Examinations of Witnesses (Questions 300-312)
MR JOHN
THORLEY AND
MR LAWRENCE
ALDERSON, CBE
9 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q300 Paddy Tipping: Perhaps you could
tell us what bits you want sorted out?
Mr Thorley: Again, when it comes
down to interpretation and definition of the word "cruelty",
we have gone into that a bit in the response. We have given you
one example where a ram could have escaped from the paddock that
he was in because he had seen some pretty ewes across the patch
and he had taken issue with another ram and possibly damaged him.
It is the farmer, under this draft legislation, who would be charged
with cruelty in that case. When it comes down to fencing, you
can have perfectly good fences but you can also have very active
rams which can escape, with difficulty certainly, but, once they
have escaped, there is absolutely no control over what they do,
especially during the mating season.
Q301 Paddy Tipping: Do you see that as
a serious issue where you or one of your members might be prosecuted
under this Bill if it became law?
Mr Thorley: That is one of its
problems. It is not clear. Earlier on we talked about the word
"abandonment". The definition of the word "abandonment"
needs to be clear, bearing in mind the wide variety of types of
farming. For instance, you have areas which are fenced and areas
which are unfenced. At what stage does it become abandoned? Is
that calculated in hours, days or weeks? In our book, those things
need to be sorted out and clarified.
Q302 Paddy Tipping: On the point that
Mr Alderson made as well, do you think that clauses 6 and 7 are
catch-all at the moment, very wide? You do understand that both
clause 6 and clause 7 are subject to further discussion as proposals
are brought forward?
Mr Alderson: Yes, and that was
the point we made quite strongly, that they should be subject
to further consultation. If those two sections, 6 and 7, were
expanded, detailed and applied as they could be under that draft,
we could finish up with some legislation which was impossible
to apply in some sectors. I would support what Mr Thorley says:
two things, clarity and definitions, are very important to us.
I can pick out other words such as the word "mutilation"
and ask what you mean by mutilation. Is taking the tail off a
sheep mutilation? It may be done for the benefit of the animal.
What does the word "suitable" mean? It is a delightful
word, is it not? You can apply it anywhere you want but here it
is applied in terms of the environment in which the animals live.
Is a crazy sheep that lives in the Orkney Islands eating seaweed
in a suitable environment? It is for that sheep but not for anything
else. A lot of definition needs to be applied. We could be worried
about how those definitions were made.
Q303 Paddy Tipping: Finally, I know there
has been a lot of discussion between Defra and your own body and
others before this Bill was actually published in this form. Have
you or your members been involved in those processes or have you
just come to this anew now?
Mr Alderson: This is an interesting
point. I understand that from Defra's point of view we have been
consulted and involved, but from my point of view we have not.
I am coming to it with a fairly clean sheet.
Q304 Paddy Tipping: Tell me about this
relationship with Defra. They say they have been talking with
you.
Mr Alderson: I understand from
other sources—and we talk to Defra regularly—that
on this particular issue with this particular draft Bill, I am
coming to it with a clean sheet.
Mr Thorley: We work very closely
with Defra. We had a rough idea what was coming but I think we
were still surprised at the lack of precision in some of the drafting.
As it is, we see it as a lawyers' paradise, for want of a better
phrase.
Q305 Joan Ruddock: I want to explore
that a little further because there is another way of looking
at it, which is to suggest that one can never be so precise in
any use of language as to make every case a black and white issue.
There is in law the test of reasonableness. It seems to me it
is possible that this is the way in which it would be dealt with.
Taking the examples you gave of the rams and other escaped animals,
do you accept that there is a spectrum, a standard of management,
which would normally contain rams and that this event would not
happen but there would be occasional escapes. There could be a
farmer or a stockman whose management is so poor, who is so neglectful,
that these escapes would occur at a level at which the farmer
does have some responsibility and when there is a failure to prevent
it?
Mr Thorley: I understand that
perfectly. One of the issues we have to contend with these days
is that the access laws mean that more and more people can come
on to the land. One of the consequences of that is that gates
get left open. It is a very serous issue. There is a need for
an education programme to make sure that that is limited, but
it is a problem. Once a ram escapes, then you have to ask who
is responsible. If the farmer can be prosecuted for cruelty as
a consequence, then that becomes a very serious issue. This law
of unintended consequences we have referred to is the result of
the sort of problem we have outlined in some of our examples.
Q306 Joan Ruddock: Pursuing this and
to be clear, in the scenario you mention where it is the fault
of somebody who has been walking on the land—although I
do not know that people do go and open gates and let rams out,
but, assuming they do—are there cases in your experience—because
otherwise the people who have been drafting this Bill must be
quite misinformed because they do believe that there are cases—of
farmers who are neglectful in terms of keeping their animals safe?
If that is so, then these people have a responsibility and the
law must deal with them. Are you suggesting there are no such
farmers?
Mr Thorley: I would not dream
of suggesting that. Of course there are those cases. Where the
farmer has been neglectful, that is one issue. Where they have
not been neglectful then that is quite a different issue. Sheep
mate roughly three months in the year and during that time the
rams become extremely aggressive and there is nothing you can
do to change that; that is part of their nature. Sometimes it
does take a very strong fence to contain a ram and even when a
farmer has done his utmost to contain that animal, it then escapes.
This happens all the time. If he is prosecuted, then we think
it is very hard that he should be prosecuted for cruelty.
Q307 Paddy Tipping: We have talked about
these issues previously. The legislation will have to be tested.
In the cases that you are talking about, this seems quite unlikely,
does it not?
Mr Thorley: We are saying that,
in order to be happy with this Bill, we would prefer it to return
to the draughtsmen so that we can get that sort of detail sorted
out and for there to be clarity. The more clarity we have, the
less likelihood there is for problems.
