Examination of Witnesses (Questions 770-779)
MR DAVID
FURSDON, MR
CHRISTOPHER PRICE,
MR JOHN
JACKSON AND
MR GRAHAM
DOWNING
13 OCTOBER 2004
Q770 Chairman: Can everyone take their
seats for a further evidence session by the Committee on the Draft
Animal Welfare Bill. We are delighted to have our witnesses this
afternoon, from the Countryside Alliance, Mr John Jackson, the
Chairman, and Mr Graham Downing, who is described as a "Member".
He has the shortest title we have had before us on this. From
the Country Land and Business Association, Mr David Fursdon, the
Deputy President, and Mr Christopher Price, the CLA's Public Law
Adviser. I always get worried when people bring their lawyers
with them; we wonder what they are going to say! Anyway, you are
all very welcome. Can I formally thank you for your written evidence;
it was very helpful. We have started off just about every session
by asking each of our respective witnesses a very simple and straightforward
question, because both of your sets of evidence are commendable
for the scope of the issues that you have raised, but, if we had
two remember just one thing that if you do favour the Bill you
would like us not to forget in favour of it and one thing that
you are passionately opposed or concerned about in the Bill that
also you would not like us to forget—and I say that against
a background that we have probably had somewhere in the region
of over 200 submissions to this inquiry and there are key things
that we do not want to forget. So, Mr Jackson, would you like
to start our proceedings by answering our simple question?
Mr Jackson: Yes, certainly. I
can be very brief. I think we have already said that we very much
welcome this Bill. The one aspect, very positive aspect, which
I think we would like to pick out is that the Bill not only usefully
makes use of the concept of unnecessary suffering, which has been
around for a long time and is well understood by the courts, but
has also introduced the concept of a duty of care. We think that
is useful and is positive, and we also think that when this House
actually ever gets round to dealing with the law relating to the
welfare of wild animals that is a concept which could usefully
be borne in mind. On the negative side, and it is not all negative,
there is one aspect which has been concerning us and which Mr
Downing here has paid a lot of attention to, and that is the question
of the tail docking of working dogs. Those are the only two points,
I think, that I want to make.
Q771 Chairman: Mr Fursdon?
Mr Fursdon: Thank you. It is always
great going second if the person in front of you takes one of
the points that you were going to make. I was, I suppose, going
to say that unnecessary suffering is something we are pleased
to see in there and we welcome the Bill and the principles behind
it, and, as somebody who farms, I would say that the principles
of animal welfare and good and profitable farming in general terms
go hand in hand together. Perhaps not quite as far as my wife
putting hot water bottles under lambing ewes, but nearly as far
as that. On the other side, however, the particular concern, I
think, that we have is to maintain clarity and objectivity in
this Bill, and there are areas where there is a danger that that
might be clouded somewhat. I suppose an example of that is expressions
such as "likely to cause unnecessary suffering". I think
we recognise that a lot of these judgments are going to be made
in the heat of the moment where an issue has arisen and any judgments
that are made at that point have to be clear and too much opportunity
for differing interpretations is going to be unfortunate. Therefore
we would like, I think, to see a clarity maintained and the way
in which judgments are come to are done in as objective a way
as possible.
Q772 Chairman: If there is a common theme
that runs across both of your sets of evidence it deals, not unnaturally,
with animals in the wild who may interact with human beings, and
I put it in those terms because in the case of the Alliance clearly
country sports and pursuits is a concern, and I think there is
a parallel agenda as far as the CLA is concerned. In your respective
evidence there are, I suppose, what I call conjecture. You pose
the question: "Does this apply to, for example, going out
and shooting? If a pheasant falls to the ground and may not be
fully dead at the time, are we going to be involved in animal
welfare legislations as laid out on the Bill?" So, rather
than me go through and try and pick out all of the various issues,
as it is a common strand in both of your evidence, perhaps you
would like to put before the Committee, in a few words, your main
areas of concern: because I got the feeling that they were the
kind of thing that lawyers would say, "Well, it might apply
but we are not sure." So, if you are not sure, can you tell
us why you are not sure? Mr Price, do you want to start on that?
Mr Price: Yes, to reiterate, we
do think this is a good Bill; it is a welcome consolidation and
codification of the existing law. Much of what is being codified
and consolidated really is the existing law. We know how the law
works with farmed animals, and with pet animals, and in the main
it works pretty well. There are a few phrases which we would like
to see updated which are in the Bill, but the reason why we have
not commented particularly on most points because those points
work. However, because the scope of this Bill is intended to be
slightly wider than farmed and pet animals, we do have concerns
about some of the wording that has been used and what the scope
of that wording is, and that is why we concentrated on that and,
I assume, why the Alliance did as well. Some of the points, if
I can just run through them, where these concerns arise . . .
