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


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1 - 19)

TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2005

MR BEN BRADSHAW MP, MR JOHN BOURNE AND MS CAROLINE CONNELL

  Q1  Chairman: We have the Minister with us for animal welfare matters accompanied by John Bourne, Head of the Animal Welfare Division, and Caroline Connell, the Defra lawyer who has been very helpful to the Committee, as has Mr Bourne, in our previous considerations of the Bill. For us it was a novel experience carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill, we certainly learnt a lot about it and it was a process we enjoyed. We think the Select Committee was able to make some important contributions to improving the draft of the original Bill, but can I ask what your Department itself learnt from this process?

  Mr Bradshaw: That may be a better question for my officials rather than me.

  Q2 Chairman: If you want to ask them, they are here.

  Mr Bourne: Chairman, we found it a very useful forum for hearing people's views, in addition to those we had heard in our own consultation, and in particular around the framework of the draft Bill. Yes, there is not much more to say other than that we found it a constructive experience and we very much hope, as you say, as a result the outcome is a much better draft Bill which has been introduced into Parliament.

  Q3  Chairman: I appreciate you will not be directly involved in the Marine Bill when it eventually appears, or you might be—you might volunteer to do that task—but are there any things you might do differently in terms of the pre-legislative process which you did not do on this one?

  Mr Bourne: There is always the issue of timing. We went through a widespread public consultation. There is an issue of, having published a draft Bill, whether one could go through another public consultation as Defra before going to pre-legislative scrutiny, and the decision on that is always likely to be taken on a case by case basis depending on the timetable that is driving that particular Bill.

  Mr Bradshaw: We are also mindful, Chairman, of your Committee's capacity and enthusiasm or otherwise for doing the work and the tensions which have existed in the past sometimes with the Lords and whether they might have a say in pre-legislative scrutiny as well.

  Q4  Chairman: I am sure there will be lessons learnt for us all. Let us move on to the Bill. One of the significant changes has been the way that you have altered the start of the Bill in terms of the definition of animals, and we had quite a lot of evidence as to what the legislative definition of animals should be. We are still receiving submissions about the fact that cephalopods and crustaceans are not part of the process. In fact, in clause 1(4) of the Bill, you talk about the fact that scientific evidence underpins the definition that you are prepared to accept as to what is an animal, but it is clear there is a difference of opinion within the United Kingdom on the science. As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament's parallel Bill to this contains a different definition of what is an animal. So if within the United Kingdom there is a lot of common science to base these assessments on, why is there a difference? What is this scientific opinion which is determining these matters?

  Mr Bradshaw: John may want to comment on the detail of the scientific opinion. I accept that this is one of the few recommendations you made we have not accepted because the advice I have received is that the scientific evidence at the moment would not merit the inclusion of crustacean and cephalopods in the definition of animals which can feel pain. John may want to comment on the difference in the Scottish Bill. I am advised we do not think there is a difference, Chairman.

  Mr Bourne: I have the Scottish Bill in front of me and I am slightly bemused, Chairman, as to what the difference is.

  Q5  Chairman: That is what I was advised when I was reading round the subject and there is a voluminous amount of material. I will put my hand up and apologise if I am wrong. Are you telling me it is exactly the same wording?

  Mr Bourne: As far as I am aware.

  Mr Bradshaw: Would it help if we read it out, Chairman?

  Q6  Chairman: Yes.

  Ms Connell: The Scottish Bill says, "animal to which this part applies . . .", that is the part on animal welfare because, as you know, there is a part on animal health, ". . . means a vertebrate other than man", so I do not think that covers cephalopods and crustaceans, does it?

  Q7  Chairman: I suppose that is a slight difference in wording. Certainly in other jurisdictions, like Australia for example—said he swiftly moving on from Scotland—they do have cephalopods and crustaceans in their animal welfare law. What is the difference? I do not know whether you talked to the Australians to be able to answer this question but why do they scientifically think it is correct to have cephalopods and crustaceans in their Bill and we do not? Does it not come down to the interpretation of science?

