and,
from those maggots grow in the faeces and then start to eat into
the animal. There is always this question of striking a balance
between very severe insults on one side and the severity of insults
on the other side. In the long term you could look at developing
technologies, controlling flies in other ways for example, but
currently we do not have technologies available which enable us
to protect lambs from potential fly strike.
Q234 Chairman: So in summary the removal
of those risks that you have just described overcomes any potential
question of pain to the lamb when the tail is docked?
Mr Armstrong: You balance one
against the other, and offer protection from the more severe.
Dr MacArthur Clark: I do not know
if it is of any help but we as FAWC are looking at mutilations
in sheep at the present time and expect to produce a report by
the end of this year which covers tail docking, and perhaps I
should declare that I am a veterinary surgeon as well so you have
two of us in front of you, and our conclusion is going to be very
much along the same lines—that is that at the present time
there is the need for a counter balance to not docking. The welfare
problems that are produced by not docking are such that there
is a justifiable case for docking. However, obviously it should
be done in the most humane way possible. That is not the same
with dogs and the evidence is clear with the vast majority of
breeds. The only breed I think the jury is still out on is the
English Springer Spaniel where there are arguments for and against,
and some argue that the dog does damage its tail in rough growth.
I have certainly bred Springers and I know they go into rough
growth but I am not persuaded by that argument, I must say,
but I do not think there are the same counterbalancing arguments
for the vast majority of dog breeds.
Chairman: I have indulged my curiosity
now sufficiently. Joan Ruddock?
Q235 Joan Ruddock: I profess curiosity
as well. Are sheep docked of their tails in all countries where
sheep are farmed?
Mr Armstrong: As far as I am aware,
yes.
Dr MacArthur Clark: Certainly
in New Zealand, which must be one of the biggest sheep breeders,
it is a standard technique.
Mr Armstrong: New Zealand and
Australia. I cannot comment on every country.
Q236 David Taylor: May I say, Chairman,
that I have long been an admirer of the work of the Farm Animal
Welfare Council but I was rather surprised by their assessment
that the Bill is a great advance on what we have at present, because
tail docking and castration measures have been no doubt very worthy
but they are not tackling the core large scale issues involved
with animal cruelty on the farm, and I will cite one example,
having chaired the inquiry a few months ago into the poultry industry.
Here we have 750 million, approximately, birds killed for meat
every year in this country brought to slaughter weight in about
six weeks with all of the problems of health and cruelty that
that involves in windowless sheds and slaughtered in quite cruel
conditions. Is not this Bill really at the fringes of animal cruelty?
Should you not have been saying something about that? On Tuesday
or Wednesday of next week we are going to be talking about foxhunting,
for goodness' sake, and for me there are 15,000 foxes and 750
million chickens and for every fox killed by someone in a red
coat there are 50,000 hens being killed by someone in blue overalls
in rather more seriously cruel conditions, so I do dispute what
Mike Attenborough said about no one doing it deliberately. They
are allowed to do it deliberately. Should not FAWC be saying "This
is not a great advance on what we have at present? It is worthwhile,
it is useful, but it is targeting the wrong area."
Dr MacArthur Clark: I take on
board many of the points you are saying and that was part of the
rationale as to why I introduced our thinking in terms of breeding
technologies, because many of the problems we see in the modern
broiler chicken, for example, are based in breeding determinations
that were taking place 30 years ago. So through conventional breeding,
not genetic manipulation or anything, we have ended up with the
modern broiler chicken. You could then say "This is where
we are at the present". If FAWC were to declare this as totally
unacceptable, and the sort of practices may I say that you have
outlined in terms of humane slaughter we would declare unacceptable—we
are producing a white meat slaughter report at the moment and
produced our red meat slaughter report last year, and we were
very clear on the things we felt were unacceptable as slaughter,
so all slaughter should be done in a humane way—but if we
were to declare that the methods of housing and the existence
of these strains of birds were unacceptable, and part of the major
problem lies in the genetics of these birds, at six weeks they
are weighing two kilogrammes but their legs cannot hold them and
they have cardio-pulmonary problems and so on, so the problem
lies in the genetic selection that is taking place, and our view
is that if we were to say "This can no longer happen in the
United Kingdom", that industry would go overseas. I do not
totally concur with that as an excuse, please do not accept that,
but I do think we have to work with the industry to make that
into a strain of bird that can still be productive, can still
be competitive, and does not have these same welfare issues and
that is where we are moving towards in terms of our recommendations
on breeding technologies. I hope that answers your question.
Mr Attenborough: In the pig sector,
for example, tethers will not be banned in Europe until 2006 and
stalls not till 2013. Of course, they were taken out in the 90s
in Great Britain. In terms of the five freedoms we have been taking
about, the freedom to express and to be able to move is very fundamental,
and in terms of rearing conditions even with intensively reared
pig sectors that is evident in this country, and we have built
our farm assurance and some of our communications strategies to
consumers based on those aspects of production.
Q237 Mr Mitchell: Just to continue the
docking argument which has preoccupied us for such a long time
on dogs, are the arguments for docking the tails of pigs the same
as these for docking the tails of sheep?
Dr MacArthur Clark: Very similar,
yes. If you have seen pigs that have not been docked that get
tail bitten, and it is part of intensification of agriculture
though it can occur in extensive pig breeding systems as well,
pigs will chew away on each other's tails, it is a stereotypic
behaviour, and they become horrendously raw, inflamed, infected,
and really problematical. You may end up with hind leg paralysis
and things like that, so it really is a major problem with pigs
as well. What we would like to do is find out how we can rear
pigs that do not tail bite, what do they need in their environment,
and that would be a much more positive way forward, but until
we have that solution then docking, on balance, is probably the
more humane approach than leaving the tails on.
Q238 Mr Mitchell: It sounds a bit like
politics! We were told yesterday about countries which banned
the docking of dogs' tails. Are there countries which ban the
docking of sheep or pigs' tails?
Dr MacArthur Clark: Not to my
knowledge.
Mr Armstrong: The code of practice
currently recommends that you should not tail dock unless you
can demonstrate there is a need to do so, so de facto, even in
this country, you should not tail dock pigs unless you are aware
that there is a risk a problem may occur, and some farms do not
dock pigs. Some farmers find that if they do not, they run into
the severe problems that Dr MacArthur Clark has described. We
would see the Animal Welfare Bill as being a dynamic process and,
as we become aware of those steps that can be taken to prevent
it, then veterinary surgeons and farmers would then work to reduce
the numbers of farms where tail docking is required.
Q239 Mr Mitchell: Are there any studies
of the subsequent differences between farms which do not dock
and farms which do?
Mr Armstrong: Yes. There have
been numerous studies and a lot of research has been done on tail
docking. The problem is it is a very multifactorial issue and
someone will do something and say they have managed to prevent
tail docking and someone else will do it and find it has not worked
for them. It is not clear-cut. We certainly have made significant
progress in recent years in identifying issues. Access to mushroom
compost in Northern Ireland was found to be particularly helpful
in some units but it does not always work in every management
system.
|
