Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660-679)
MR RICHARD
BRUNSTROM, MR
ANDREW GRIFFITHS,
MR PETER
SMITH, MR
GRAHAM CAPPER,
MS ABIGAIL
MAHONY AND
MS PAULA
WILLIAMSON
12 OCTOBER 2004
Q660 Chairman: Ms Williamson, you are
of the view that the sort of approach that we have just heard
outlined may itself still be challengeable unless you have this
breadth of precedent to be able to draw down on in terms of future
legislation. Mr Capper was saying earlier that in his evidence
they have given a definition of custody. I sense that the lawyer
in you is saying that, even so, this still may not be broad enough
or tight enough, depending on which way you come at it, to give
you the comfort that you are seeking.
Ms Williamson: I suppose the reason
why I am here is because we spent three years on one particular
case and a lot of money was spent. I am coming at it from quite
a narrow perspective and I may not have all the global answers
that you are seeking. My view is that the section 26 definition
is fine insofar as it goes but it does not go far enough. The
custody and the control and the power to control an animal is
not adequately covered by section 26 in its current form.
Alan Simpson: Would your concerns be
addressed in the alternative definition?
Q661 Chairman: That is a point we have
just established. The answer is no to that question. That is why
I asked the question whether Ms Williamson had read LACORS' evidence
about that. I hope I am not putting words into her mouth.
Ms Williamson: I am aware that
that lengthy definition exists.
Q662 Chairman: We do not want to get
trapped too long on this. Those of you who are at the practical
end of having to implement this legislation need to have had,
or need yet to have, the Bill run past you in such a way that
you can test it to destruction to see if it is going to work in
practice. The main message I get from all the things you have
said is that you welcome the thrust but that in the real world
there are a lot of rough edges that need to be sorted out if it
is going to be a piece of workable legislation. The other impression
I get is that, from the local authority's standpoint as well as
the police's standpoint, unless you have got the resources to
deal with it, you have got a fine set of words in prospect, you
may not be able to make it work as comprehensively as the designers
would have liked in practice. Is that a fair summary?
Mr Griffiths: I would agree with
that, Chairman, I think it is a fair summary. One point I would
make is that there is a need for the guidance from Defra to be
as clear as possible as to the sort of priorities they would expect
local authorities to afford to this kind of work, but there is
also a need to spell out the benefits of it because priorities
are decided at a local level by elected members and it is important
that elected members and the officers who serve them are clear
as to what the benefits to the community are of this sort of work.
Resources is always a common cry from local authorities, but the
Chartered Institute is not a local authority so I think I can
say quite comfortably that we believe that more resources are
necessary and that local authorities need to address these issues
seriously. I would urge the Committee, if I may, to take a leaf
out of the work that has been done under the Housing Bill by the
ODPM whereby they are going to give significant sums of start-up
funding to local authorities for new regimes which are being introduced
and if you can encourage that process to be replicated, we would
welcome that.
Q663 Patrick Hall: I would like to go
back to the points that were raised by Ms Williamson on the issue
of widening definitions to include power to control. I take it
that evidence still needs to be obtained to cover that. Does that
mean that the resource implications on local authorities would
be as heavy as they are now?
Ms Williamson: I think that depends
on how much extra enforcement work a local authority would be
expected to take up under the new Bill.
Q664 Patrick Hall: This use of words
sounds very sensible. The reality is that some people, it may
not be the owner, do not look after the animal very well, but
in order to prove that there has got to be a lot of covert evidence.
Ms Williamson: In order to prove
what?
Q665 Patrick Hall: That someone is de
facto meant to have control of an animal and not doing so.
Ms Williamson: Yes, that is a
fair point.
Q666 Patrick Hall: So it is covert work?
Ms Williamson: Sometimes it is
covert work in order to prove that they still have control of
an animal. Without having that there certain individuals will
escape disqualification because they will not fall within owning,
keeping, dealing and transporting.
Q667 Patrick Hall: I would like to clarify
my understanding in a lay person's language because I am not a
qualified lawyer. In paragraph 4.1 of your evidence you talk about
the perception of animal welfare regulation being "toothless"
and that is a very important point. What would the effect of "either
way" be on addressing that toothlessness because I do not
understand what that means? What is the difference between the
summary and either way cases and how would it apply to the issues
that we are discussing? Could you give some examples?