  Mr Bourne: Yes, up to a point. Science will always illustrate but it rarely gives a definitive answer, and particularly in the world of animal welfare where there is usually an ethical element in any decision. I think it is worth bearing in mind that animal welfare bills in other jurisdictions are framed differently and interact differently with other legislation in that jurisdiction. Chairman, we have tried to keep a reasonably consistent approach across the legislation in this country so that there is a consistent approach for people to understand and it is different in New Zealand and Australia and other places.

  Q8  Chairman: We have received some further evidence from the Shellfish Network[2]—and I do not want to go over ground we have covered in some detail before—and they make to the layman a fairly strong case that the animal species I have just mentioned have characteristics to be able to feel pain.[3] On that basis, as a layman reading that, you would say, "Why not?" Why not on a precautionary principle put them in so they are covered and if it turns out afterwards they do not feel pain, you can always take them out, just as you can reinterpret the science and put them in. Why not put them in on a precautionary principle? Why do you say, "No, we completely dismiss the evidence which has been put forward by scientists" who would argue those species do have complex brain and nervous systems and do show the characteristics of experiencing pain under certain circumstances?


  Mr Bradshaw: You have to draw the line somewhere, Chairman, and this Bill gives us the flexibility which we have not had before to add species if and when the scientific evidence becomes a bit more conclusive than we think it currently is as to whether certain species can feel pain.

  Q9  Chairman: Are you the final arbiter of the science? Is it ultimately you as the Minister, when the submission comes up from the officials, who say, "Professor X, Y or Z has produced another paper and has put compelling evidence but we, Defra, do not agree with this. What do you think?" The buck stops with you, does it?

  Mr Bradshaw: Ultimately it stops with Parliament.

  Q10  Chairman: If Parliament does not have the opportunity to take the decision, because you have decided on the basis of the scientific evidence it is not worth putting it to Parliament, Parliament cannot have that decision.

  Mr Bradshaw: I make a decision or recommendation based on the advice I am given which will take into account disagreements and conflicts, if they exist, within the scientific community as to whether a particular type of animal can or cannot feel pain. I do not think I can do very much more than that. If you are asking me whether I am qualified to make a personal decision, no, I am not.

  Q11  Chairman: I am intrigued to know how this further appraisal of the evidence is going to be carried out. Are you going to sit back as the Department and wait for somebody to produce another scientific paper? Are you going to positively try to recruit those opinions? Is it purely and simply Defra's own scientists who determine whether a case has been made out or not?

  Mr Bradshaw: No, it is not. We, Defra, over a whole range of policies will depend on and listen to and take the advice of independent scientists. We have our own Science Advisory Council which, if we feel there is a disagreement or a dispute about the quality or basis of certain evidence, we will ask for advice. There are a number of safety and review mechanisms, if you like, to test the science which we use all the time, not just on this but on a whole range of issues. Our Department is one which is very dependent on science and evidence. If we were to adopt the precautionary principle you are advocating, where do you stop?

  Q12  Chairman: I am asking it in the context of the information which the Committee received, both in its last inquiry and once again reiterated in this one. Just for the record, when you decided the science on this occasion, was the committee to which you referred consulted?

  Mr Bourne: I think the answer to that is no, it was not on this occasion.

  Q13  Chairman: So you are telling us that you have put in here a piece of law which takes these species out on the basis of science, and then the Minister tells us you receive advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee but on something like this you have effectively been judge and jury?

  Mr Bourne: We have consulted with the Home Office, who have a very similar issue with their own legislation. We are aware of an EU review which is coming up very shortly to look at the ability of cephalopods and crustaceans to have a conscious awareness of pain. But on this occasion, we have not. We have read the science, we reviewed it and we did not think there was a need to go out to further scientific analysis.

