Examination of Witnesses (Questions 313-319)
MR JOHN
BEST
13 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q313 Chairman: Welcome, Mr Best, Chairman
of the British Wildlife Rehabilitation Council. Thank you very
much for your written evidence. We have asked all our witnesses
to date a simple opening point: what do you like about the Bill
and what is the key issue that concerns you about it that, amongst
the enormous amount of information which the Committee is digesting,
you would not wish us to forget?
Mr Best: Thank you for the invitation
to come here this afternoon. This is not just my opinion of the
draft Bill as I see it but the opinion of the council that I am
representing. We are also in contact with 150 rehabilitation units
around the country and our submission has been circulated amongst
them, so I think I have a reasonable consensus. Most people seem
to be in favour of some form of regulation and registration, although
it does seem, when you ask in detail, that they are in favour
of it for other people but not for themselves. The first point
in the Bill is the duty of care, which is important. It clarifies
an important point that anybody who has care of an animal has
that duty of care to ensure and safeguard its welfare. With regard
to regulation and registration, if this is going to be possible
to carry out under the new Bill once it is enacted, I can see
that registration of rehabilitation units is going to apply to
a network of units that are working to a code of practice, which
is an agreed code of practice. This can only have a positive effect
on the welfare of the animals that they are handling. The other
real advantage of it is that the regulations, I presume, are going
to be backed by a legislative framework. That means that people
who are handling wildlife casualties and neglecting their welfare
will lay themselves open to prosecution. The one thing that seems
to worry most people, and certainly worries me, with the Bill
is the effect that increased bureaucracy, paperwork and costs
that might be involved in a registration process would have on
the running of many of rehabilitation units. A lot of these units
in this country are quite small affairs that are run by individuals
part-time. They are not well financed. Any increase in their financial
burden would have a serious effect on their function. That would
mean then that the number of units in the country that are prepared
to accept and look after in a reasonable way wildlife casualties
would be reduced. That would obviously have an effect on the welfare
of these animals. Perhaps also it means that people are encouraged
to do it themselves. The majority of casualties are found by members
of the general public and most people who find casualties want
to do the right thing by them. They need to be able to find easily
units equipped and staffed to receive these casualties. If the
number of these units is reduced, then the welfare of these casualties
is going to be compromised. That is my main worry with compulsory
registration.
Q314 Chairman: We move now into an area
in terms of wildlife, the name in the title of your organisation,
from previous discussions during last week which very much centred
on what I might call animals that had been domesticated. As I
read it, clause 53 of the Bill does not make a distinction in
defining an animal, which is the generic term covered by the Bill,
between animals that are in the care of man on a permanent basis
where there is a dependency relationship between man and the animal
and in this case wildlife, which is the subject of the work of
rehabilitationwild animals where a problem occurs and where
man then intervenes to provide an element of welfare to help rehabilitate
the animal. Is it necessary, given that there is a benevolent
purpose by the rehabilitation centre to look after an animal,
to have that area of animal stewardship covered by the Bill or
is it a question of changing the definition of "animal"
to incorporate or differentiate these two relationships between
man and the dependent animal, like the farmer and the cow as opposed
to man, the benevolent person looking after the fallen seagull
whose feathers are covered with oil?
Mr Best: I have always regarded
it, and I do not know how correct I am, that once a wild animal
has been brought into captivity, then it is under the ownership
of whoever is looking after it temporarily. Although it is not
a domesticated animal, it would therefore have the same protection
that a domesticated animal would have. I do not know that this
has been tested by law but I think this is how we have regarded
it up to now under the Protection of Animals Act, and wildlife
casualties would have that same degree of protection against unnecessary
suffering.
Q315 Chairman: If we have some law that
applies in this area, do we need the terms of the Bill to be applied?
In other words, what is the gain from the Bill in applying the
terms of this proposed Act to the area of rehabilitation centres
that is not covered by the current legislation?
