Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 734-739)

MR MIKE RADFORD

12 OCTOBER 2004

  Q734 Chairman: Mr Radford, for the record you are Reader in Law at the University of Aberdeen, so may I thank you most sincerely for coming from Aberdeen today to give evidence to the Committee today and also for your written submission. I certainly want to probe some of the things in there but it was extremely helpful. Can I simply start not by asking you to comment on our question about Clause 26 of the Bill which we will come to later and to ask the same basic question that we put to nearly all of our witnesses: if in all of the things that the Bill does there is one thing that you would say "Do not forget that because we think that is very good", what is it, and the converse, if there was one criticism or reservation that you would not like us to forget, what is that as well?

  Mr Radford: First of all, can I thank the Committee for inviting me to attend. On the question of what not to forget, the easy answer is the duty of care. That is clearly the major new initiative, but I think that the most important thing is that this is the first occasion on which animal welfare and animal protection legislation has been looked at anew. Your predecessor Richard Martin MP in 1822—

  Q735 Chairman: Not quite my predecessor!

  Mr Radford: —was instrumental in passing the first legislation, and that original Act has been overhauled on three occasions—in 1835, 1849 and 1911. On each of those three subsequent occasions it was essentially a consolidation Act. So that is the first thing. This is the first time in which the whole picture has been looked at and, secondly, it is the first time on which the government has thought fit to bring forward such a Bill. On all previous occasions it has been a Private Member's Bill, so that is important. As to the downside, enforcement I know the Committee is well aware of. I would also like to flag up the issue of the offence of cruelty.

  Chairman: I just want to ask for your guidance as much as anything because you made a point praising the Bill in terms of saying (a) that it was a Government Bill and (b) it brought together a lot of existing welfare legislation. Are there any untidy bits that are left behind because I have got a bit confused as to what existing animal welfare legislation is going to be brought under the umbrella of this particular measure and, therefore, by definition what is left over, and the difference between this Bill and the legislation that deals with animal welfare on the farm. Would you just care to comment on that because I, for one, would find it quite useful to have the benefit of your overview?

  Joan Ruddock: And perhaps we could add transport, Chairman.

  Q736 Chairman: Indeed. Thank you.

  Mr Radford: Can I set out the picture, which will take a few moments?

  Q737 Chairman: We would be delighted.

  Mr Radford: The situation in 1822 was that the legal status of captive wild animals and domestic animals was one of property, and as property the owner could do whatever they wanted with their animal and treat it in whatever way they wished. The legal status of domestic and captive wild animals has not changed: it is still that of property. What has happened is that, in the subsequent 180 years since 1822, Parliament has intervened increasingly to restrict the autonomy of the owner to say there are some things that cannot be done; there are some things which, if done, must be done in a particular way. The one area where the autonomy at common law of the owner remains is in relation to deciding whether their animal lives or dies. There are provisions which lay down how an animal should be euthanased or slaughtered or killed or whatever the terminology is, but except in very few cases—and it is usually with rare animals—the decision as to whether the animal lives or dies remains the owner's. Now the original legislation in 1822 focused on prohibiting cruelty and making it a criminal offence. During the course of the 19th century, so far as domestic animals were concerned, that remained the situation. Different bits of legislation were consolidated in 1911, and there were some added add-ons onto the legislation but essentially not much happened until 1968, and what happened in the 1960s was, with the increase in intensive farming, there was public concern and, indeed, parliamentary concern as to the way in which farm animals were being treated in these new regimes. A committee of inquiry was set up, which is generally called the Brambell inquiry because Brambell was the chair of it, and they were given a wide brief by the Ministry of Agriculture as it then was, and they took that brief and they developed the idea of welfare. This was in relation specifically to farm animals and as a result of the Brambell Report's recommendation Part 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 was enacted, and that was important in two regards. First of all, it is the first legislation in relation to animals which uses the word "welfare", so that is where welfare comes from, and, secondly, Part 1 of the 1968 Act is essentially an enabling provision. It allows the minister to introduce regulations, codes of practice and so on and so forth. Now, my understanding is that what happens is that it is intended that Part 1 of the 1968 Act be repealed but it is essentially re-enacted, or will be re-enacted, in Clause 6(2) of the Animal Welfare Bill, so the major provisions which relate to farm animals, the origins in the main of which come from European Union law but are at the moment enacted under the 1968 Act, will in future be enacted under what one hopes will be Section 6(2) of the Animal Welfare Act. Does that clarify the situation?

  Chairman: Yes.

  Q738 David Taylor: And that includes farming?

  Mr Radford: Yes. Now, the important thing then is that two things happened. First of all, the focus on welfare was predominantly on farm animals, not least because of lobbying at a European Union level particularly with the European Parliament. The other thing that happened is that a virtuous circle was created in that once the word "welfare" was used in legislation ministers had to decide what it meant and to decide what it meant they looked to scientific research. Scientific research produced results which have had an influence on legislation which has gone back to further research, and so it has gone on. What this legislation will do if enacted is extend this principle of welfare beyond simply farm animals and some of the other animals which also have their own welfare legislation such as zoo animals to all domestic and captive wild animals.

  Chairman: That is very helpful.

  David Taylor: On page 3 of your submission, paragraph 7, you look at the concept of unnecessary suffering and on balance believe it should be retained as a tenet within the Bill, but you add a rider that it should be made clear that suffering applies to both physical and mental suffering. Do you believe that existing legislation has been defective in that respect and can you give examples of what would have been defined as cruelty, were there a focus on mental suffering as well?

  Q739 Chairman: Adding to that, just to keep things consistent, the physical suffering you can look at and see the characteristics, and I was interested to know how you knew an animal of the type covered by this legislation was experiencing mental suffering.

  Mr Radford: I am a lawyer not a scientist so I do not know!


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 9 December 2004