Memorandum submitted by Pets At Home
PETS AT
HOME RESPONSE
TO THE
DRAFT ANIMAL
WELFARE BILL
Pets at Home is the largest pet and pet product
retailer in the UK currently trading from more than 150 sites
spread throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As such we have a comprehensive knowledge of the licensing of
pet shops and work closely with the main trade bodies and many
welfare groups. We have a keen interest in the welfare of companion
animals, their interaction with, and benefit to their owners.
Although actively involved in a variety of consultations,
most recently I chaired the group established by Defra to consider
the effectiveness of the existing legislation concerning pet shops
and how the proposed Animal Welfare Bill could be developed to
overcome any perceived problems. The last meeting of this "Pet
Vending working group" took place too close to the Draft
Bill being published for the final document to be considered.
We welcomed and supported Defra's decision to
review the legislation concerning animal welfare and welcome the
recently published Draft Bill. It contains many practical positive
that reflect current thoughts on animal welfare and the prevention
of suffering.
With regards to the Draft Bill we offer the
following comments.
1. Many of the words and phrases used are
subjective and open to interpretation. Whilst we realise that
this is normal it does make it difficult to assess the ultimate
impact the Bill.
A few examples taken from the section on welfare
include;
— Section 3(1) ". . . if he fails
to take reasonable steps to ensure the animal's welfare."
— Section 3(4) ". . . an animal's
welfare shall be taken to consist of the meeting of its needs
in an appropriate manner, . . ." going on to say in "the
need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns" and
"any need to be housed with, or apart from, others of its
own or other species"
— Section 3(5b) "its degree of
domestication"
Some of these seem to depend upon assessing
an animal's psychological needs which can be particularly difficult
to describe or determine.
These terms will need to be tested in court
so that case law can be established but will be clarified to some
extent by the proposal to draft codes of practice. However since
this will take time the situation in the interim period is unclear.
We understand that codes will be drawn up for
business activities such as pet shops as well as for different
types of animals either at species or generic level. It is imperative
that any proposed code be produced with as wide a consultation
with all stakeholders as possible so that they are balanced and
practical.
2. Section 6 of the Bill deals with regulation
and states "The appropriate national authority may by regulations
make"
The biggest problem with the current licensing
system for pet shops is that the conditions upon which licenses
are issued vary from one authority to another. A largely workable
code of practice already exists for "pet vending" in
the form of the Local Government Association document "Model
standards for pet shop licence conditions." Although these
have been endorsed by the CIEH, licensing authorities are not
obliged to adopt them. This situation is not acceptable as it
leads to a variable minimum standard of animal welfare. Although
it is not clear from the Bill that a statutory code will be issued
we would recommend that this be the case.
3. The intention to introduce a statutory
minimum age of 16 for the purchase of pet animals reflects the
current policy of respectable shops and Pet Care Trust members
including ourselves. As such, therefore we welcome this proposal.
4. Without wishing to reproduce the final
document of the "Pet Vending working party" as participants
alongside the RSPCA, CIEH, LACORS and representatives of hobby
groups we endorse and commend its suggestions. The main points
include:
— 18 month licenses would be unpopular
and difficult to manage. A perpetual licence which avoids the
administrative costs of annual reapplication and licensing was
felt to be a more practical way forward. This would require authorities
to inspect, annually charging for this as appropriate. Substantive
changes such as ownership or the intention to stock animals of
a type not included on the licence would require the licensee
to apply for a variation of the conditions.
— Thought should be given to improving
the competence of licensing personnel. Although there are many
very capable inspectors, abilities and knowledge were felt to
be too variable to achieve national uniformity. Consideration
should be given to assessing councils on this activity and allowing
them to "contract out" the inspection process to either
neighbouring authorities or some other demonstrably competent
organisation.
— Any proposed code of practice should
include reference to stock densities or some other relevant parameter
so that the number of animals that can be accommodated can be
calculated. This subject is the one most likely to lead to disagreements.
5. Annex L on page 100 of the Draft Bill
introduces the concept of veterinary presence at all inspections.
This is a suggestion that we are opposed to. Apart from the cost
burden that this introduces, vets from general practice can contribute
very little to a routine inspection. Some authorities insist on
veterinary presence to defer responsibility but this further interpretation
of licence conditions is rarely helpful. Local authorities should,
of course, have access to veterinary opinion wherever justified
and it would be useful for a list to be compiled of relevant experts
who may or may not be veterinary qualified.
6. Wholesalers and Breeders—We believe
that anybody who buys pet animals with the sole intention of reselling
them to pet retailers rather than the public should be classed
as a wholesaler and be licensed in the same way as pet shops.
The majority of these businesses import animals or buy them from
hobby or commercial breeders.
Annex D estimates that the number of establishments
breeding and selling small animals to the pet trade to be six.
This is a significant underestimate since there are more wholesalers
than this, each of whom generally have a number of commercial
breeders. We could see that some form of registration scheme,
rather than full licensing, could be useful for those breeders
operating in a commercial context but who are not retailing animals
as pets to the general public.
25 August 2004
| 
