Educated at Trinity College Cambridge, Peter Stevenson is a qualified English solicitor. He worked as a local government lawyer, then for many years as a theatre director and after that for the Law Society, before specialising in animal welfare.

In 2004 Peter won (jointly with Joyce D'Silva) the RSPCA's Lord Erskine Award in recognition of a 'very important contribution in the field of animal welfare'.

Peter was for 13 years Political & Legal Director of Compassion in World Farming. He now works freelance as a consultant. He has lobbied the UK and European Union (EU) political institutions for many years. More recently he has lobbied international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank.

He has played a leading role in winning the EU bans on veal crates, battery cages and sow stalls as well as a new status for animals in EU law as sentient beings.

Peter has drafted many Private Member's Bills for Members of the UK Parliament, two of which the UK ban on sow stalls and the Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Act 1991 have become law.

Peter has been involved in several high profile Judicial Review cases on the transport of farm animals, veal crates and broiler chickens, one of which went all the way to the European Court of Justice.

Peter has written many well-received reports summarising the scientific literature on animal transport, broiler chickens, farm animal mutilations, slaughter and the economics of intensive farming. In addition, he has written comprehensive legal analyses of EU legislation on farm animals and also of the impact of the WTO rules on animal welfare. Peter is also the author of the book A Far Cry From Noah on live animal exports.

Our interview with Peter Stevenson

1. How did you become involved in the field of animal protection law?

In the late 1980’s I was working in London for the Law Society, the professional body for English solicitors. In the early 80’s I had become vegetarian. Gradually during the 80’s I became more conscious of how badly we humans treat animals and felt that I wanted to work full-time in this field. The thing that more than any other brought animal issues to the front of my consciousness was the plight of the African elephant which at that time faced serious threats of extinction. The job that came up for me was with farm animals; I joined Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) as Political and Legal Director in 1991. My work has primarily been as a political lobbyist trying to get legislative reforms at both the UK and EU levels.

2. What kind of work do you do as an Animal Law Consultant?

I left CIWF 18 months ago and now work as a consultant. As during my time at CIWF, I do a range of work only some of which is legal work. I prepare submissions for animal organisations in response to Government consultations, again at both UK and EU levels; for example both the UK and the European Commission are consulting on their strategies for the next few years. I work as Political Adviser for Advocates for Animals which is based in Edinburgh ; I live in Scotland . At present my work for them is giving me a detailed involvement in the new Animal Welfare Bill which has just been introduced into the Scottish Parliament; a similar Bill has been introduced into the Parliament of England and Wales . These Bills are the first new core animal welfare legislation in Britain for nearly a century – the basic legislation in England dates from 1911 and that in Scotland from 1912.

In addition earlier this year I did a lot of lobbying concerning the detrimental impact of the World Trade Organisation rules on animal protection. Finally I am sometimes asked to do studies of the economics of industrial farming or animal transport; this is an area of particular interest for me.

3. You played a major role in achieving EU bans on veal crates, battery cages and sow stalls. What kind of strategies did you employ in each of these campaigns?

Three institutions combine to make legislation in the EU; the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council (which for farm animals comprises the Agriculture Minister for each Member   State ). Our strategy in each case involved:

• Setting out our argument clearly and concisely

• Working closely with those Members of the European Parliament who were willing to table amendments to the legislative text proposed by the Commission.

• Emphasising that scientific research supports our position. Politicians place much more trust in scientific research that shows that a practice is inhumane than in statements by an animal protection organisation. For example, it was very helpful, when lobbying for an EU ban on battery cages, to be able to say that the EU’s Scientific Veterinary Committee had concluded that the battery cage “has inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens�.

• Engaging in the economic argument. Politicians are reluctant to ban a practice if they believe that it will be expensive to do so. In each case we were able to show that a ban would lead to only a small increase in production costs, whereas the industry tended to run the argument that reforms would be very costly.

• Politicians are also reluctant to ban a practice if they feel there are no practicable alternatives. So we produced evidence showing that good, relatively humane alternatives were in existence and were proving to be successful both in welfare and economic terms.

• We tried to always be prepared to refute our opponents’ arguments quickly and convincingly

• The law-making process in the EU is slow so it was important to keep having fresh aspects of our argument to put to the politicians and other decision-makers.

4. Although you are not a trial lawyer, you have been involved in a number of high profile Judicial Review cases on the transport of farm animals, one of which went all the way to the European Court of Justice. Can you tell us about that case? What was the outcome?

In the mid 1990’s CIWF brought Judicial Review proceedings against the UK Minister of Agriculture. We argued that he had misdirected himself as to the law in stating that the EU’s free trade rules prevented him from banning the export of live calves to continental Europe . The calves were being exported for rearing as veal in veal crates in the Netherlands and France . The veal crate was already banned in the UK at that time on welfare grounds.

The High Court in London referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as it raised important issues of EU law. Core Articles of the EU Treaty prohibit Member States from restricting exports or imports. However, the Treaty provides certain exceptions to this: Member States may restrict exports or imports on grounds of, inter alia, public morality and protection of the health of animals. CIWF argued that, in light of the fact that the science shows that veal crates are highly damaging to calf health and welfare, the UK was entitled to ban the export of calves to crates on public morality grounds.

