Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 111-119)

MS JANET NUNN, MS MERIEL FRANCE, MR STEVE ZLOTOWITZ AND MR STEVE FAIRBURN

7 SEPTEMBER 2004

  Q111 Chairman: Can I welcome you to this second session of taking evidence on the draft Animal Welfare Bill. May I just apologise on behalf of the Committee if we look a little thin on the ground; as you may have gathered from the monitors behind me the Government has put on two statements this afternoon, and given that this is the first day back after the recess there may well be quite a lot of colleagues who feel that they must be in for those statements before coming to join us. Nonetheless, we are quorate and we would like to make a start in taking evidence. Could I just say, as a general health warning this afternoon, to those, particularly, who are going to appear before the Committee, I am aware from having read the evidence that this is a subject which stirs, as they say, strong views, and, unsurprisingly, not everybody agrees with what other people say. Tempting as it may be to use this public platform of evidence to give your views about what other people say I would be most grateful if you could focus upon the evidence that you wish to give about the area of interest that you have and let the Committee make its mind up about what other people say as a different opinion to yours. There will be every opportunity for you to let the Committee have your views, but I just would like you to reflect carefully on what I have said. In this first session we have the Pet Care Trust, and I would like formally to welcome Janet Nunn, the Chief Executive of the Pet Care Trust, Meriel France, the Education and Training Manager of the same organisation and Mr Steve Zlotowitz, the partner of Pet Mart, a pet shop in Beeston in Nottingham. You are all most welcome. Could I begin our questioning to ask both of the organisations a very simple question: could you tell me—because we have got an enormous amount of information to get through and you are best able to pick out from your evidence and your own thoughts on this Bill—the one thing that you really think commends it to the Committee and the one thing that you think is an issue that you would not like us to forget by way of a deficiency or a concern about the way that the Bill is drafted? So, perhaps, Janet Nunn, I might ask you to respond to that opening question.

  Ms Nunn: Thank you, Chairman. I think the one thing that commends it is that it is a great opportunity for us to look at the whole animal welfare/companion animal welfare sector and it is an opportunity for us to bring our legislation and our standards up-to-date. That is the main thing—the opportunity to do that. The challenge, did you say? Was that the second part of your question?

  Q112 Chairman: You have given us the plus point of bringing the legislation up-to-date. That bit is registered. It is the one thing that we should not forget by way of your concerns about the way the Bill is drafted. By that I mean either something that is there that you do not like or something that is not there that you would like.

  Ms Nunn: There is, I think, the danger that we are forgetting the positive side that pet ownership brings, and by perhaps focusing on the negative side we are not looking enough, again, to use this as an opportunity to do some positive work. So we have got, for example, focuses on vets accompanying inspectors for visiting pet shops and so on when, as we put in our submission, it is not necessary, and looking at adequate compensation and timely compensation when things go wrong. I feel that really that more positive focus would have benefited the whole of this legislation.

  Q113 Chairman: Right. Mr Fairburn, do you want to give us the benefit of your summary?

  Mr Fairburn: Yes, I think this is a very good opportunity to bring the legislation up-to-date and, obviously, bring in quite a lot of improvements which will lift the general welfare of animals in the country. I would reiterate what Janet said; I think there are an awful lot of positives in caring for animals and I think the public should have access to animals from reputable sources, which of course includes responsible pet shops like breeders and ourselves. What I would not like to think would happen is that people would be worried about owning animals because of any potential liabilities that they see from any legislation, either from the first draft or the second draft with codes of practice.

  Q114 Alan Simpson: I want to try and pressure you a bit, Janet, to say that given that we are having to deal with this in legislative form, what exactly would you be meaning when you said that you wish there was a more positive focus? We are going to have to take that and try and explore areas that the Government may not necessarily have a fixed position on and which are open to them, but they will, almost certainly, say to us: "So specifically, what are you wanting either changing in the existing wording or adding into the existing wording?" Where would we find the form of words that would reflect the focus that you are looking for?

  Ms Nunn: I think the opportunity might come through more in the secondary legislation where, if it wants to embrace what at the moment is in the model licence conditions and not something that is mandatory, it would actually be enormously helpful if it were to be mandatory for local authorities to follow whatever standards are adopted in the secondary legislation, and, on the back of that, actually further promote information, not just on what businesses do but actually say that this should be something that is done generally by enforcement bodies as well. So that this information is there, per se, absolutely by law and we do it as the Pet Care Trust does. It would be enormously helpful, I think, if the Government were to think of that positive side at the same time as just legislating businesses according to, if you like, model licence conditions.

