Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers
Union
1. The NFU submitted evidence to the Committee's
inquiry into the draft Animal Welfare Bill in August and October
2004. We believe that the Committee's report on the Bill, published
last December, which contained a number of constructive criticisms
with which we agreed, has been instrumental in persuading Defra
to develop the improved Bill now before Parliament. We confine
our comments to changes of note from the draft Bill.
2. Clause 4, now labelled "unnecessary
suffering" (previously "cruelty") is now clearer
than its predecessor, and it is sensible to give mutilation its
own clause (clause 5). We expect the Government to exempt the
well-established farm animal procedures from the mutilation offences,
and welcome the duty to consult in subsection (5).
3. The Bill has recast the previous approach
to a new offence concerning welfare, and we believe the formula
based on the need to take reasonable steps to ensure the needs
of animals are met to the extent required by good practice in
clause 8 is now much clearer and fairer, and can be used to encourage
good welfare practice by owners and keepers of animals.
4. With regard to the wide-ranging power
to make regulation to promote welfare (clause 10), we welcome
the Government's acceptance that there should be a duty to consult
(subsection (6)), and that regulations will be subject to affirmative
resolution approval by Parliament. It remains our view, however,
that the minister (or National Assembly) should be guided by "science
not sentiment" in making regulations; the relevance of scientific
evidence is now built into the definition of protected animals
(clause 1) and should be built into this clause too.
5. The powers to make welfare codes for
farm animals in the 1968 legislation (subsumed in this Bill) allows
time for persons to adjust to code requirements and we would wish
to see this replicated in clause 12. We still find the "default"
approach to Parliamentary approval of codes in clause 13 (described
as "a version of the negative resolution procedure"
in the explanatory notes to the Bill) as odd, relying it seems
on Parliament being vigilant if it wants to query the content
of codes.
6. Regarding relieving animals in distress
we support the powers in clause 16 in principle, but we are concerned
that under subsection (11) an owner could be faced with a bill
for an inspector's expenses even where no proceedings for unnecessary
suffering have taken place. The need for inspectors to act reasonably
and in good faith is recognised in clause 45 and we hope that
this issue will be examined carefully as the Bill proceeds.
7. Nothing in the powers of entry in clause
17 obliges inspectors or the police to comply with any need there
may be to respect biosecurity to prevent the spread of animal
disease. Either the Bill should be amended to cover this, or it
should be put in place by other regulations.
8. Whilst we understand that the provisions
in the deprivation and disqualification clauses (nos 29 and 30)
will oblige courts to provide information on why they have not
decided to make deprivation or disqualification orders, we are
concerned at the risk of a presumption in favour of such orders
being made over and above the penalties for persons convicted
of offences. A relatively minor breach by a person whose livelihood
depends on the keeping of animals should not lead to him in effect
forfeiting his livelihood by the use of such orders. We hope that
the House will look at how it can be ensured that such orders
will be used appropriately and proportionately as the Bill proceeds.
November 2005
| 