At various points there are references to "the keeper",
the person who owns an animal. With animals which are pets or
are farmed animals we know what "owner" is, but under
the common law there is a rather nebulous antiquated concept of
temporary or qualified rights of ownership so that, if you have
wild animals that are on your land, you own them for certain purposes.
What we are concerned about is that the obligations that apply
to the owner under the legislation could also apply to someone
who, perhaps without even knowing, has certain wild animals on
their land: an example in the agricultural context would be rabbits.
If you have young rabbits on your land—they are too young
to move away of their own accord—under the common law you
will be the owner of them under this qualified concept. There
are separate laws which require the landowner to destroy or, if
not reasonably practical, take action against rabbits, and it
is that sort of area where we are seeing the conflict. It is the
attempt to, quite understandably, apply existing conflicts to
new situations which is causing these sorts of concerns.
Q773 Chairman: Do you say that in terms
of, if you like, the natural lawyers caution in reading a Bill
and saying, "Could it apply?", or, "In theory I
think it could apply but in reality" . . . Yesterday we took
evidence, for example, from those in local authorities who are
going to be central to some of the enforcement provisions of the
Bill, and they were playing down their role, saying, "We
are not going to be chasing after everybody. We are looking to
give guidance." The police who came from ACPO were saying,
"Animal welfare: very low on the Richter scale. Cruelty:
yes, that is top dollar. We will look at those." In other
words, the enforcement were saying, "We will look at the
really serious situations where somebody has animals on premises",
or whatever, but I have to say, if you like, the interaction of
man and so-called wild animals and any potential cruelty issues
did not even figure on the Richter scale.
Mr Price: You mentioned the police
and local authorities. Both of those, we would accept, are responsible
enforcement bodies. However, there is no limitation, for any practical
purposes, on who can bring a prosecution under animal welfare
law. Animal welfare law, as everyone knows, is a very emotive,
very sensitive subject. It is far from unknown for people who,
with the best will in the world, think they are trying to do something
in the best interest of the animals to prosecute. There will be
an awful lot of experimenting with the law because there is a
significant sector of society who think that man's relationship
with animals is not as it should be and will use test cases to
try and change that. It is that sort of thing that we are concerned
about. Much better to get certainty established at this stage
than having years of uncertainty as it goes through the courts.
Q774 Chairman: Mr Jackson, do you want
to comment on that agenda?
Mr Jackson: Briefly. I am also
a lawyer. I rather agree with what Shakespeare said should be
done to us. I think it is absolutely right that these comments—
Q775 Chairman: Can you just remind me
what Shakespeare did say? It might be quite interesting.
Mr Price: "First hang all
the lawyers"!
Q776 Chairman: I see. I do not think
we will be doing that this afternoon, but you carry on.
Mr Jackson: It is right, I think,
that these comments are made because we are dealing with legislation
which creates a new criminal offence. However, I think personally
that one can afford to be a little bit relaxed and rely on the
commonsense of the people who have the duty of enforcing, and
of the courts, provided that the enforcers are clearly publicly
accountable and do not stem from bodies which could be said to
have an agenda of their own in respect of the particular matter
being enforced.
Q777 Chairman: Do you want to be explicit
on that? Are you expressing a concern about the RSPCA, because,
in fairness, the RSPCA themselves have expressed concern to this
Committee, if we have understood their evidence correctly, about
their potential role as a prosecutor in terms of the proposed
legislation. Is that really what you are trying to say?
Mr Jackson: I have considerable
regard and respect for the RSPCA; I think, in general, it does
a terrific job. However, on certain aspects of animal welfare
they are effectively also a campaigning organisation. Law has
to be respected, and it would be very unfortunate if enforcement
was seen to be in the hands of people who could be deemed to have
an interest. I say that as much in the interests of the RSPCA
as anybody else.
Q778 Paddy Tipping: I think that is helpful,
but can you just take us back to clause 44 of the Bill, because
"inspectors" in clause 44 is a bit of a catch-all, because
anybody could be an inspector. Mr Price, you are a lawyer. We
are not going to hang you! What is your understanding of clause
44?
Mr Price: You are quite right;
it can be anyone. It will depend on the guidance introduced by
the Secretary of State. One of the points we mentioned in our
response to the consultation was that we would expect the guidance,
that sets out who can be appointed an inspector to be subject
to consultation and we would hope that there would be the, I suppose,
commonsense to try and avoid a situation where an overtly campaigning
organisation was going to be given the powers of inspector over
activities which it was known to campaign. There must be something
incongruous if the RSPCA are on the one hand saying that they
are going to campaign to ban game shooting when they will be given
the role to investigate it.
Q779 Paddy Tipping: I do not think that
is the RSPCA's position.
Mr Price: The Director General
has said that.
|
