Examinations of Witnesses (Questions 253-259)
MR TIM
BENNETT, MR
BARNEY HOLBECHE
AND MS
ANNETTE JACOBS
9 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q253 Chairman: I will not say at this
juncture we move into more familiar territory because this is
a new area of work for the Committee but in terms of our witnesses
this morning, with no disrespect to the now not quite so new but
I will still call him the new President of the National Farmers'
Union, Tim Bennett, we are delighted to see you and your colleague
Barney Holbeche, who I think is well known to this Committee for
his parliamentary liaison work on behalf of the Union, and Annette
Jacobs. It is always dangerous when people bring their lawyers,
but I suppose Parliamentary privilege still pervades so we are
all right! I do not want to break from the line that I have taken
with all of the witnesses to date because I think it is quite
helpful for us again to ask this question: in terms of the Bill
there is a huge amount of detail but if you wanted the Committee
to know of one key reason why you believe this is a good measure
could you tell us, and what is the key reservation which the NFU
has that you would ideally like us not to forget as we proceed
on our considerations of this measure?
Mr Bennett: In terms of the Bill
it is a timely update of the law which dates back to 1911, and
the good thing is that the law is being updated. I also welcome
the fact that there is early scrutiny of the Bill, and I think
that is good practice. In terms of the things that we have reservations
about, I put two in. One is it is most important that all these
decisions in terms of animal welfare are based on science and
not sentiment otherwise the law does become difficult, and we
do have some concerns about the element of confusion over enforcement.
I think it is absolutely vital for professional animal keepers
to know who the enforcement authorities are and what powers they
have.
Q254 Chairman: Let's just develop that
point because in paragraph two of your evidence you make an interesting
point and you say, "In some instances we are concerned that
what may be appropriate provision for companion animals is not
necessarily appropriate for animals kept for commercial purposes
as in farming", and I think you have gathered from some of
the lines of questioning, particularly from Mr Wiggin and others,
that there does seem to be potential scope for difficulty in necessarily
adapting normal practice on a farm to an ideal state, as our previous
witnesses indicated, in defining welfare issues as far as animals
are concerned. I wonder if you would in that context care to develop
the thinking that lay behind the sentence that I have just read
out?
Mr Bennett: The Farm Animal Welfare
Council, for example, discussed this in your previous evidence
session, and there are practices in terms of farming in terms
of teeth clipping in pigs and castrating animals which are not
necessarily normal practices in terms of companion animals and
in terms of what is necessary for commercial farming it is essential
that that is not in jeopardy in terms of the Bill. The other thing
that has become more difficult sometimes is the perception of
welfare of the animal. We, for example, very often get complaints
about whether a sheep has been left out in the rain! This is a
quite a serious problem in moorland areas, and also at lambing
time small lambs are seen on the road while the mother goes off
to graze but she knows where the lamb is to come back to, and
people pick up the lambs and take them to the police because they
are orphans, and of course that means they then are orphans. So
in terms of what is known, established, commercial practice with
animals outside of companion animals there are different things
that go on. Apparently it is a bit of an education job, and I
think it is important that the law does not create problems for
what is normal farming practice.
Mr Holbeche: Adding to that, in
the earlier session you used the expression "horses for courses"
and I think that summarises the point from our point of view—that
in enforcing new legislation of this kind it is very important
that it is appropriate to the animals and, in our case, the commercially
kept animals for farming purposes. For example, under Clause 38
there are powers for entry and inspection of farm premises in
order to check compliance with Clause 6 in relation to the promotion
of welfare, which is absolutely fine in principle. All we would
say is that needs to be done appropriately by people who are familiar
with the operations of commercial farms as opposed to people who
may be concerned with other types of animal.
Q255 Chairman: In paragraph 6 of your
evidence you make an interesting point where you say, "We
think that an offence turning on the keeper's failure to have
a proper regard for the welfare of the animals could be a better,
and fairer test" than the way the Bill is presently defined.
Again, I wonder if you could explain a little bit more about the
thinking of the critique of the welfare test which is currently
there as opposed to your own suggestion?
Mr Bennett: I meant we always
get nervous about the use of the word "reasonable".
It might be paradise for lawyers but it is not very easy to interpret,
and I would like to ask Annette Jacobs to comment on that.