Mr Alderson: May I pick up on
two words there which are important? One was "reasonableness"
and the other "unlikely". I take the point about reasonableness.
If that could be applied, it would answer many of my concerns.
I am not confident it would be applied in a sense that we would
consider reasonable. I accept the word "likely" is an
excellent one but I am worried about the margin that falls outside
the "likely" because for that section it is not acceptable.
Mr Jack resumed the Chair
Q308 Mr Lepper: Mr Alderson, I think
yours is the only organisation we have heard from so far that
has raised the issue in clause 4 of under 16s not being able to
own animals. You state: "The clause requires further clarification,
with an understanding that many children of livestock farmers
own livestock . . ." Do you mean that literally?
Mr Alderson: I do, yes. I grew
up as such a child. When very young I was given or even purchased
animals of my own, which were kept on my father's farm but which
I looked after. My understanding and involvement with animals
grew from that start. I understand why that is being brought in,
because it clearly is a serious problem with Christmas presents
or whatever else it may be we are talking about. What worries
me about the blanket treatment across different classes of animals
is that it could prevent such a situation taking place in the
future.
Q309 Mr Lepper: You say in your evidence
that being able to own livestock as a child helps youngsters,
and you have told us that you yourself acquired valuable experience
of livestock. Could not that same experience be gained without
there being the question of ownership?
Mr Alderson: Yes, of course it
could. It is not insuperable. Probably what I was drawing attention
to was the consequence of something which it may not have been
realised was being applied as a generality.
Q310 Chairman: I apologise for not being
here when you started to give your evidence. It is a pleasure
to see John Thorley in front of the Committee. He and I have known
each other for a long time over matters to do with sheepdogs.
It is a pleasure to see you. I just wondered, and forgive me if
colleagues have asked this, if you would like to say a word or
two about the powers of entry which are conferred upon various
persons, constables and inspectors, in the Bill and whether you
think these will cause, particularly in the real world of sheep,
problems to farmers.
Mr Thorley: We take the view that
they would cause some problems. In the first place, the definition
of "inspectors" we find quite worrying because, as things
stand, an inspector could be someone who comes off the street.
He could be someone who is antagonistic to the livestock world
in general with perhaps just a very short period of training and
he may not really understand how things happen on a farm anyway.
There are already problems in that area and we have many debates
with the RSPCA on this subject, some of which are quite acrimonious
due to some of the people they have working for them not being
of a standard that we would consider suitable. If people of that
nature were to be involved in the inspection process, then that
would create a problem. Equally, with regard to the time people
are able to come on to a farm: for instance, I do not consider
it reasonable that they can be there as early as 5 o'clock in
the morning and I would not consider it reasonable that they could
be there up until 11 o'clock at night. At what stage does reasonableness
come into this? The example which has been given of dealing with
a dog that has been shut up in a car is a perfect one. A dog should
not be shut up in a car but that should not be taken as an example
of a reason for there being easy entry to certain parts of the
farm.
Q311 Chairman: One of the issues that
has been raised in this context by other witnesses is the recognition
that there is no expertise in all cases. For example, the RSPCA
I think acknowledges the fact that in certain areas people of
particular expertise might have to give advice to an inspector
such as in the area of reptiles, particularly rarer breed examples.
Are you suggesting that there should be, if you like, some repository
of knowledge which inspectors should have to refer to if they
do not have particular training and expertise in an area before
going on to premises and, if so, what kind of mechanism would
one put in place to do that, or do you think that inspection should
always come from some recognised body that does have expertise
in that area?
Mr Thorley: I would prefer the
latter. It is very important that people who are inspectors should
be properly qualified and properly examined so that they are of
a certain standard and have a standard of knowledge.
Q312 Chairman: You mentioned, and again
please forgive me if colleagues have raised this, that there ought
to be some kind of independent complaints authority. Perhaps you
could just tease out for the Committee's benefit exactly where
you see that type of mechanism fitting in. Clearly, if inadequate
evidence is brought before prosecuting authorities, as I understand
it, the prosecution authority might turn round and say, "You
have bought us this picture of what happens on this particular
sheep farm or establishment but you have not provided us with
sufficient evidence in depth to bring a prosecution. Go away and
try again". There are various statutory mechanisms like
the Parliamentary Commissioner, who can deal with inappropriate
official action according to whether the body is one over which
the Commissioner has jurisdiction. I was intrigued, given that
sort of defence, if you like, against inappropriate prosecution.
I wondered where and how this independent complaints authority
fitted in with the aims and objectives of the Bill.
Mr Thorley: Let us go back to
the first point. As an organisation, we are entirely supportive
of the animal welfare concept. That support is 100%. What has
concerned us over the past few years is the ability of a particular
organisation—and I will name it, it is the RSPCA—which
has taken out prosecutions against people and put an enormous
number of people into a great deal of distress. That is a serious
issue, especially when it is related to inspectors operating in
a particular area. If it was universal, it could be dealt with
in another way but some of this is localised. I have personally
chaired meetings of people who have been so concerned about the
degree of harassment that they would not give their names. I am
concerned that we do not allow this Bill to provide more powers
to people who get into that position, for the simple reason that
I do not believe people should be harassed; I do not believe there
should be bad welfare either but where there are concerns, it
ought to be possible for individuals or organisations to approach
a central authority with a complaint.
Chairman: I will reflect, as I am sure
will the rest of the Committee, carefully on that thought. Thank
you both very much indeed for coming and giving your evidence
and also for sending your evidence in writing. If, as a result
of these exchanges, there is anything else in writing that you
wanted to put to the Committee, we would certainly read it with
interest.
| 
