Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-171)
MR CHRIS
NEWMAN, DR
MIKE ALLEN,
MR IAN
ROBINSON AND
MS CORINNE
EVANS
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q160 Mr Lepper: I was interested in Mr
Robinson's comments about the potential for transmission of disease
from animals to human beings. Could I ask Dr Allen, in view of
what you said about your particular interests earlier, is that
an issue so far as any reptile related issues are concerned?
Dr Allen: It is overstated unfortunately.
The only disease which is recognised as significantly associated
with reptiles is salmonella. This is very clearly stated on the
websites of the major organisations such as the CDC, the WHO,
or our own Health Protection Agency. I work day to day with these
organisations and before coming I put a supplement to the report
that Chris submitted. I have spoken to these people and quite
honestly reptiles probably pose the least risk to humans. Their
physiology is so different to mammalian species that the likely
transmission of disease is minimal. Salmonella is identified;
we know how to deal with it; all the major groups provide good
guidelines; if they are followed, they will minimise the risk
almost infinitesimally. The issue really is that most common pet
species we keep, also farm animals, carry a far greater range
of zoonotic diseases of danger to man. You can look at history;
you can look at the present; and the precedents are there. Quite
simply, the organisation web sites, but I think it is very important
to go to the authoritative sources here, are very clear. If they
were that upset about reptiles they would advocate a ban, but
they actually provide guidance, and I find it quite annoying seeing
this overhyping of salmonella. I think it is dangerous. I am working
in an area where I am working with organisms like MRSA, vancomycins,
and enterococcus which you may pick up from hospital pathogens,
we can trace a lot of these back to our food chain and to commonly
kept pet species, and I think if we look at the balance of risk
we are probably at far greater risk from commonly kept pet species,
or going to a local market and buying fresh meat. If we are going
to have the same level of evidence to ban reptile fairs we should
ban people going to airports and places such as that because if
we look at things like SARS, which are clearly documented, and
other diseases like avian 'flu, we should ban people travelling,
and to be honest with you the level of evidence does not support
this as a key issue. As I say, I talked to the key players of
all these organisations; they have been instrumental in helping
me put this package together; and they are quite incredulous about
some of the evidence being presented.
Q161 Chairman: I think you have made
your point! Corinne Evans?
Ms Evans: I agree there are risks
and dangers in the world but I wanted to make the point that salmonella
is a problem and in 2000 it led the Chief Medical Officer, Liam
Donaldson, to say that it is estimated that nine out of every
10 reptiles carry salmonella and people must take precautions
if they own these pets. While we would not overstate this problem
and say it is at crisis level, I do think we have to recognise
there is concern.
Dr Allen: I would not disagree
with that but the fact is that reptiles are contained in conditions,
not like other pet species where the faecal matter, which is the
main cause of transmission, of, say, cats and dogs is freely available
in the environment. With a reptile you have a controlled environment
that you can clean. Lots of the other animals are free roaming,
certainly farm animals where a lot of the contamination gets into
our water sources and fields. So again you have to look not only
at what infections are being transmitted but the means of catching
those infections, and certainly other species pose a greater risk
in terms of access to those pathogens.
Q162 Chairman: I think we have the message
that there are two different perspectives on this and we will
reflect carefully on them. I want to move on to the question of
the feeding of live prey to some of these exotic species because
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with matters connected with fighting
and the herpetologists' evidence talks about some of the behavioural
patterns that may require animals to be put together, different
species, for various reasons, and I wonder if you would care to
comment on whether there is a conflict between the "natural"
way these animals exist and feed and the terms in Clause 2 of
this Bill.
Mr Newman: The issue we have is
on the welfare Clause, Clause 3(4)(c), the need to be able to
exhibit normal behaviour patterns. That is really where part of
this is coming from. The feeding of live prey to reptiles is extremely
rare. Ten years ago it used to be common practice. In many parts
of the world, Europe, Holland, France and Germany, it is still
the most common way of feeding. We do not enter into that practice
here. 99.8% of what we feed will be pre killed, frozen rodents.
On occasion, particularly if we are bringing in new species of
snakes or whatever, you may have a specimen which is a reluctant
feeder and in those circumstances it may be appropriate to feed
a live vertebrate to that animal under controlled conditions.
