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
| 
