Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
MS JACKIE
BALLARD, DR
ARTHUR LINDLEY
AND MR
MICHAEL FLOWER
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q60 Chairman: When you say beneficial
or necessary, how do you form your judgment as to whether some
things are in or out?
Dr Lindley: Are you asking how
the RSPCA would form it?
Q61 Chairman: Yes.
Dr Lindley: We would look to the
net welfare benefit or detriment. Neutering, for example, is in
the welfare interest of the animal itself and of the population
at large in many cases to avoid over-breeding. The removal of
the tails of pigs in more intensive rearing systems is sometimes
necessary. We have argued with our own farming systems it is only
sometimes necessary to prevent the greater welfare adverse effect
of pigs biting each other and developing aggressive tendencies.
In that instance and in other instances we can see a net welfare
benefit.
Q62 Mr Mitchell: I would like to ask
about tailed dogs. You want to ban all tailed dogs, even working
dogs, Customs and Excise dogs or whatever.
Dr Lindley: We have seen no evidence
so far—and the RSPCA does try to work on the basis of good
evidence—that convinces us that the docking of tails is
a necessary measure to prevent damage or injury.
Q63 Mr Mitchell: Have you seen evidence
that it is in fact damaging?
Dr Lindley: There is clear evidence
that the docking of a tail causes pain and distress in the short
term and social problems in some cases in the longer term. So
it is quite clear that the docking of a tail causes some suffering.
Setting that against potential other suffering that might ensue
were the tail not to be docked, we have seen no adequate evidence
to demonstrate a greater harm that would result from not docking
tails than results from docking.
Mr Mitchell: It does not seem to me there
is much evidence either way. A vet in Grimsby who was concerned
that docking should be maintained for breeding purposes and to
avoid injuries to tails, which cause a lot of problems, invited
me along to watch him dock a new litter. I was actually too squeamish
to watch the job. I was in the room next door with my ear pressed
to the door. I heard nothing, no squeaks, no protests, no pain.
He brought them straight in to show them to me, they were only
a day or two old and there was no evidence of distress at all.
If it is done in those conditions what is wrong with it?
Ms Atherton: Would you like it?
Mr Mitchell: I would not like it, no.
There is an analogy with circumcision. I am not circumcised.
Q64 Chairman: Is there anything else
you would like to tell us?
Dr Lindley: It would be simpler
to refer you to the information provided by Defra's own animal
welfare division which we have included as an annex to our submission
where they discuss the pain that is derived from the operation
itself and the behaviour and social difficulties that can arise
in a dog that is unable to signal particularly in aggressive
encounters subsequent in its life. The information is all there.
Clearly opinions of individual veterinary surgeons will vary.
Assessing a level of pain in an individual animal is a subjective
matter to a degree. There is clear evidence of short-term nervous
pain which should be treated by pain-killers. The fact that it
is advisable to use pain-killers indicates the presence of pain.
There are a number of instances, not always, where the surgery
of the docking can result in abnormal growth of nerve tissue,
so-called neuromas which are extremely painful in the long term,
and there is evidence of behavioural problems because the dog
uses its tail as one of the important signaling devices in encounters
with other dogs to establish dominance or submission and, therefore,
to avoid aggressive fighting encounters. The lack of a tail and
the removal of it is a significant issue for a dog.
Q65 Mr Mitchell: Does that evidence apply
to dogs of one or two days old? If it is done for breeding purposes
and the dogs are very young, what is the evidence of pain from
the tail docking? In your evidence you say there is a suggested
connection between tail docking and urinary incontinence in puppies.
This is not proven, it is not hard and fast evidence, it is only
a suggestion.
Dr Lindley: In this case it is
the evidence compiled by Defra's veterinary animal welfare division
that is the general consensus of opinion. It is not proven and
it is one of the difficulties in scientific examination of pain.
It is very difficult for you to prove that I feel pain and vice
versa. It is also difficult to prove that a dog experiences pain.
The weight of opinion certainly in this case is that there is
pain caused. There is certainly also clear evidence of structures
like neuromas developing which are known to be extremely painful
in some cases. There is certainly clear evidence of pain and longer-term
problems arising in some cases.
