EHJ August 2002, volume 110/08, pages 228-231 Mark Rowe looks at some of the concerns that have led to Defra's proposals to consolidate and update the UK's animal welfare laws

There is clearly something wrong with a law that allows a rare snake from Costa Rica to be sold in a church hall, or for a reptile to be kept in a garage on a housing estate. But Britain's animal welfare laws are, by the common agreement of just about every interested party, out-dated, confusing and crucially, can actually cause more harm than good to animals.

The Department for Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) has recognised a need to address this state of affairs and is currently drawing up proposals to consolidate and update the animal welfare laws with regard to pets and companion animals. It has invited submissions and recommendations from more than 100 organisations with an active interest in the issue, including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

While EHOs have a wide range of duties in connection with animal welfare - from the licensing of outlets such as pet shops, kennels, catteries and riding schools, to remits for dangerous dogs and dangerous wild animals - the perspective of the licensing is not so much on the animals per se, but on the implications of their welfare for human health. The CIEH recognises the problems its members face. "The main complaint is that the laws are too fragmented," says Andrew Griffiths, principal policy officer for the CIEH. "They have developed over a long period of time and have been overtaken by society. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals bill dates to 1911, while pet shop laws were introduced in 1951. A lot of new ways to sell animals have emerged since then."

Defra has indicated that there is likely to be more licensing in the future - which means more work for EHOs. But if this work is more targeted, then the CIEH remains broadly supportive of the Government's aims. It believes the laws on animal protection need to be radically overhauled and takes the view there are too many laws, which should be consolidated into one single law. "We are looking for some consistency and better guidelines," continues Mr Griffiths. "The laws are ambiguous and that has meant that local authorities have a wide range of ideas about their responsibilities."

One problem with the existing laws is that they do not place a statutory duty of care on owners and cannot take into account the emotional distress of an animal. "We believe there should be a new statutory duty of care," said a spokeswoman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). "It will put the onus on the owner to provide a minimum standard of care. If there is a breach then the owner will have an opportunity to put matters right before a prosecution was brought."

The RSPCA is also seeking a consolidation of the laws. It is confident that a new animal welfare bill targeting the issue of companion animals and pets will come out of the discussions. It wants a law based on the existing five freedoms outlined by the Farm and Animal Welfare Council, that includes the rights to freedom from hunger and thirst and from fear and distress.

"You can keep a dog in a shed for 24 hours a day but as long as it is fed and watered then we cannot step in," says the RSPCA. A horse, for example, can be tethered in a way that is potentially harmful - if it is tethered on a slope it may slip and fall down a bank and be strangled. "If the animal isn't actually in any physical distress then the owners cannot be prevented from doing such things."

According to the RSPCA: "There are a lot of cases where we have to stand by and just watch. We can't get involved until the border is crossed from suffering emotional distress to physical distress. We want to be able to stop these things before they happen rather than just mopping up afterwards."

Another major concern has been one-day animal sales held in a variety of premises, including church halls. "The problem with one day sales is about licensing," says Mr Griffiths. "Some local authorities have in the past granted licences under pet animals laws for one day sales, but we have advised against this. Some shows sell coi karp, but since they are so valuable they are usually well cared for. The same can't always be said for birds and reptiles ,which are often smuggled into the country. We have also issued guidance about so-called 'members only' events."

There are many different laws covering animal welfare and, according to Mr Griffiths, this is confusing for CIEH members. "There are overlaps - a guard dog can be lawful under one piece of legislation but dangerous under another. Pet shops have different interpretations of the dangerous wild animals act. Members of the public often buy an animal with no idea how large it is going to grow," he explains.
The Defra review is also expected to tackle the blurred division of responsibilities between animal health and human health. "It is something of a quandary for us," admits Mr Griffiths. "There is a difference of opinion within our organisation. Did the issue of protecting human health come first or was it the protection of animals. If you trace the laws back it is difficult to tell."

This quandary is also being examined by the European Commission, which this summer is to formally propose changes to European Union rules on the transport of animals, the first comprehensive update since 1995. The EU is expected to recommend a tightening of standards, including journey times, rest periods and the quality of accommodation on board lorries. At the same time, the Council of Europe, the political body that encompasses former communist countries to the east (including Russia), is drawing up its own Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport.

Although there are no specific licensing issues for environmental health officers in relation to animal exports, the CIEH has made it clear that it is unhappy with the idea of farm animals being transported for long hours across Europe and supports any moves to bring this practice to an end. Mr Griffiths believes that environmental health officers would be wise to keep an eye on developments. "There are issues surrounding the freshness of meat and there are good arguments that animals should not be stressed by travel," he says.

Around three million animals are exported between European Union countries a year, while 300,000 are exported beyond the EU and a further 500,000 are imported. Of those exported beyond the EU, around 66 per cent are exported for slaughter with the remainder exported for breeding purposes.
Beate Gminder, spokeswoman at the European Commission for Health and Consumer Protection, says that the EC is looking at ways to ensure that existing laws are better enforced - particularly in southern Europe. "We believe that our current legislation makes a big difference but it has to be properly applied," she says. "It is something of a negative picture. The laws are often violated and that is down to the member states. We have a different perception of animal welfare in northern EU countries as opposed to the southern ones. The problem is that on-the-spot controls are difficult and not considered a priority for some countries and export companies."

