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


Memorandum submitted by the British Veterinary Association

INTRODUCTION

  The BVA is pleased to respond to the Efra Committee's call for evidence on the Government's draft Animal Welfare Bill. As the national representative body for the veterinary profession in the UK we naturally welcome the publication of a welfare bill and we have outlined the initiatives that we particularly endorse as well as raising some concerns.

POSITIVE INITIATIVES

  1.  The BVA welcomes the imposition of a "duty of care" on the keeper of any animal.

  2.  The BVA understands that it is inevitable that the proposals contained within the draft Bill will have a companion animal bias but we are pleased that many of the access and enforcement measures will also be applied to farms. It is however disappointing that the possibility of farm licensing and other controls on animal enterprises are not explored.

  3.  The move to strengthen powers of search and entry as well as the clause allowing inspectors or officers to seize animals considered to be at risk immediately is a positive step. However, we would like to see the main duties and responsibilities of inspectors detailed in the Act to add force to any actions that inspectors might have to take in the course of their duties.

  4.  The BVA is pleased to note the extension to the range of disqualified activities following conviction. We welcome the clause that prevents persons guilty of committing offences from keeping other animals directly or by proxy but are slightly concerned at how the ability to continue to keep species other than the one that the original offence was committed against might be interpreted. Would a farmer found guilty of cruelty to cattle be allowed to keep sheep?

  5.  The provision for a national database to ensure that offenders cannot continue to keep animals in an area other than where the original offence was committed is both necessary and timely.

  6.  We welcome the proposal to ensure that individuals cannot deliberately misconstrue reasonable veterinary treatment.

  7.  Despite the fact that our members are expected to endeavour to act in the best interests of animal health and welfare, we are pleased to note that the draft Bill acknowledges that public safety may on occasion over-ride animal welfare.

  8.  The definition of animal as included in the draft Bill does not include invertebrates or wild animals but it is the BVA's view that this is, on balance, a reasonable definition. A more inclusive definition would be too broad and might detract attention from valid animal welfare issues.

  9.  The decision to modernise and redefine the offence of cruelty is welcome, and the BVA is pleased to note that fighting is correctly classified as a higher form of cruelty.

  10.  The BVA is content with the definition of welfare and its basis in the five freedoms. We find the regulations to promote welfare to be laudable but we are concerned that these may be difficult to enforce.

CONCERNS

  11.  The BVA's main areas of concern with the draft Bill fall into two categories, definitions and terminology.

Definitions

  12.  The definition of "mutilation" is particularly important and needs to be clarified so that recognised veterinary procedures such as neutering or castration will not be seen as mutilation. As far as tail docking is concerned it is the BVA's view that if the Government believes that this is not mutilation and should be allowed to continue then they must make specific provisions in the Bill rather than let the practice continue by default. The BVA is supportive of the stance adopted by our specialist division the BSAVA in their opposition to the practice of tail docking.

  13.  The BVA has difficulty with "ownership" and with "keeper of an animal", neither is straightforward as far as stray or feral animals are concerned. The keeper of a stray animal or a person that has looked after a feral animal is often not in a position to take on the normal responsibilities of ownership and should not have legal liability for that animal.

Terminology

  14.  The BVA would prefer if the more accurate term humane killing was used in the draft Bill in place of "destruction" of the animal and we prefer euthanasia to be used in place of "slaughter".

  15.  The term "riding establishments" should be used in the Bill rather than "Riding Schools". The latter term has a very narrow definition whereas the former includes all establishments in the under the definition given in the current Riding Establishment Acts.

OTHER CONCERNS

  16.  We would like to add the following additional concerns/points raised by our members:

    (a)  As far as the licensing of livery yards is concerned the Bill states that "visits should take place at intervals of not less than 18 months". This should read "no more than 18 months". Furthermore, it is stated in the Bill that a veterinary surgeon should be present at inspections every five years. We believe a veterinary presence is necessary every three years; and

    (b)  there is a lot of repetition in the Bill and we suggest that it be edited.

CONCLUSION

  17.  The BVA is supportive of the intention to establish the UK as the pace setter for animal welfare standards throughout the world and we also support the promotion of the welfare of animals kept by man. We are encouraged by many of the proposals in the draft Bill and hope that similar legislation will also be introduced in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Our support for the draft Bill is of course subject to the concerns we have raised above and we very much hope that EFRACOM will bear these concerns in mind.

  Note

  The British Veterinary Association (BVA) is the national representative body for the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom and represents over 10,000 members. Our chief interest is to protect and promote the interests of the veterinary profession in this country and we therefore take a keen interest in all issues affecting the veterinary profession, be they animal health, animal welfare, public health or employment concerns.

26 August 2004





 
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 9 December 2004