Q66 Mr Mitchell: There is also evidence
of damage arising from those which have tails that get damaged.
Dr Lindley: That is evidence we
have yet to see.
Q67 Mr Mitchell: One of the submissions
sent to us from the Council for Docked Breeds told us, in terms
of a Swedish study, that every third German pointer with a long
tail has suffered from more or less serious tail injuries. You
tend to dismiss that. There is evidence of damage either way.
Dr Lindley: I would not want to
go into detail about that Swedish study. It was not a scientifically
constructed study.
Q68 Mr Mitchell: Have you looked at it?
Dr Lindley: Yes. Clearly some
dogs do suffer tail injuries. The indications from conversations
with veterinary surgeons that we have had are that most dog tail
injuries result in a domestic environment with tails being shut
in doors. Injuries do arise, but a decision to take a prophylactic
stance of causing a mutilation to all dogs of a particular breed
in the expectation that possibly it might prevent the pain in
some we find unacceptable.
Q69 Mr Mitchell: I accept that point.
You cannot anticipate which dog's tail is going to be damaged
at a later stage, but you do seem to dismiss the evidence of damage
to tails where they are kept on.
Dr Lindley: No. I would not say
it is fair to say that we dismiss it. We do not find it a significant
body of evidence to weigh against the pain and distress that we
are aware is caused by docking.
Q70 Mr Mitchell: The suggestion in your
evidence is that a ban on tail docking, which several of the submissions
to Defra want to retain for working dogs, should be in place for
at least two years so that a true picture can emerge of the extent
to which working dogs suffer compared to non-working dogs. That
just seems daft.
Dr Lindley: Forgive me. Why would
it be daft to seek to gather evidence to inform decisions?
Q71 Mr Mitchell: Because you are supposed
to protect animals.
Dr Lindley: Exactly, which is
what we are seeking to do.
Q72 Mr Mitchell: By a two-year experiment.
Dr Lindley: We understand that
there is some disagreement over this subject. It is clear, as
you have already indicated yourself, that the evidence is unclear
and particularly the evidence that is brought forward for the
benefits of docking seems unclear to us. We would not wish to
persist with a situation which is contrary to the long-term welfare
of the animal. In our judgment, at the moment that is probably
best served by not docking tails, but it is clear that if the
matter is to be finally resolved it needs good evidence to make
that resolution. You will only gain that good evidence if tails
are not docked so that you can assess the level of injury, if
there be injuries, as a consequence. We seek to gather good evidence
to inform best welfare decisions.
Q73 Chairman: In terms of working dogs,
you put the potential removal of the risk of the damage to the
tail of the dog at a higher level than dealing with the other
discomforting results of docking for breed purposes which you
outlined earlier. Is that the right balance to understand why
you say, in the case of working dogs, we ought to have a period
to gather the evidence? In other words you are saying there could
be an exception for a period whereas for breed purposes you are
entirely clear that the potential problems to the dog outweigh
any benefits that may come for breed purposes. Is that right?
Dr Lindley: We cannot see any
justification for causing that injury that is caused by the docking
of tails for cosmetic purposes, which is the breed objective.
Q74 Chairman: Can I just raise with you
one of the points about the construction of this Bill which is
in fact brought out in your evidence when under section 1 of the
Bill you talk about the exemptions to the ban under section 1(5)
and then you say, "We do not propose to go into detail here
on draft secondary legislation that has not been published".
Then you give us a 10 point list of exceptions as far as mutilatory
activity is concerned. Are you happy as an organisation that so
much of the detail of this Bill is on a take me on trust basis?
You may recall some of the questions I asked earlier. I am still
somewhat confused between a Bill that annunciates certain new
general principles about animal welfare matters but leaves an
enormous amount of detail to be filled in. For example, in terms
of the provision of food and conditions for pet owners which could
be relevant to a prosecution under the welfare provisions of the
Bill, all of that is in the "to be determined" column
and yet we are taking on trust that somehow it will all be alright
on the night because the Government will be asking Parliament
to agree to this general new term about welfare without any of
the real detail being there underpinning it. Are you happy about
that?
Ms Ballard: We accept that codes
of practice for different species are going to take time to evolve.
