Page title

FAWC, Government Buildings, Hook Rise South, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7NF

ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION
UP-DATE BY THE FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL

FAWC’s Report of the Enforcement Working Group is almost 10 years old and it is timely to offer up-dated advice to Agriculture Ministers. We acknowledge that it can be difficult to find Parliamentary time to make new laws. Nonetheless, anticipated government reviews of measures to protect welfare of animals in transit and at market and the need to implement, by the end of this year, Council Directive 98/58/EC (the General Directive) may provide suitable opportunities. But stronger law is only a part of the equation as without effective enforcement any system of control will inevitably fail.

Essentially, the action recommended falls under two broad headings: enforcement, how to improve the implementation of existing welfare requirements; and the law, specific recommendations to improve animal welfare.

A. Enforcement

i) Uniformity of approach

There is a serious lack of uniformity in the application and enforcement of existing UK welfare legislation. If enforcement is to be effective it is essential to have both good liaison between all enforcement agencies and also for all such agencies to be consistent in the manner and the vigour with which they pursue their responsibilities. A uniform approach across all enforcement bodies to the training of inspectors is also crucial. FAWC recommends that:

all enforcement agencies (the State Veterinary Service, local authorities, the Meat Hygiene Service, etc.) implement procedures to ensure that adequate co-ordination and information exchange takes place formally at all levels, amongst themselves through regional and national panels, and with the industry through liaison groups, and on a day-to-day basis. This should actively encourage the development of dialogue between members of the various enforcement agencies and foster joint action where appropriate.

government-led welfare initiatives should be more actively encouraged and promoted. We welcome developments such as the government’s market strategy and would urge that resources be found to progress and publicise further initiatives.

government should provide detailed guidance to local authorities about what is expected of them. This should clarify and emphasise responsibility for enforcement action. Such a document would also serve as a reminder to authorities of their responsibilities, that they are a major component of the enforcement framework and that they should devote sufficient resources to animal welfare.

ii) National standards of animal welfare enforcement

Coupled with a uniform approach to enforcement, FAWC recommends the establishment of a UK enforcement agency for all animal health and welfare matters. It is recognised that this might involve considerable legal and practical difficulties, not least in the attempt to draw together information from several sources, but logically some such body is essential if the government really does wish to give animal welfare issues a high priority in livestock farming. Such a body could:

introduce a national strategy for welfare enforcement coupled with standards with targets which could then be monitored. This may be welcomed by farmers if it reduces confusion about responsibility for enforcement and provide a framework to help reduce duplication of effort and visits.

maintain a central database to record all animal welfare and associated visits, enforcement action taken (including that which culminates in prosecution) and inspections made by all enforcement bodies. Currently much data collection is duplicated; a database, accessible by all enforcement bodies, would enable up-to-date and accurate details to be shared.

iii) Training and competency requirements

Successful enforcement is directly dependent on the commitment and skills of the personnel involved; their willingness to co-operate; the support framework they are given; and the political will of enforcement agencies to devote sufficient resources to the task. The role of animal welfare enforcement should be recognised as having a specific professional status. It is recommended that:

all enforcement officers should be well motivated, trained and qualified, especially those involved directly in animal welfare, and their formal designations and titles should reflect their responsibilities;

the appointment of dedicated animal health and welfare enforcement staff in all relevant agencies should be encouraged;

training, recognised on completion by certification of competence, should include a knowledge of enforcement and welfare legislation, animal husbandry and animal health.

continuing professional development opportunities should be encouraged and training programmes should include on-going attendance at seminars and appropriate courses to ensure officers are kept abreast of the latest developments.

Provision and support of a well trained workforce and stronger enforcement will require additional resources from both central and local government. However, to reflect the growing awareness of this issue in society, the importance of animal welfare needs to be heightened to ensure that it receives adequate funding when budgets are allocated. Smaller unitary authorities, particularly those in urban areas which do not have the same need for specialists as the larger rural farming counties, might be advised to enter into ‘agency’ arrangements with neighbours.

iv) Other initiatives

Although the following are separately identified, most will run alongside, and in conjunction with, the initiatives recommended above.

the government welfare codes should be updated and strengthened as a matter of urgency. The format of the draft Sheep Code is to be commended and, ideally adopted for all codes. We welcome the fact that resources have been allocated within MAFF’s Animal Welfare Division to progress amendment. However, the legal procedures appear to obstruct swift action. Consideration should be given to simplifying the process of making and revising welfare codes.

Inspectors and Welfare Officers should be identifiable at markets (by general notice and by personal badge).

the number of unannounced SVS inspections should be increased, particularly at intensive pig and poultry farms, including out-of-hours checks, and a minimum number of inspections of livestock hauliers and dealers should be established.

B. The Law

FAWC appreciates that change to the law may be difficult and time consuming. Nonetheless, the Council urges the government to consider the introduction of new controls in relation to the following:

i) The seizure and care/custody of neglected animals which currently involves the provisions of the Protection of Animals Acts. This legislation would benefit from an overhaul to include a requirement to prevent anyone benefiting financially from the keeping of animals if they have been convicted of cruelty. Additionally, a change to the law is needed to allow a court order to require animals to be taken into care, and to recover associated costs, while a welfare case is proceeding. Ideally, once a summons has been issued, a preliminary application should be made to discuss the value of the animals and the consequences of removal. It may be necessary to sell some of the animals to pay for the upkeep of others or to slaughter them to prevent further suffering. Any decision to take animals into care would be dependent upon veterinary guidance.

ii) Government should consider whether there are any permissible means of linking receipt of livestock support payments to compliance with welfare codes. This to include the possibility of withdrawing payments from those convicted of animal welfare offences. The Council proposes to look again at this issue and will provide further advice in due course.

iii) The law should be clarified with regard to the cross-boundary authorisation of local authority inspectors. Inspectors should be able to serve a notice and to seize or detain carcases of any animal likely to have suffered on-farm or in transit regardless of where the offence took place. This is particularly relevant to cattle within the OTMS, because the scheme does not allow the seizure of carcases for evidential purposes. We hope that these points, and one relating to the power to serve a notice by affixing it to an unattended animal transport vehicle (rather than having to serve the notice to the driver or the person in charge), will be addressed in the forthcoming reviews of transport and market legislation.

iv) Powers of entry to be extended to local authority inspectors, by making them ‘authorised persons’ under Section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1968. This would allow more scope when undertaking ‘out-of-hours’ or random/unannounced visits. To some extent, this would regularise the current situation where local authority officials who gain access to farms for other purposes may take the opportunity to assess animal welfare. However, this often relies on the co-operation of the farmer and formal powers would strengthen the position of the inspectors.

v) The power to issue statutory rectification notices should be extended to the on-farm situation. The introduction of powers similar to those of Article 18 of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 would strengthen the hand of the enforcement agencies when requiring action in regard to on-farm welfare transgressions/defects. To have the opportunity to time-limit and specify corrective work is seen as a great advantage, as would be the power to make it an offence not to comply with a rectification order. Essentially, these changes would put more pressure on farmers to comply.

vi) remove the six-month time limit on prosecutions under legislation applicable to animal health and welfare. Ideally, there should not be a time limit for such action or, if there must, it should be six months from the discovery of an offence (not the commission of the offence).

We should also like to see the introduction of a competency requirement for all keepers of livestock (perhaps drawing on the precedent set for animal transport attendants). Our recent advice on registration of poultry keepers called for a competence test for staff. All those responsible for farm animals should, at least, be able to demonstrate competency; in addition, such an ability would improve the public perception of farming.

Farm Animal Welfare Council

July 1999