Ms Jacobs: I think what we would
like to highlight is that the obligation needs to recognise the
point in fact that has already been made—that the starting
point for farmed animals is that there are legitimate and acceptable
ways of treating them within that context. There is already a
level of intervention which you would not ever expect or get or
even find appropriate with companion animals. With farm animals
you are starting with a level of intervention and, clearly, it
is highly appropriate that any treatment after that baseline should
be carried out with regard to the animal's welfare, but if you
are going back to a test that the bottom line, if you like, is
animal welfare, then you can get into conflicts with the normal
practices that are appropriate within animal husbandry and keeping
animals on a commercial basis. That is our concern.
Q256 Chairman: Just to conclude my opening
line of questioning, Tim, you said this represents a timely update
of the current situation. I hope it will not put you to too much
trouble but it would be very helpful to know what the before and
after effects are of the measure in terms of farmed animals, because
in a way the Bill defines an ideal state, a benchmark, by which
to judge the conduct of people keeping animals, but for those
of us who are not overly familiar with the existing codes of practice
in the existing law, it might be quite useful just to have a little
note from you on the before and after effect so that we can measure
the degree of change which the Bill introduces.
Mr Bennett: We can certainly do
that, chairman.
Q257 Ms Atherton: Can you explain your
views on the powers of entry, because I would like to see where
you think the threshold should be and where the balance lies between
the views of maybe the police that there is a responsibility and
the rights of the owners of the farm, or the farmers?
Mr Holbeche: Paragraph 16 of our
evidence is particularly pertinent to this. The point we are making
there is that, as the Committee knows, there was a considerable
amount of debate in connection with the Animal Health Act of 2002
which followed, as you will recall, very soon after foot and mouth
disease and there was a great deal of emotion about animals on
farms and the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was then, inspectors
coming on the farms to inspect or slaughter, as the case may be.
The Bill was changed in the very last few days before it became
law to make a better balance, as we saw it, between the policy
objective of ensuring in that case that animal diseases were properly
dealt with, and in the case of the Welfare Bill here they were
obviously wanting to ensure that welfare is delivered, and the
reasonable rights of the occupier and the keeper of the animals.
Although the Animal Welfare Bill goes a fair way towards the balance
that was struck in the 2002 Act, it seems to us that there may
well be merit in having a similar procedure in this Bill because,
to some extent, it does not quite meet the same standards for
the occupiers.
Q258 Ms Atherton: I am struggling with
this because at any one time 99% of farmers are acting in a responsible
and careful manner in caring for their livestock, but it is this
tiny percentage that is not. They, of course, are going to be
the ones who are going to do everything to obstruct the police
or any other enforcement agency that wants to go in. That is my
concern, that by making the legislation too restrictive, you therefore
open the door to that tiny percentage which we really want to
be targeting, and that does have such an enormous impact on the
rest of the industry.
Mr Holbeche: It is certainly no
part of the NFU's purpose to encourage people who are misbehaving
in relation to animal welfare to try to evade the law. Indeed,
the Bill of course does allow, in cases of urgency where the magistrate
is convinced by the inspector that the conditions are such that
urgent entry is required, that the warrant can be granted without
having to go through the business of informing the occupier and
all the paraphernalia set out in the Bill, so I think that is
a safeguard in that situation.
Q259 Mr Mitchell: You are asking effectively
for one law for the farm animal, the commercially-reared animal,
and one law for the companion animal, are you not? You say that
should be based on sound science rather than sentiment, but when
we went over the arguments for docking tails of dogs, there did
not seem to be much science to it; there seemed to be a lot of
sentiment. Many of these cases are not amenable to sound science.
The proponents of stopping tail docking said that this was mutilation
of the animal, an assault on the animal's dignity. The same applies
to farm animals, does it not?
Mr Bennett: No, I think there
is a difference. We are not asking for a different law for farm
animals from that for other animals because the law exists in
terms of farm animals. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, which
gave evidence earlier, has done lots of very good scientific work
to show what is cruelty and what is not and what is good practice.
We have some very good science to show that the things that we
have to do are part of good commercial practice. Where there were
concerns about that, one has tried to find better ways of doing
it, either through husbandry or the use of new technology. I do
not think we are asking for different laws. This is about an understanding
that, frankly, we have more background knowledge and experience
in some of the practices that take place.
|