According to Ms Gminder, "we have always emphasised that enforcement of current rules is vital. We need the laws to be applicable on the ground." Unusually, British farmers find themselves in complete agreement with the European Commission; or at least on the view that problems stem from a lack of enforcement in some EU countries. The National Farmers Union backs the calls for harmonisation both of the law and enforcement across member states, together with the adoption of the Council of Europe's Convention by third countries transporting animals into the EU. "The directive needs to concentrate on the aspect of animal welfare in transit," says an NFU spokeswoman. "It should not be confused by attempting to broaden its remit to the control of infectious diseases. This will only lead to confusion and grey areas in the law regarding responsibility and enforcement."

But enforcement is coloured by the experience of foot and mouth, which the European Commission notes was exported to France from the UK at an animal rest point. Since then, all such rest points have been halted and animals must proceed directly to the point of slaughter. For lorries in bad condition that means that journeys must not be longer than eight hours while for lorries in good condition the maximum journey time is 24 hours.

But lorries in any condition can still take livestock to market. Under the EU plans, expensive vehicles may be required - with stricter monitoring and more work for trading standards officials who are responsible for checking the condition and cleanliness of vehicles and the way the animals have been loaded. The new laws are expected to work on the practical basis that rest stops will not be reintroduced. "If the animal is transported in a very good lorry then it is better for them to be taken to their destination in one go rather than having a series of short journeys," said Ms Gminder. "We need to improve ventilation on the lorries rather than getting them down and then up on the lorry again."

But this will mean an increasing burden for local government. "Like everyone else we have finite resources," says Tony Northcott of the Trading Standards Institute. "If we have to put more people into live export matters then it means taking them away from other areas we work in. The more officers we have the more we can do. If there is only one or two people in an area they cannot hope to keep up."
There are still many hurdles to be negotiated, though. Not least is the strong opposition among many backbench Labour MPs to any live exports. Periodically, one MP will seek to introduce a bill banning exports; they will not succeed, but it may have the effect of prodding the Government into diluting whatever Defra finally suggests. The Government has no legal scope to ban live exports but makes no secret that it prefers meat exports. The danger, as all parties agree, is that one set of "messy laws" is replaced by another - with ever more headaches for EHOs and trading standards officers.

The over-arching aim of all these reviews is of course, the streamlining across Europe of regulations for animal welfare. For example, Defra's task is to tailor its new UK legislation with European pet protection guidance and regulations. But one concern - expressed regularly by animal rights campaigners - is that as European and British legislation dovetails on both live exports and pets there is a danger that British standards will be lowered as part of a compromise with member states for whom animal rights is not a priority. "As far as the aspirations go it is true that some countries don't give the same priority to animal welfare," says Mr Griffiths. "It is generally considered that standards of care in the UK are higher than in many other European countries. Compliance of those standards is another issue. But I think it is unlikely our standards will be diluted."

A further concern is the approach of the non-EU states, who are signing up to the Council of Europe's convention for the protection of animals during international transport. Tougher policing of the existing laws, let alone new tighter regulations, would present transport operations in southern and eastern Europe with an uphill task in improving welfare. But Ms Gminder feels standards will remain intact when countries such as Poland and Slovenia join the EU. "Animal welfare in these countries is not that badly taken care of," she explains, "contrary to the prejudices that some people might have."

WHO SHOULD REGULATE?
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has recently suggested that consideration should be given to the creation of a national agency to carry out enforcement duties for regulated activities such as pet shops and breeding establishments.¹

Calling for national standards to be delivered at a regional level, the society wants to see the establishment of a new animal welfare service with responsibilities for enforcement of animal welfare legislation.² A national agency, believes the RSPCA, could also play a vital role in the care and protection of wildlife as well as helping to promote responsible pet ownership. According to the RSPCA, where local authority regulation of animal activity remains, whether on an interim or long-term basis, greater efforts should be made to improve consistency in approach between different local authorities. "I don't think there is any argument that animal welfare legislation needs a radical overhaul," says Joceline Tran, local government campaigns officer at the RSPCA, "but any new law will only be as good as the standard and effectiveness of enforcement.

"It is vital that local authorities continue to play a full part in the consultation process on a new bill. With more activities suggested for regulation, such as sanctuaries and livery yards, perhaps the time has come for enforcement agencies to start the debate about their future role in the enforcement process."
The continuing confusion over the status of one day pet sales has also prompted the RSPCA to call for a closing of "loopholes" in the current law.² The organisation has asked the Government for either "complete prohibition" or "stronger regulation" of such sales, so that welfare standards can be maximised. Legislation to regulate pet sales, says the RSPCA, must take into account, and be able to deal with, modern methods such as the sale of pets on the internet or in the thoroughfare of shopping centres: "The present understanding of 'keeping a pet shop' must be expanded and redefined to cover modern trends and current ambiguities, as well as future trends."² Critically, the society states that any new legislation should explicitly prohibit the sale of animals in clearly defined public places unless the seller is licensed.

References

1. Campaign news, RSPCA, June 2002.
2. Time to act - the RSPCA's submission to the Defra consultation on a new animal welfare bill.