Ms Williamson: Certainly. The
summary only offences are those that are dealt with in the Magistrates'
Court and they are disposed of in the Magistrates' Court and therefore
they usually attract lower sentences. "Either way" matters
are those that can be dealt with either in the Magistrates' Court
or in the Crown Court, and if they end up in the Crown Court the
individual could be faced with a much stiffer sentence. The reason
I raised it was because in our experience at Worcestershire County
Council and certainly from speaking to colleagues who work for
other local authorities currently animal welfare matters are summary
only and because they are not either way matters they tend to
attract very low penalties.
Q668 Patrick Hall: But they could attract
custodial sentences, could they not? Summary offences can.
Ms Williamson: Yes, they can.
Q669 Patrick Hall: So why is that regarded
as toothless in practice? I am trying to understand what you already
know.
Ms Williamson: You are quite right,
some of the current animal welfare matters do attract custodial
sentences. For example, if you breach a Disqualification Order
you can serve up to three months in custody and we have had defendants
prosecuted in that way and they have received custodial sentences.
I am talking about a more global perspective. It is very rare
that an individual will get a custodial sentence in relation to
what we consider in our experience to be quite serious offences.
Similarly, pre-sentence reports are prepared by probation officers
when they are used to preparing reports in relation to what they
would call the more serious offences such as rape and murder and
burglary, they very rarely recommend custodial sentences. I think
it would be welcomed if at least some of the offences of section
1 and perhaps section 2 were made "either way". We could
not quite see why that was not the case given that there are a
lot of other regulatory offences out there that are "either
way" that we consider to be less serious and certainly cost
the local authority far less to investigate and bring before the
courts.
Mr Brunstrom: I entirely agree
with Ms Williamson. This is as an issue of perception on the bench
in a Magistrates' Court and it would change the perception of
the serious nature of the most serious offences quite significantly.
She is quite right, it would raise a higher likelihood of a custodial
sentence being implied even in the Magistrates' Court. It has
another benefit in that it would enable the magistrates to remit
for sentencing those cases which they thought were the most serious
to a Crown Court. While she is entirely right, it is a matter
for Parliament how seriously it wishes to see these offences.
At the moment the Bill excludes access to a Crown Court and that
is neither wrong nor right. The proposal she makes would work
in the way she suggests and it really is an ethical issue for
Parliament as to what it sees as the maximum penalty for these
offences being.
Q670 Mr Drew: This is a question for
Ms Williamson. You seem to have fallen foul of the people in support
of pet fairs. Am I to believe that Worcestershire is a place where
if you want to hold a pet fair you should not go there? I am intrigued
by some of the material we have received. What is your approach
to pet fairs in Worcestershire?
Ms Williamson: I am sorry but
because I do not work within the animal health division, I only
get what they give me; I cannot answer that question helpfully.
Q671 Chairman: I was going to take this
up as a concluding question with Mr Griffiths and Mr Smith. You
do not mention it in your evidence, but no doubt you may, from
your considerable experience, have something to tell us about
pet fairs because we have received conflicting evidence from witnesses.
There are some who are passionately in favour of pet fairs both
as places where people can make comparisons as to the best breeds
of various types of animal and for opportunities to sell animals
to others who have an interest, and you will be unsurprised to
learn that there are others who are passionately against pet fairs
as vectors for disease transmission, for selling to the unwary
and the unknowledgable complex animals and therefore creating
potential welfare situations and so on and so forth. Perhaps you
might give us a few words on pet fairs.
Mr Griffiths: I think the Chartered
Institute has found itself at the eye of a storm around this issue
and been battered about the head by both sides of the argument.
We issued guidance a couple of years ago about the relevance of
the Pet Animals Act and pet fairs on the basis that our legal
advice is that it is not possible currently to license the sort
of pet fair about which there is a lot of discussion, for selling
principally birds and reptiles but also Coi Carp for example.
Our view is that provided the law is clear and there is a specific
licensing regime where conditions can be properly applied and
monitored with veterinary support as appropriate then that is
something that would be acceptable. The regulation must be clear.