Before the ECJ gives a judgment, the Court’s Advocate-General gives an Opinion to advise the Judges. In this case the Advocate-General took a positive view of the public morality exception, saying that where in a particular Member  State matters of animal life and health had indeed become matters of public morality, that Member  State could, subject to certain provisos, ban the export of calves to veal crates. Unfortunately, the Court rejected this Opinion, but the Advocate-General’s positive approach gives some hope that a successful public morality defence could be mounted at both the ECJ and the WTO. That said, as this case shows, it is very difficult to get the ECJ to give a judgment that permits a restriction on trade as free trade is at he heart of the EU Treaty.

5. A number of articles that you have written concern the implications of the WTO requirements on animal welfare. [eg The World Trade Organisation Rules:A Legal Analysis of Their Adverse Impact on Animal Welfare] Could you outline a few of your key concerns?

The free trade rules of the WTO have already had a highly detrimental impact on measures designed to protect animals. U.S. laws to safeguard dolphins and initially their attempts to protect sea-turtles were declared to be inconsistent with the WTO rules. The EU has abandoned its ban on the import of furs from countries using the leghold trap, because of fears it could not survive a WTO challenge.

The WTO rules not only make it difficult to restrict imports but also make it hard to limit exports. The EU – like Australia - exports live cattle to the Middle East . The length of the journeys together with the brutal unloading and slaughter methods awaiting the animals at journey’s end make this an extremely cruel trade. Yet, even if the EU wished to ban this trade—which it does not— the WTO rules would arguably prevent it from so doing.

Crucially, the WTO rules are making it difficult for the EU to maintain its standards of farm animal welfare and introduce improvements. Enhanced welfare standards, such as those enacted by the EU for pigs and laying hens, generally involve increased production costs. This makes EU farmers vulnerable to imported meat and eggs produced to lower, and hence less costly, welfare standards as the WTO rules are usually viewed as preventing WTO members from restricting imports on welfare grounds. The danger that its farmers face of being undermined by lower-welfare imports makes it difficult for the EU to press ahead with welfare improvements.

6. We have had a number of discussions on Voiceless Law Talk about ‘animal rights’ vs ‘animal welfare’ strategies. In particular it has been suggested that welfare reforms may entrench a system which treats animals as property. What are your views on this?

In the UK (and I think in the rest of Europe ) talk of animal rights tends to alienate many politicians and much of the public who otherwise would be sympathetic to our concerns. In contrast to this, those same people have no problem with references to ‘animal welfare’ or ‘animal protection’. So, my experience in the UK and Europe is that if one wants to achieve legislative or policy reforms it is more effective not to base one’s argument on animal rights. From this you will gather that I am interested in achieving those reforms that are achievable at this historical juncture. I believe that as people (both politicians and the public) become more aware of animal issues through engagement with reforms to which they can agree, they will increasingly be ready to view animals not as property but as independent beings with their own right to life and a right not to be harmed by humans.

7. Can you briefly describe the ‘status’ of the animal protection movement in England? For example, is animal law being offered at university level? How many animal law groups (if any) are there?

I do not feel well qualified to answer the question about university courses; I know animal law is offered at Aberdeen University and I think also at Liverpool  University , but teaching of animal law is not as widespread as in the U.S. A new organisation has been set up called the Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare, the members of which are lawyers and legal academics.

8. What do you think are the major challenges facing the animal law movement in England?

A huge question. Let me talk about farm animals and the EU rather than just the UK . Despite certain legislative reforms most pigs and poultry in the EU continue to be farmed industrially. Our most immediate challenge is to preserve the ban on conventional battery cages due to come into force in 2012. The Directive that enacts that ban is to be reviewed over the next 12 months and the industry is pressing for the ban to be postponed or dropped.

We need a whole range of reforms for pigs, for example a ban on farrowing crates, more space, a requirement that pigs be provided with straw bedding, a ban on castration, etc.

We need to tackle the problems arising from selective breeding for very high productivity. Fast growing meat chickens suffer from painful leg disorders and heart failure. High yielding dairy cows suffer from lameness, mastitis and digestive disorders; many are culled after just 2-3 lactations as they are infertile and in very poor condition. If not addressed these problems are set to get worse.

We need legislation to end the industrial farming of turkeys, ducks and fish; all these are major problems but tend not to get too much attention.

The long distance transport of animals is a major problem in the EU. We must continue to lobby for a maximum limit of 8 hours to be placed on the transport of animals to slaughter or for further fattening.

9. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia's budding animal lawyers?

I think all of us just need to keep working, bringing cases and pressing for legislative reform. When pressing for new legislation or policy changes, I think it is crucial to be on top of (or make sure someone in the team is on top of) the scientific and economic perspectives.

Finally, let’s be aware how important it is for lawyers to be involved in this field. The involvement of lawyers can give the movement a weight and respectability that can help move our concerns centre-stage.