This paper is designed to demonstrate that practical, applied research, which is popular with the farming community, is an important part of the decision-making process. Three recent or current projects are described in areas where strategic and basic science has made an important contribution to the debate but has not provided solutions. Confinement at farrowing, tail biting and fully slatted finishing systems are all areas of concern to producers and legislators alike and these concerns are not confined to the UK. The results of surveys of industrial practice have suggested that: (a) non-confined systems may perform as well as farrowing crates, (b) tail-docking appears an effective control measure for tail biting but more importantly, the relative influence of different management practices is measurable using the techniques described and could provide solutions to the tail-biting problem, and (c) experimental studies of finishing systems have produced ambivalent results and a new approach may be of value. The recent Scientific Veterinary Committee Report of the European Union is used extensively as the basis for the discussion.

There is a wealth of animal welfare legislation affecting the egg industry. Legislation can be over-prescriptive and can be a barrier to progress even where welfare benefits would result. Codes of practice (e.g. Freedom Food; The Lion) present a more flexible way forward, but to be effective they have to be both understood and credible in the eyes of the consumer.

With the increasing globalization of trade, welfare legislation must be framed to protect domestic industry from unfair competition.

We are now trading in a world market and it is vital we are aware of the chicken meat production systems and ethics employed in other European and third world countries. All these countries have generally a lower cost of production than the United Kingdom. The strength of the United Kingdom industry is the level of efficiency and biological performance and we must be careful not to load excessive additional cost onto our industry by the introduction of onerous welfare legislation. One of the major points of difference between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world is that of stocking density. In the United Kingdom stocking density is laid down in the ‘Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock — Domestic Fowls’. The pace of change within the industry has made this single figure approach obsolete. Industry bodies, such as the British Poultry Meat Federation and the National Farmers' Union, have an important rôle in representing producers' views to Government and consumers. We need more concentration and funding on research and finding solutions, and less on ever more ways of measuring problems.

Ruminant producers blame almost equally supermarkets and Government for welfare legislation for many reasons but mainly because legislation incurs additional administrative and policing costs. All of these are eventually paid for by the producer, increasing their production costs but not those of their overseas competitors. There is little doubt that the final responsibility for legislation lies with each of us as individual consumers. A significant factor influencing our view of animal welfare is our upbringing, associating ‘nice animals’ with similar feelings to ourselves. However, such instinctive principles are generally forgotten when we are asked to pay a premium for them in the supermarket. Hence the main activators of welfare legislation are the ‘evangelical few’. Supermarkets claim that the demands they impose on their suppliers are simply a reflection of their customers’ demands. However another reason is to allow supermarkets clearly to differentiate their ruminant products to encourage consumers through the door but it has been difficult for them to pass on a premium to their suppliers for meeting tighter specifications for which the consumer will not pay a premium. This dilemma has recently reached breaking point in the pig industry with the ending of the Malton pig contract. To move farm animal welfare forward requires a firm basis of ‘systems’ welfare research which would also act as an effective vehicle for technology transfer to producers. Nevertheless, the main dilemma, our reluctance as consumers to pay for high welfare products, will continue to restrict progress. If, however, high welfare systems could be shown to improve product eating quality for which consumers will pay a premium, developments in animal welfare will be rapidly and willingly accepted by producers.

Live animal transport has a long history, dating back to biblical times. Today, the national and international transport of live animal is governed principally by a number of European Union Directives. In the UK these have been distilled into the welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997. This is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but in practice the day-to-day administration of the regulations is devolved to local authorities. It is feared that this may lead to regional differences in interpretation. The situation is made more complex by the addition of further layers of bureaucracy from, for example, the Road Haulage Association, supermarkets and the multiplicity of quality assurance schemes. The responsibility for the lawful transport of live animals from farm to market or abattoir lies with the supplier who, under recent legislation, must satisfy himself or herself that the carrier is competent to transport the particular class of livestock. Similarly, the insurance of the animals during transit is the supplier's responsibility. The multiplicity of rules and regulations governing stocking densities, journey times, lairage, the cleaning and disinfection of vehicles and vehicle construction standards is resulting in many carriers deciding not to continue in the business of live animal transport.

Livestock markets are under constant pressure from a variety of sources as regards animal welfare. Their openness to the public helps to ensure that only acceptable welfare practices are operated. These practices are set out in the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990, supplemented by a Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals in Livestock Markets. These ‘rules’ represent minimum standards and there is a continuing pressure to further improve welfare in auction marts. This comes from the market operators themselves, from consumers via the large retail outlets, and from a small but vociferous minority who oppose the production of livestock for food. All concerned with any part of the food chain have a rôle to play in ensuring a continuing improvement in animal welfare.