Mr Best: That would be the incorporation
of regulation of these units. Admittedly, at the moment with the
Protection of Animals Act and the Abandonment of Animals Act,
wildlife casualties fall into that group. As I understand it,
the new Act would include these provisions: protection against
suffering.
Q316 Chairman: Would one of the benefits
be, therefore, in your judgment, that centres that operate under
a regulated regime would, by definition, therefore be of a higher
standard than what might be there now, to differentiate between
the well-meaning who go out to pick up fallen animals and look
after them as opposed to those who have some degree of professional
input, real understanding of particular species and expertise,
and who would provide the rehabilitation work? I think it is because
this is an act of "mercy to an animal" that I just want
to be convinced that we have to upgrade the law in this area.
Mr Best: I see there are great
opportunities for abuse of wildlife casualties and their welfare
and they are animals just as much as domesticated stock are animals.
When they are in care with humans, I think they deserve that protection
from the abuses of their welfare: things like inappropriate treatments
that would be given by people who have not trained and have no
experience in handling these animals; animals that are kept in
captivity for extended periods of time when they either should
have been released back into the wild or euthanased; and animals
that are returned to the wild in a condition in which they are
clearly not able to survive in the wild. There is a lot of room
for abuses of welfare. This is where I think regulation would
make a lot of difference. Units that have registered would then:
be registered with a declaration that they would be working under
a code of practice and open to inspection; declare the numbers
and types of animals that they would have the facilities to handle;
and show they have a veterinary practice that will attend and
assist them with advice and care of the animals. They must keep
proper records and they would undertake to attend courses and
further education. It would be a much more structured organisation
than it is at the moment. It is a very grey area and this would
make things more black and white.
Q317 Ms Atherton: We have drifted partly
into the question I was going to ask when you are talking about
some of the very good animal sanctuaries that we all know, perhaps
like the Screech Owl Sanctuary in Cornwall, which basically people
visit and recognise and understand, but you are also talking about
the little old lady who used to live down the lane I lived in
who had more than a hundred cats. She acted as a cat refuge centre.
She had a two-bed roomed terrace cottage and never saw a vet at
the property from one year's end to the next. Clearly, the cats
were in some distraint, as were the neighbours because it had
an impact upon the whole community. You are talking about the
whole gamut between an "animal sanctuary" that is run
by the well-intentioned amateur who perhaps does not understand
the full nature of what he or she is taking on to the very-well
organised sanctuary perhaps run by the RSPCA. There is a difference
between those two extremes. Surely, if there is some cost in terms
of paperwork and time and perhaps some financial cost, that forces
people to sit up and think about what they are doing? Details
of an animal sanctuary came to my desk and I had real concerns
about the welfare of the animals; very little could be done through
normal channels. Perhaps now it would be easier with this Bill
to take action in those areas.
Mr Best: That is exactly what
I would hope would happen.
Ms Atherton: You have some concerns about
the cost of the licences. I think the smaller sanctuaries are
often the ones that perhaps have to cut corners.
Q318 Chairman: To add to that, in paragraph
2.3 of your evidence you do make some differentiation between
the larger and smaller units.
Mr Best: That was a point that
we hoped might be taken up by the Committee, that there are distinctions
between the very few large wild animal hospitals, for want of
a better term, throughout the country, and I can count those on
one hand, and the larger number of smaller units.
Q319 Ms Atherton: Surely, those are the
ones about which concerns have been expressed and therefore for
animal welfare reasons they should be the ones encompassed by
the Bill?
Mr Best: What I am not sure about,
and nobody has given us any indication, is what sort of costs
would be involved. I am sure that a well organised, smaller unit
would see that they could raise a small amount to cover the costs
of registration, but if a large sum has to be taken into account,
the costs of regular inspections and inspections not only by local
authority inspectors but also maybe by veterinary surgeons, then
the amounts are going to be comparable to zoo licensing fees,
and that would put registration way beyond the means of a lot
of these units.
|