There is parallel legislation in New Zealand where they have passed
a similar welfare offence and duty of care provision, but the
codes of practice have followed on and have been the result of
a lot of consultation with different organisations. The important
thing in terms of enabling prosecutions to take place or preventing
suffering from taking place is that people know that they have
a duty of care. It is not just about not being cruel to your animal,
it is about actively caring for it and making sure that it has
access to food and water, a reasonable environment to live in,
shelter, freedom from pain and suffering, and those five criteria
are laid out there. As long as those five criteria are in place
we are content that it is workable in advance of the specific
codes of practice coming into being.
Q75 Paddy Tipping: I think it is clear
that the RSPCA have been working closely with Defra. Could you
just spell out for us the nature of your involvement with the
Bill so far and then talk to us a little bit about the kind of
discussions that are presently going on about those codes?
Mr Flower: I think our involvement
with Defra is as was said by the Minister earlier.
Q76 Paddy Tipping: I like to check these
things out.
Mr Flower: Defra have set up a
number of working parties to deal with specific areas relating
to the Bill. There has been an enforcement working group, there
have been groups set up to discuss other aspects of it and we
have had representatives on most, if not all, of the working groups.
So there has been a fairly extensive discussion. It is not just
RSPCA and Defra, it is other organisations as well, all of the
interested stakeholders, there have been fairly close discussions
between us about particular aspects as far as they relate to cruelty,
the welfare offence and enforcement because those are areas in
which we tend to specialise to a certain extent. I think overall,
as I said earlier, we have been very happy with Defra's attitude
to our input.
Q77 Paddy Tipping: And the work that
is now taking place on the new code, the timetables in the back
of the Bill, are they realistic?
Mr Flower: It will be a lot of
work. Codes of practice in particular will be hard going. I think
the point that we would like to stress is that at the moment clauses
1 to 5 in the Bill do stand alone and they are not reliant on
the issue of regulations which I think will primarily deal with
the licensing of establishments and which may mean carrying over
existing legislation which will be relatively simple, nor is it
reliant on codes of practice. It would be a matter of great regret
if the progress of the Bill were to be delayed because of the
on-going work that is required with regulation or codes of practice.
There is so much value in the Bill in its entirety that I think
it would be unfortunate if it were to be sidetracked by the difficulties
with regulation and codes of practice.
Q78 Paddy Tipping: There is a fundamental
difference of opinion around clause 53 which is about the invertebrates.
Why is Defra reluctant to extend the Bill?
Ms Ballard: Reluctant to extend
it to include invertebrates?
Q79 Paddy Tipping: Yes.
Ms Ballard: We can tell you why
we want it to be extended in a limited way to include cephalopods
but we cannot tell you the detail of why they are reluctant, although
I suspect it is the same reason, it is to do with scientific evidence
of the ability to feel pain and to suffer.
Dr Lindley: I hope the principle
that guides all of us is that if an animal is capable of suffering
it should receive protection. The issue then comes down to which
animals are capable of suffering. It is always going to be a matter
of judgment in the end. As I said earlier, you cannot prove even
that some other human actually feels pain in the way you understand
it but you can gather a lot of evidence which will lead you to
one conclusion. There is something of a difference of opinion
between us and Defra. We are satisfied that the bulk of evidence
in relation to the cephalopods, the octopus, squid, cuttlefish
group of animals, is sufficient to satisfy most people that they
do feel pain. There was a list of criteria developed back in the
early 1990s by the Institute of Medical Ethics which have been
taken on by most, if not all, scientists as the criteria by which
you try and assess whether an animal can or cannot suffer and
it includes things to do with the brain structure and the nervous
structures, their response to pain-killers and other physiological
factors and some behavioural indicators as well. We have looked
at the evidence in relation to cephalopods against those criteria
and we are satisfied they are met. I think it is also important
to remember that the Animal Scientific Procedures Act, which is
outside this legislation, the Animal Procedures Committee, which
is a body of scientists and industry representatives, and some
welfare bodies that advise the Minister on that Act last year
made a strong recommendation to the Minister that all of these
cephalopods should be included within that Act for the same reasons,
that they are capable of suffering.
| 