  Q14  Chairman: I would put it to you, Minister, on something like this where there was quite a considerable amount of concern by those who follow these matters more closely than I do, that in a way illustrates the point because it says in the Bill that you are going to continue to use scientific evidence, and the one opportunity you had to make a consultation on this, you did not do it?

  Mr Bradshaw: It is not one opportunity. There are disputes about almost every element of policy which Defra is responsible for. If we were to farm a fraction of those out to the SAC to give an opinion on, they would never stop.

  Q15  Chairman: I can appreciate that.

  Mr Bradshaw: The implication of your question is that our own in-house scientists and officials have not fairly studied the balance of evidence in coming to the recommendation they have.

  Q16  Chairman: In fairness to those who submitted evidence, not every species attracted a supporters' club, not every species had somebody arguing for their inclusion in this Bill. This particular species in this context, cephalopods and crustaceans did have.

  Mr Bradshaw: May I suggest that is because they are right on the cusp, if you like, and it is inevitable in my view that those organisations and others who want to go further to promote animal welfare are going to pick on the next species that they think should be included, rather than one much further down the line.

  Chairman: Despite the fact that other jurisdictions in bringing a similar animal welfare legislation to our own come to a different conclusion. It is on the record as to what you did not consult with so we will move on.

  Q17  Patrick Hall: Can I ask a question arising out of your rapid visit and departure from Scotland earlier on, where you referred, Chairman, to the parallel Bill but there it is called the Animal Health and Welfare Bill or Act. Minister, I believe you have made it clear on a number of occasions that there is a clear distinction in Defra's view between animal welfare and animal health. I have never been clear about that distinction because if there is good welfare there is likely to be good health, but the separation is made quite clear and quite repeatedly, and I wonder if you could quickly clarify that matter for me.

  Mr Bradshaw: I think you are right, Mr Hall, there is a relationship and the other way round as well, if there is good health there is likely to be good welfare. I cannot speak for Scotland, I do not know why they have called their Bill Health and Welfare but Caroline may be able to answer that.

  Ms Connell: I think what Scotland are doing is including some of the provisions which were enacted in the Animal Health Act 2002 which amends the Animal Health Act 1981, and putting that in the same piece of legislation as what is, broadly speaking, a very similar Bill to our Animal Welfare Bill and they are just putting the two in one. But they are two very, very different sections, so the animal health side talks about slaughter to prevent the spread of disease, testing and so on.

  Mr Bradshaw: Animal gatherings, biosecurity codes, the field animal stuff which we have already dealt with in England.

  Q18  Sir Peter Soulsby: I would like to follow up with another definition, this time the definition of good practice. Clause 8(1), we have the very welcome duty to ensure that the needs of an animal, for which persons are responsible, are met to the extent required by good practice. Clearly there are going to be different views as to what constitutes good practice in particular circumstances. How confident are you that there is a sufficiently established consensus about what does constitute good practice across a whole range of activities that this is likely to cover?

  Mr Bradshaw: Where they do not already exist, Chairman, we intend to draw up codes of conduct which will outline in more specific detail what constitutes good practice. They will be drawn up in collaboration with animal welfare organisations, specialists, experts. I think they do already exist for some species, if I am correct, but we intend to produce them for all of the species over time.

  Q19  Sir Peter Soulsby: The RSPCA I think said in the absence of Bills or until they are available there could be ". . . a complex and lengthy point to discuss and prove in court."[4] Those were the words they used. What sort of timescale do you envisage for the establishment of these codes?

  Mr Bourne: It will vary. On the back of our Regulatory Impact Assessment we set out a rough timetable because this was a matter of resources, we cannot produce them all at the same time. It will take up to four or five years, we said, to complete most of them and plainly there will never be codes which cover absolutely everything, given the range of animals there are.

  Mr Bradshaw: It is inevitable that the issues are going to have to be tested in court anyway.


2   Ev 53 Back

3   Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2004-05, The Draft Animal Welfare Bill, HC 52II, Ev 164 Back

4   Ev 36 [Clause 8] Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 14 December 2005