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—
|