Currently under the 1911 Act it is not illegal to feed a live
vertebrate to another unless you cause it unnecessary suffering,
so that would have to be the result of a court case and the judge
would have to make a decision. Those of us who have been involved
with reptiles will argue that a mouse that is being produced for
food really has no cognizance of what is going on and exhibits
no fear. Whilst we absolutely do not want to encourage live feeding,
we think we need some clarity as to whether that is going to be
made illegal under this clause of fighting. Our concerns are,
because of Clause 3(iv)(c), the need to be able to exhibit normal
behaviour patterns, that snakes in the wild feed on life prey,
there are no carrion feeding snakes, so that would mean we are
not going to be able to feed them frozen food; we are going to
have to feed them live mice, and equally we would be opposed to
having to introduce that. The other issue we have is with breeding.
Certain species of reptiles, iguanas would be a good example,
engage in quite robust mating activity, and I am afraid the lady
tends to suffer quite badly on occasions, but that is a natural
process and if people are going to breed these animals that will
happen, so we need to make certain that is not caught up in fighting,
and you are not going to introduce iguanas together for any kind
of sport if you are going to breed them. You may see them exhibit
some kind of aggressive behaviour towards each other if the male
is meeting the female, and that is quite common in quite a number
of lizard species.
Q163 Joan Ruddock: On that point is it
documented that this aggression is not part of being in captivity?
Mr Newman: It is well documented,
yes.
Q164 Joan Ruddock: Because if that is
the case then I would see that is the test of reasonableness that
the law would take account of, but on your concept that a mouse—I
suppose it is a mouse—did not know it was being bred to
be fed to a snake, presumably at the point at which the snake
is about to devour it, the mouse is aware and is afraid?
Mr Newman: The mice when introduced
to a snake show no fear at all. They will quite often go up and
sniff the snake. They are not aware that it is a predator.
Q165 Joan Ruddock: Well, they would not
be because—
Mr Newman: Exactly. The strike
is in milliseconds and the constriction takes place very quickly.
I think any suffering there—and we are killing something
so you could argue that wherever you kill something there is suffering—to
that animal is so minimal and is very fast, and it is natural
behaviour that happens millions of times every day in the wild.
But I must stress that we are not looking to say that this is
how we want to feed our snakes. We are just trying to make sure
we have clarity on this because it could be an issue, with some
of the newer species of snakes, and there are snakes being discovered
all the time which keen enthusiasts want to bring into captivity.
On rare occasions it may be necessary and we just need to make
certain that if that is the case we can still do it legally.
Q166 Joan Ruddock: Or alternatively that
perhaps we decide as a society that we do not want people to have
the opportunity to feed mice to snakes and therefore it will not
be allowed, so if they cannot ingest a frozen mouse or whatever
it is, then your new snake is going to die, I am afraid.
Mr Newman: Usually live feeding
would be the last resort. There are various techniques we have
to encourage snakes to feed but there are certain species, Green
Tree Pythons and Green Tree Boas, which are quite sensitive. These
are animals which can stress quite easily and actually force feeding
a snake or assist feeding a snake is quite stressful to that snake,
and I think people then have to make a decision whether they think
that is better for the animal or whether it would be better for
that animal, as it would do in nature, to let it kill its own
prey.
Q167 Joan Ruddock: Alternatively people
might think if this animal is so sensitive and so easily stressed
it should not be in captivity?
Mr Newman: The offspring from
that undoubtedly are not going to be. There is a lot of emotion
about the reptile trend and a lot of disinformation is put out
there. What do we actually mean by an "exotic pet"?
If we look at some of the figures today, there are 6.5 million
pet dogs in this country; there five million pet reptiles. Does
that mean all reptiles are exotic? 80% of what is kept and sold
here in our view is domesticated. These are animals that we are
breeding now. They may be 30, 40 generations old; they are completely
removed from their wild counterparts. They have different colours,
different patterns—these are not wild animals, these are
domesticated species, so this label "exotic" is extremely
confusing. A hamster is exotic; a rabbit is exotic. Where do we
draw these lines? Numbers now being kept are so enormous. Now,
as a hobbyist I am more interested in the wild animals than in
the mutations we are currently breeding, so I would still like
to be able to keep the new species of pythons found so that we
can bring that species into captivity and safeguard it for our
children. Conservation is quite a large part of what we do, and
if you are working with new species this is where you may have
the issue of feeding. Now, with your common 80-90% of what is
captive, that is not an issue. This is why I am saying it is a
rare occurrence, but we need to take consideration of that.
