Memorandum submitted by the Farmers' Union
of Wales
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Welsh livestock farmers have always prided
themselves on the standards to which they operate and have thereby
gained a reputation for producing livestock of the highest quality
and to the highest welfare standards. Whilst we appreciate that
the Bill is very wide-ranging and that the specific offences relating
to animals deal largely with animal keepers outside agriculture,
the nature of the Bill is such that there could be unintended
consequences for livestock farmers.
2. The Farmers' Union of Wales is therefore
firmly of the view that the Bill should stand the test of reasonableness,
since different people will have a different interpretation of
what constitutes cruelty and cruelty caused through unnecessary
suffering. The prospect of an inspector acting on his own authority
and without a warrant entering a private premises is one which
is viewed with grave reservations by the Union, since such a system
does not contain the necessary checks and balances to ensure that
the actions taken are reasonable. Whilst the example of a dog
being left in a car on a hot day is clearly one where speed is
of the essence in order to resolve the matter, such an example
should not be used as justification for inspectors to enter private
or business premises without the authority of the courts.
3. There is also a lack of clarity with
regard to the definition of "inspector", and who will
appoint such inspectors. Whilst the Bill suggests that inspectors
will be appointed by local authorities, the guidance provided
by the Secretary of State implies that the person holding the
appointment would draw up a list of persons considered suitable
to carry out the task.
4. In the light of the concerns of the reasonableness
of this Bill, the Farmers' Union of Wales believes that there
should be a procedure in place whereby complaints with regard
to enforcement could be dealt with in an even-handed manner. This
would also ensure that common problem areas were identified at
an early stage and would therefore provide a more acceptable level
of balance within the system.
SPECIFIC OFFENCES
RELATING TO
ANIMALS
Clause 1: Cruelty
5. Section (1)(a) states that a person commits
an offence if an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes
an animal to suffer. Subsequent sub-sections (b)-(d) further qualify
this statement, but the tone is sufficiently ambiguous to require
further clarification. There are many examples of situations arising
on farm where the farmer may be powerless to control an animal's
instincts to fight, whether this be cattle, sheep or pigs. The
qualification at paragraph 3(a), "whether the suffering could
reasonably have been avoided or reduced" is reliant on subjective
assessment, and due account must therefore be taken of the practicalities
of livestock farming when reaching any such conclusions.
Clause 3: Welfare
6. Paragraph 3(3) states that "if an
animal has been abandoned, any person who immediately before that
time was a keeper of the animal shall continue to be the keeper
of the animal for the purposes of this section until another person
becomes a keeper of it". There have been hefted sheep on
the hills of Wales for generations, and these animals are turned
onto the open mountain in early May, to be gathered only for shearing,
dipping and weaning the lambs. These animals have their own established
"cynefin", and the open grazings can span many thousands
of acres. It is therefore essential that account is taken of these
long-standing farming practices in the context of defining "abandoned
animals".
7. Paragraph 4 states that an animal's welfare
shall be taken to consist of the meeting of its needs in an appropriate
manner, and Paragraph 4(a) further states that these needs shall
be taken to include a suitable environment in which to live. Again,
the issue of hill sheep highlights the difference which exists
between sheep breeds, and the realities that certain breeds, such
as the Welsh mountain, will thrive in areas where other lowland
breeds would fail to live. The varying degrees of hardiness in
various breeds of livestock needs to be fully recognised, and
blanket assumptions avoided.
8. Paragraph 4(d) raises the issue of housing,
which again must be considered against the background of differing
breeds and the varying climate/topography in which they are kept.
A number of the Union's members have also highlighted the outside
influences which are making a farmer's task of protecting his
herds and flocks from pain, injury and disease, more difficult.
These revolve primarily around increased access to the countryside
and the problems caused by dogs worrying sheep. Furthermore, domestic
dogs do not have to be wormed, whereas farm dogs are subject to
routine worming in order to control hydatid disease.
ANIMAL WELFARE
REGULATIONS AND
GUIDANCE
Clause 6: Regulations to promote welfare
9. Farmers are already struggling under
a burden of bureaucracy which includes a range of checks on their
livestock. This is at a time when the economics of farming are
such that ever fewer people are responsible for greater numbers
of livestock. In essence, the livestock provide the livelihood
of the farmer and his family, and welfare considerations are paramount
in day to day activity, since the links between good husbandry
and the profitability of the business are an effective deterrent
to bad practice.
10. Paragraph 7 talks of "the appropriate
national authority", but fails to clarify the definition
of "an appropriate national authority". There is concern
that the RSPCA has been given approved prosecutor status under
the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000 in England, and
the Union would have major concerns over a national voluntary
body being regarded as the appropriate national authority.
Clause 9: Making of codes of practice: Wales
11. The National Assembly for Wales has
developed a well-established consultation process, and we would
hope that any proposals to issue or revise the code of practice
under section 7 should be referred back to those organisations
which are normally consulted.
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS—GENERAL
Clause 11: Power to take possession of and retain
animals in distress
12. The FUW has become increasingly concerned
at the decline in the number of vets with experience of large
animals. As a result, we do not believe that it is appropriate
for a veterinary surgeon who deals only with small animals to
be expected to rule on whether farm animals should be taken into
possession.
13. Paragraph 11(2) states that an inspector
or a constable may act under sub-section 1 without the certificate
of a veterinary surgeon if it appears that the animal is suffering
or that it is likely to suffer. Again, it is crucially important
that the people involved are properly trained and have been deemed
able to carry out the work by a competent certifying body. The
Bill appears to provide no route by which the owner of the animal
can appeal against a decision, and the Union is concerned that
there is a lack of balance in the approach to the removal of animals
in distress, particularly as there are no assurances over the
qualification of the people who are undertaking this task. We
are therefore of the view that there should be some means of independent
appeal on the part of owners, and clarification on the process
by which an inspector or constable could act under sub-section
1 of the Bill.
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS: PROCEEDINGS
PENDING
14. Paragraph 15 sub-section 2 outlines
the three categories of person who can bring proceedings under
the Act and, whilst the Union would accept that a public authority,
or a person acting on behalf of such an authority, should be in
a position to bring such proceedings, the third category, namely
"a person authorised by the appropriate national authority
to perform the functions of a prosecutor under those sections"
should not be given the functions of a prosecutor.
ENFORCEMENT POWERS
15. Paragraph 38 states that an inspector
may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises which he
reasonably believes to be premises on which animals are bred or
kept for farming purposes in order to check compliance with regulations
and to ascertain whether any offence under the Act is being committed.
There is no definition of "reasonable time" within paragraph
38, whilst paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 confirm that entry can take
place without a warrant. We do not accept that entry and search
should occur without a warrant, and would argue that such actions
are only acceptable when a justice of the peace is persuaded that
a relevant offence is being committed and issues a warrant authorising
a constable or an inspector to enter the premises.
INSPECTORS
16. As has been highlighted earlier in the
response, we are not clear whether inspectors are appointed by
Government, local authorities, or can be employed by charitable
organisations. Whilst 42(1) states that, "in appointing a
person to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act, a local
authority shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary
of State", there is little clarity on the nature of the persons
who will be considered suitable for appointment.
25 August 2004
| 