The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) is responsible for the enforcement of the welfare legislation governing the slaughter of a wide range of food animal species. The principal legislation is contained in the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (WASK) which give effect to the Provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC on the Protection of Animals at Time of Slaughter or Killing, as contained in the EU Official Journal No. 340, 31/12/93. Codes of practice, prepared and issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food after consultation with all interested parties, provide guidance in respect of these welfare regulations. The legislation governing animal transit are contained in the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 (WATO) which is enforced by local authorities, although MHS officers at abattoirs monitor the unloading of livestock and carry out ante-mortem inspections. Animal welfare standards, which must never be compromised, should be continually improved and based on sound science rather than on uninformed opinion and anthropomorphism. There is a need for more high quality research on animal welfare, for clear concise user-friendly codes of practice for the industry, and for continued education of all parties involved, including consumers.

A description is provided of the development of quality assurance in the Scottish beef and lamb industry during the period 1988-98. The contributions of many organizations and individuals are explained and three essential development phases are identified: setting the standards, gaining commitment from the industry and establishing independent credible assessment procedures. While Scotland has achieved some economic advantage, the author acknowledges that much has still to be done to reward all participating sectors.

There is varying understanding about life for farm animals. The majority of farm animals have gone from the land, only to be caged, crammed and confined behind the closed doors of the factory farm — battery hens sentenced to remain for life in wire cages, broiler chickens reared in overcrowded conditions and pigs tethered and confined in narrow stalls or in equally narrow farrowing crates. Other farm animals are sent abroad to the cruel veal crate system of continental Europe or to abattoirs where welfare standards, both during transportation and at the time of slaughter, are often appallingly low. Many of the animals slaughtered in Britain, or for the live export trade, are processed through live auction markets. A recent investigation revealed many instances of infringements of the regulations governing the treatment and welfare of animals at markets. The controversy over BSE and the cloning and genetic engineering of farm animals have all resulted in close scrutiny and inquisitions by the public into the conditions in which our farm animals are reared, treated and slaughtered. Those involved in the food industry and also those who care about the welfare of animals and recognize their sentiency must take action to ensure that the animals are reared with due thought to their behavioural needs and well being and, when the time comes, granted a quiet and humane death. For far too long in food production programmes farm animals have paid a heavy price in suffering. From birth to death, farm animals must be treated humanely and with respect.

In answer to the question ‘who writes the rules?’ relative to animal welfare the only accurate answer there can be is that the animal writes the rules. However in deciding the current animal welfare standards adopted by society the consumer plays a key rôle as the retail market is constantly working to meet the consumer's concerns. The consumer has a real, if often uninformed, concern regarding animal welfare. Animal welfare science clearly demonstrates that current systems are often at odds with the needs of animals. Ethical sectors of the food chain will put in place systems which reflect knowledge of animal welfare science as far as is currently possible and not merely the consumer perception in this area. The ability to deliver good animal welfare depends upon the willingness of the food chain to provide and the consumer to pay. The development of assurance schemes which truly address animal welfare science, translated into accurate labelling and backed by an awareness programme will make it easy for consumers to take the responsibility which, as citizens, they wish to do. We will then have an accurate picture of society's concerns to which the food chain can respond.

This paper explains how research can contribute to an understanding of the welfare issues associated with transportation and the value of basing legislation to protect the welfare of animals on scientific evidence.However, it also indicates the limitations of existing research methodology and identifies where research can make a clear contribution to the amendment of existing legislation. The research should accurately reflect commercial practice and should focus upon the provision of readily transferable technological improvements and relevant legislation that will optimize both welfare and productivity. Research into the effects of transport on the welfare of animals involves the investigation of a multicomponent process which can potentially affect the welfare of animals in many ways. The research should identify and quantify those components of transport environments and practices which constitute a major risk to the welfare of animals and determine the optimum conditions for transportation based upon matching the conditions and procedures to the animals’ biological requirements. A range of different measurements have been made to evaluate the responses of farm animals to transportation. Physiological and biochemical variables should be selected to reflect responses or disturbances in the major homeostatic systems influenced by transport environments and practices. The value of the different measurements is strengthened by an understanding of the action and functional significance of the responses. Animal welfare legislation should be based upon sound scientific evidence relating to the animals’ physiological and behavioural requirements and their interaction with their immediate environment. Nowhere is this more important than in animal transportation.