Mr Robinson: I would like to say
that we believe that the definition of an exotic pet is that these
are wild animals. I do not believe that there is sufficient time
to have domesticated these animals even within the sort of generations
that have been discussed here, and the husbandry and environmental
conditions which are required for keeping these animals is quite
different from domestic animals, and I think the fact that we
are presently discussing taking wild animals from the wild is
quite startling, because there is definite evidence that the legal
trade in exotic pets fuels the illegal trade. These two are positively
correlated and both the legal and illegal trade in exotic pets
is a huge conservation threat.
Q168 Chairman: Can you help me because
I will put my hand up and say this is an area where I do not have
any expertise. In terms of what you can keep in the area of reptiles,
is there a list? Secondly, is there any definition to enable me
to distinguish between the normal and the exotic? I might be able
to pluck one or two thoughts out of my mind as to what I might
think are exotic but to those involved in this business it may
seem the ordinary. Can you help me get a handle on this?
Ms Evans: There are certainly
regulations in terms of CITES, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species, about the kind of animals you can
and cannot trade, the rarest being on Appendix 1 of CITES, but
in terms of our definition of "exotic" in our written
submission to the Committee we have said that the easiest way
of proceeding in defining "exotic" is to follow the
Belgian legislation example where you have a list of those animals
that do not need a licence rather than trying to have an exhaustive
list of those that do, and a list that might change with new species
coming on to the market and a new species that hobbyists would
like to collect and take from the wild.
Q169 Joan Ruddock: With that model you
describe, which would be the species that your organisation would
say were acceptable as pets which are reptilian?
Mr Robinson: We would not say
"acceptable". As an organisation we do believe that
wildlife belongs in the wild but in terms of what would require
licensing we would say that all exotic animals should be licensed,
and that would include all reptiles.
Q170 Alan Simpson: I wanted to go back
to a point raised in questions with the earlier witnesses and
that is the question about who should have the duty for prosecution,
and in particular I would like to get a view perhaps from both
sets of witnesses about the locus of responsibility for prosecution
and maybe, if we are suggesting changes from where we are now,
who should pay.
Mr Newman: The prosecution should
be dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service; that is absolutely
clear. It would be entirely inappropriate for the RSPCA to continue
this position they have. They are a campaigning organisation who
are opposed to certain sectors so for them to be in a position
to prosecute something they are campaigning against seems extraordinary.
If we look to Scotland, the SSPCA do not bring private prosecutions
although they have the power to do so; they gather the evidence
for any prosecution and pass that evidence over to the Procurator
Fiscal for them to decide whether there is an offence and if there
is to prosecute it, and we believe that is what should happen
here; that the RSPCA should be able to gather the evidence and
present that to the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Crown Prosecution
Service should bring the prosecution.
Ms Evans: And, as you might expect,
we certainly have not got a problem with the RSPCA continuing
in their duties but we do think that enforcement is a real issue
with this Bill. For instance, with the Dangerous Wild Animals
Act the Defra Commission survey in 2001 found an 85-95% non compliance
rate with that legislation which is why we are calling for a new
specially trained and qualified regulatory body to be set up that
has powers to regulate and enforce this legislation.
Mr Newman: And the DWA issue which
is quite a separate one—
Q171 Alan Simpson: And the power to prosecute
being—?
Ms Evans: We would not have a
problem with the RSPCA dealing with that.
Mr Newman: On DWA, the 80-95%
figure of non compliance came from our respective organisations.
The problem with the Dangerous Wild Animals Act as it stands is
that the legislation is very messy and it is left to local authorities
to enforce and regulate without any guidance. There has been no
guidance to local authorities and it is one of the biggest areas
I have to deal with. Part of the problem is it is an enabling
Act; local authorities are supposed to consider any application.
Something like about 30% will refuse to issue a DWA licence, and
those who do may impose such stringent requirements or high fees
as to enforce people to non compliance. Now, we are currently
going through a review on that at a moment and I do hope we are
going to see a great improvement on that, and if we get a more
uniform system across the country where we have a set of guidance
that local authorities are duty bound to follow and to consider
an application then we would expect to see the compliance rate
extremely high.
Chairman: May I thank you most sincerely
for your evidence? As I have said before, if there are further
points that you want to amplify, bearing in mind we have a very
large number of submissions, or if there is anything else you
want to communicate to the Committee, do feel free to write to
us, and may I thank you both in terms of your organisations for
your contribution to our proceedings and for answering our questions.
Thank you.
| 
