Memorandum submitted by the Rare Breeds
Survival Trust
1. The Rare Breeds Survival Trust welcomes
the Draft Animal Welfare Bill, and supports the wish to enhance
the welfare of domestic animals in England and Wales. Welfare
of livestock is a basic principle within the broader policy of
the Trust's programmes for the conservation of animal genetic
resources.
2. We note that the emphasis of the draft
Bill is directed towards non-agricultural animals (eg fighting
animals, pets), but nevertheless the principles embodied in the
Bill, and the framework proposed for codes of practice, are relevant
to all domestic livestock. The Trust's response will relate primarily
to domestic farm animals.
3. The Trust opposes cruelty to animals,
and supports the generality of proposals under section 1 of the
Bill, but there are items which require more detailed definition.
4. The welfare of animals has been defined
in terms of "five freedoms" and these approximate to
the items detailed in 3(4). However, they should not be absolute
requirements, but rather "a pragmatic checklist to identify
the strengths and weaknesses of any husbandry system" (Prof
J Webster). In each system of management, some freedoms will be
fully expressed and others less so.
5. The Trust welcomes the recognition that
welfare should allow for "a suitable environment in which
to live" [3(4)(a)], and endorses the implied concept that
adaptation to their environment is an important element of animal
welfare, but questions the definition of "suitable".
Some breeds are adapted to extreme habitats, which may fall outside
conventional definitions of "suitable", but which are
appropriate for those breeds. In particular, animals in extensive
systems of husbandry may be subject at times to some stress, but
they have considerable freedom to respond to stress and full freedom
to express their normal pattern of behaviour.
6. The Trust recommends that extensive grazing
systems should be subject to a different and appropriate code
of practice that recognises their specific requirements.
7. Without detracting from support for the
enhancement of welfare standards, some specific items must be
questioned.
8. Clause 1(4)(c) states that "A person
commits an offence if he permits the mutilation of an animal of
which he is the keeper", but this needs to be evaluated in
the context of clauses 1(3)(b) and (c). For example, dehorning
cattle (especially those in extensive systems of management) might
be regarded as an unnecessary mutilation that detracted from their
functionality, whereas docking the tail of a sheep in lowland
systems should not be regarded as mutilation because the operation
is for the benefit of the sheep.
9. Clause 4 would make it an offence to
sell an animal to a person under the age of 16 years. It is not
clear whether this is intended to prevent ownership of animals
by any person under the age of 16 years. Does it prevent gifts
to such persons? Does it apply to such persons who already own
breeding animals? The clause requires further clarification, with
an understanding that many children of livestock farmers own livestock
and acquire valuable experience of livestock in this way.
10. In conjunction with the Government,
the Trust is concerned with the conservation of animal genetic
resources as laid down by the Convention on Biological Diversity,
and as guided by the UK Country Report. The development and monitoring
of animal breeding programmes is an essential part of the Trust's
work, and it views with concern and alarm the inclusion of clause
6(2)(o) "—regulations—may—make provision
about the breeding of animals".
11. The Trust is concerned by the generality
of sections 6 (Regulations to promote welfare) and 7 (Codes of
practice), and by the potentially wide-sweeping powers that would
be conferred. They penetrate into detailed areas of animal breeding
and production, and have the potential to enmesh the livestock
industry in further layers of bureaucracy. It is essential that
full consultation with the industry takes place before the contents
of sections 6 and 7 become more specific.
23 August 2004
| 