The design and management of housing play a major rôle in the welfare of most farm animal species and are implicated in all of the ‘five freedoms’. Housing has always been an aspect of livestock production systems which is readily amenable to legislation and the majority of current UK (and EU) welfare legislation relates generally or specifically to housing. An area of concern in current legislation is the tendency to legislate on housing systems rather than animal state, which leads to disagreements in interpretation and anomalies in implementation. Housing legislation is furthest advanced in the simple-stomached species, rather than in ruminant species which have traditionally been farmed more extensively. However, issues of housing and welfare certainly require to be addressed in other species. Whilst scientific research does underlie many of the existing housing regulations, it has not always been correctly interpreted or sensibly applied. Many dilemmas exist when overviewing the balance of scientific evidence relating to contentious housing systems in all species. In many areas, requirements of quality assurance schemes are now more rigorous and wide reaching than legislation but these are not always based on scientific evidence. However, many component-specific recommendations have been scientifically established and animal welfare could be significantly improved by their application. In the future, advances in fundamental science are needed to better establish legislative criteria. Applied scientists should continue to be used as independent advisers in consideration of future legislation and should be more proactive in information transfer outwith the normal scientific media.

Considerable information is available on which to base practical recommendations for enhanced animal welfare. There is evidence of a reasonable flow of information between researchers, farmers, producers' organizations, legislators and the public, although more readily assimilated forms of information are required. New approaches to welfare assessment may allow the public to evaluate production systems in a more balanced way. As the urbanization of society increases, the rôle of education becomes more important to provide information about the reality of on-farm practices. Increasing use will be made of information technology to implement technological advances. Using interactive methods of on-farm assessment of welfare and decision support tools, it would seem possible to engage the producer to a greater extent in the process of improving standards. Measures of public willingness to pay for enhanced welfare provide valuable information about the utility value of animal welfare, influence the views of politicians and producers and ultimately determine production systems.

UK welfare standards have evolved and are continuing to develop, as our knowledge increases and with the greater interest of a larger proportion of the general public. The government issues official ‘codes of practice’ on animal welfare, one for each of the major categories of farm livestock, addressed personally to every registered farmer in the country. UK legislation is continually updated, so that those with responsibility for keeping livestock have a basic set of rules which are relatively specific and which are enforced by random inspection, usually by the State Veterinary Service. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) is responsible to the Minister and, with an element of independence, is asked to assist with the development of animal welfare standards in the UK FAWC is made up of 23 independent members, with a wide variety of skills, knowledge and experience, who, usually in working groups of about six people (with MAFF advisers and secretariat support), are commissioned to investigate and report on particular areas where farm animal welfare standards require attention or revision. The way in which FAWC operates is described using, as examples, recent reports on sheep and laying hens, to demonstrate how the government makes use of FAWC reports in revising codes of practice and legislation. Reference is also made to the way in which quality assurance schemes are being developed. These add a further dimension to the ‘rules’ which affect UK farm animal welfare standards

Well balanced and effective legislation is required to protect animals and to address the concerns of organizations with interests in animal welfare. The principal aim of animal welfare legislation is the protection of animals by the prevention of suffering, pain and distress. This can be achieved by identifying animals’ needs and by the prohibition of procedures having a detrimental effect on welfare. Welfare policy and legislation are determined by many factors, including the results from government-funded research, advice from bodies such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council and other interested organizations and pressure groups, and compliance cost assessments. The mechanisms and processes of consultation and drafting legislation, and of the passage of a bill through parliament, are lengthy procedures and take a considerable time to complete. Although animal welfare issues in Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it is not envisaged that there will be a divergence of policy within the UK as a whole. The legislation itself is clearly important but it is also imperative that it is actively and effectively enforced by all the relevant authorities. All aspects of animal welfare legislation are continually reviewed on both a UK and an EU basis.

Traditionally, the UK parliament has been legislatively supreme: it can pass or repeal whatever measure it wishes. Membership of the European Community and the World Trade Organization has fundamentally changed this situation. Parliament and government are both constrained in what they may do if their action would conflict with the principle of free trade, to the extent that, under EC law, the domestic courts may override the will of Parliament. Provisions which allow nations to introduce restrictions in order to protect public morality, or the life and health of animals, have not been effective in providing a basis for the introduction of animal protection measures. Amendments to the Treaty of Rome, recognizing the sentiency of animals, is an advance, but what difference it will make in practice is as yet unclear. The apparent inability of a nation state to give effect to the will of its citizens raises important constitutional issues: it has serious implications for democracy and the rule of law and undermines the legitimacy of the political process.