  Mr Fairburn: I think one of the dangers is in the secondary legislation when we talk about codes of practice, because I understand that there will be thought given to producing species-specific and general and specific codes of practice for the care of animals. I think it is important to remember that these things have not got to be prescriptive, they need to be outcome-led. So if somebody puts down a bowl of cat and dog food they are not going to worry about the cat eating the dog food, or vice versa. I think there is some danger in the codes of practice becoming too detailed and difficult for people.

  Q115 Alan Simpson: I can understand that. I hope that you will appreciate that the difficulties we face are that at this stage, when you get a Bill coming before the House, Ministers want the Bill to stand the test of time. They do not want to get tied down to specifics in primary legislation that would be overtaken by events; they are much happier if they can have things incorporated in standards or codes of conduct or guidance notes. We have to separate out those parts that we want to see in the primary legislation. In many ways, whether, in the context of the points you raise, the reporting and monitoring framework meets your requirements, at the same time as allowing for adaptability in that practical framework. I think my question was to try to bring you back from secondary legislation into the primary legislation and to say what is it that you are wanting to get us to focus on in respect of what is or is not in this primary legislation?

  Mr Fairburn: I could answer that by way of explaining what goes wrong at the moment. At the moment we have, specifically, the pet industry (pet shops like ourselves) trading all over the country and the problem is that each local authority, although they have got the LGA document, Model Standards for Pet Shop Licence Conditions, it is not obligatory for them to adopt those conditions. What you end up with is lots of councils using different conditions for licences all over the country. In some cases you have got three licensing authorities in one town and that results in variable minimum standards for the welfare of animals in pet shops, and that, as I see it, is one of the biggest problems that we have today. What I would personally like to see is that a code be drafted on the basis of the LGA guidelines but for it to be mandatory for all local authorities to apply it, and obviously feed back issues in the way I think it was outlined this morning, so it can evolve but everybody is basically working to the same minimum.

  Q116 Chairman: Do you all think that local authorities have sufficient expertise to deal with the enforcement issues in your area of business?

  Ms Nunn: Maybe Steve would like to lead because of his experience in pet shops.

  Mr Zlotowitz: I think, Mr Chairman, most local authorities do a good job and they have the expertise to be able to call on if there is a question. Because—with the problems that Steve has pointed out—there is not uniform enforcement across the country that does not always happen, but in all the cases that I have dealt with for the Trust and in my own business local authority and Environmental Health Officers are very professional, very good and do not hesitate to call on qualified help—not necessarily veterinary help but qualified, experienced keepers—to aid them in getting it right.

  Q117 Joan Ruddock: I wanted to go back to where Steve Fairburn was, where he clearly outlined something which I assume might have come up in the group that you chaired for Defra. Was it the feeling of all of your group that you could identify where the problem lay with existing legislation, which is, you suggested by example, different standards being applied and different people having to do different bits? As the code would come in secondary legislation, can you tell us whether in the primary legislation, in this Bill as it is drafted now, you see the framework that will make the other things possible? I think that is the challenge for this afternoon.

  Mr Fairburn: Yes, I do see the framework in the Bill. When I was reading it (and I get lost with the legalese and everything) it does say something to the effect that the Secretary of State has the power and may enforce the codes. That word "may" just leaves a little question in my mind as to whether it would be better for it to be "will" rather than "may". Although I think the intention is that that would be the case. Does that answer the question?

  Q118 Joan Ruddock: Yes, it does. I think it would be useful to know if there are any other perceived problems for yourself and others in a similar business that, again, you feel can be addressed through the framework of the Bill or, indeed, if there are problems that are not going to be addressed as the Bill is currently drafted.

  Mr Zlotowitz: If I can give an example of my concerns in that respect, I will refer back to the Chairman's cat that we spoke about in the morning session. In Section 3 it says if you do not do anything that may cause suffering, for instance, you could be guilty. So, for instance, one of the biggest causes of cats' deaths in this country is cars, and the fact that you may know that as a cat owner and you let your cat go out and still roam and it gets hurt by a car, would you then become a criminal? This could worry a lot of pet keepers in the country—there are a lot of cat owners in the country. It is this sort of thing that I do not think has been quite thought through to the full extent. I think there should be more emphasis on the fact that pets are good for you and we should do more, perhaps, in the Preamble to explain to people and reinforce the benefits of pet-keeping and that this is all about keeping animals correctly. We should be encouraging it because we know, from the research, that it makes for a healthier human population.

  Q119 Chairman: You raise an interesting point. I think the part you are talking about is Clause 3(4), which has got these five sort of rights or promises in. Is that the bit you are talking about?

  Mr Zlotowitz: I think so. I am sorry I failed in my—


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 8 December 2004