At the moment the system of regulation is not clear. Whilst in
our view most local authorities have gone along with the guidance
we have issued, some have not, they believe that it is appropriate
to licence. They have taken the view that if you do licence then
you do have a measure of control, even if at the end of the day
it is not possible to physically enforce that. I think it is the
measure of control that is important. Our main concern is the
transmission of infection and the control of human health but
to do that through proper control and the welfare of animals.
Q672 Chairman: Is there a body of work
or research which gives us some hard answers as to whether in
fact pet fairs are involved in the transmission of disease, as
you have rightly identified, to animals or to people? Is there
anything that says the following has occurred as a result of the
high proximity of one animal to another in the context of pet
fairs?
Mr Griffiths: I am not aware of
any evidence specifically for pet fairs. There is a wealth of
evidence about zoonoses and the way in which animals can transmit
infections to humans. I think it is a logical assumption to make
that where you have a concentration of animals and you have people
actually present buying them and the welfare of the animals is
not being protected as well as it might be then that raises the
possibility of infection. There are organisations who have sought
to portray this as being a hotbed of infection and so on, but
these are generally organisations that are opposed to pet fairs
in principle.
Q673 Chairman: On the basis of that line
of argument you would not have anybody on the Northern line at
eight o'clock because of the way that fellow human beings are
squeezed together, with a degree of intimacy and proximity that
would not normally be one that you would seek. The opportunity
for disease transmission seems to me to be highly prevalent on
the London Underground and yet we have not had people saying we
have got to abandon ship on that, but we have had views put to
us about pet fairs and their risks vis-a"-vis animals.
Mr Griffiths: I would endorse
that as far as South West Trains are concerned every morning too.
The issue for us is that we want to control infection where that
is possible. I fully accept your argument about the fact that
we all give diseases and colds to each other all the time, but
where it can be protected and at the same time protect the welfare
of animals then I think it is important that that should be done.
The crucial issue for us is that the regulation system and the
transparency of it is clear for all to see. I was a member of
a working group which Defra set up to look at pet fairs and I
fully endorse the conclusions of that group, which is to have
a series of tiers of different types of fairs with different types
of levels of regulation applied to them.
Q674 Chairman: I think we are going to
have to draw our lines of questioning to a conclusion. May I thank
you all very much indeed. You have given us a very interesting
insight particularly into the practicalities of the legislation.
Did Defra get in touch with you prior to the publication of the
Bill to hear your views on the practicalities that they were putting
into it?
Mr Capper: Yes, certainly. We
actually attended meetings and discussed the Bill section by section
with Defra.
Q675 Chairman: So you put to Defra the
concerns and yet the Bill has emerged in the way that it has done?
Mr Capper: Some of our points
were taken on board and there was some alteration. All the issues
we have mentioned as LACORS were mentioned to Defra.
Q676 Chairman: Mr Brunstrom, was ACPO
similarly consulted?
Mr Brunstrom: Yes is the answer
to that.
Q677 Chairman: Were many of the points
that you have put to us both in your oral and written evidence
communicated to Defra at the time?
Mr Brunstrom: Yes, they were.
Q678 Chairman: Were you surprised to
see perhaps some of the issues which you put in very stark terms
to us this morning not dealt with as effectively as you would
have liked in the Bill?
Mr Brunstrom: Only mildly. It
is a new procedure to me to have a draft Bill at this stage. I
am very content with the attitude of Defra officials to take on
board issues that I have raised subsequent to seeing the draft
Bill, but, clearly, as I have said this morning, they are not
resolved. Looking beyond your words, I have no complaint to make
about the way in which our evidence has been taken; quite the
contrary, I think it has been extremely open. I would be very
disappointed if this was the end of the debate because the point
you make about there needing to be a consensus as to how to enforce
this regulation I think is absolutely vital.
Q679 Chairman: Defra made the point at
the beginning of our deliberations that there was more work to
do on the prosecution aspects of the Bill.
Mr Griffiths: I would endorse
that. We have had full involvement with Defra officials and we
were consulted many times and I have attended many meetings, we
made our points very clearly and many of the points we have made
have been picked up and represented in the Bill. We fully endorse
the line that the Department is taking, i.e. the need to bring
together all this disparate legislation and to have a clear system
in place to better protect animals, with a subtext of doing so
with more rather than less licensing.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
It has been an extremely useful session. I think we are a little
better informed certainly about the practicalities of what this
draft Bill represents.
| 
