Examination of Witnesses (Questions 680-699)
MR JOHN
PARKER FRCVS, MRS
LYNNE HILL
MRCVS, MRS JILL
NUTE MRCVS, DR
BOB MCCRACKEN
AND MR
CHRIS LAURENCE
12 OCTOBER 2004
Q680 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen, welcome to a further evidence session on the Draft
Animal Welfare Bill. We have before us representatives from the
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Mr John Parker, the President
of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, assisted by Lynne
Hill, who is described as the Junior Vice-President. How many
Vice-Presidents have you got?
Mr Parker: Two; a President, a
Senior Vice-President and a Junior Vice-President.
Q681 Chairman: Forward planning. So you
are securing succession in vice-presidential steps, are you?
Mr Parker: Hopefully.
Q682 Chairman: Anyway, you are very welcome,
and Jill Nute, who is the Chair of the Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons' External Affairs Committee. That is the longest of the
titles we have to deal with this afternoon. The British Veterinary
Association—Dr Bob McCracken is the President and Mr Chris
Laurence is a Member of the Veterinary Association. Can I thank
you, first of all, for coming to give evidence to us this afternoon
and for your written submission. I would like to begin the questioning
by asking each organisation (and we will start with the Royal
College, if we may) just to say in very simple terms if you wanted
to make certain that there was one thing that the Committee should
not forget about why you think the Bill—if you do—is
a good one and what is the key issue that you have reservations
about that, equally, you would not want us to forget. Mr Parker,
would you like to take a first cockshy at that?
Mr Parker: The key issue is that
owners are responsible for the welfare of their animals. That
is how we would see it.
Q683 Chairman: Right. You can stop there
if you like.
Mr Parker: In particular, we see
that this Bill is aimed at the welfare of animals rather than
the prosecution of offenders. We would say straight away that
we welcome the Bill as well-drafted and well-thought out. We have
not a lot of criticism of it.
Q684 Chairman: I noticed that there was
a commendably brief submission, for which we were most grateful,
amongst the nearly 200 or so pieces of paper we must have had
now. That is very good. Who is going to speak for the British
Veterinary Association?
Dr McCracken: Chairman, I would
like to make a good point and then, perhaps, a reservation. The
good point is along the lines, in many ways, that my colleague
John has said, and that is we regard the Bill as a very good Bill
indeed. There is flexibility built into it which will allow government,
presumably, to change it as and when it is appropriate. So that
is good. It also, just to reiterate what John says, brings about
a duty of care on those who are keepers or owners of animals,
and that is excellent. Turning to the side where, perhaps, we
have some reservations, they stem from where we are today and
where we would like to get to. We have some concerns that the
current Act is not necessarily at its best in relation to its
implementation and inspections. There are degrees of inconsistency,
perhaps, and degrees of inadequacy. As John has mentioned, the
primary function of this Bill is not to catch offenders, it is
to protect our animals. I believe that the Bill is written in
that spirit, and that is good—promotion of welfare, etc.
What we would like to see within the Bill is that there is a carrot
and stick approach rather than simply an inspector saying "Offences
are not to be committed" or "An offence has been committed";
rather, lets, have a carrot and stick approach whereby there may
be something like an improvement notice. If I can go back to my
previous employment, which was in government service, I certainly
was involved in practising the carrot and stick approach and I
believe that the most success we had was through the carrot approach.
I also believe that the tenor and spirit of this Bill is in that
direction also—ie, for example, where (I think the terminology
is) "circumstances that are liable to lead to suffering."
That is an opportune period where one can sit down with the keeper,
with the owner, indicate what needs to be done and create a time-frame
and action to do it through an improvement notice. Through that,
I think, we would educate those who are involved with animals
to become better people without necessarily taking them to court.
I will conclude at that, other than to say that if we do not implement
what has every indication of being an excellent Bill and an excellent
Act, then I think it is to all our discredit. I think the strategy
must be supported by appropriate action. Thank you, Chairman.
Q685 Chairman: That is very helpful indeed.
Can I just ask you about the question of the definition of "an
animal"? We have had quite a lot of evidence on what ought
to be included in this particular term. Do you think that what
is already down there in the draft Bill is adequate and appropriate?
Dr McCracken: Yes, this is the
vertebrate excluding man? Certainly our view is that this is an
appropriate starting point. The Bill allows government to change
it if and when the necessity arises, and we would be very supportive
of the definition as it stands at this moment.
Q686 Chairman: There have been points
put to us that invertebrates, cephalopods, arthropods and various
other species should be added to this definition. Do I understand
from your statement that you think that that is not required at
this stage?
Dr McCracken: Yes, but on the
basis that if we widen it too much then we come into an area where,
in fact, it might be very difficult indeed to decide one way or
the other. I believe we have to start somewhere, and where the
Bill starts at this moment is a very appropriate place to start.
Nevertheless, I would be supportive of those who are concerned
about, perhaps, some invertebrates, in the sense that we should
look at those as and when time allows us to do so.
Q687 Chairman: So you would not be directly
concerned over the debate that has been put about whether invertebrates
feel pain or not? Obviously, one of the central issues in animal
welfare is the minimisation of pain and suffering to animals,
as such, by whatever definition we settle upon. However, some
have felt that other invertebrates do feel pain and, therefore,
ought to be included in that. The sense I get from you is that
you have got to stick with what we have got, make that work and
possibly add things later on. Is there a scientific or a definitional
point about the pain argument and invertebrates which you would
care to comment on?
Dr McCracken: I think we would
get to a stage, Chairman, where in fact it may be difficult indeed
to determine whether an animal—vertebrate or invertebrate—is
feeling pain. It is something that has exercised scientists very
frequently indeed. Unlike us, they cannot indicate clearly to
us when they are in pain, and that is always a difficulty. What
I am trying to say is that there are aspects within the vertebrates
at the moment which perhaps need to be improved upon within the
Bill. I am saying that that possibility arises. Likewise, I think
there are aspects within the invertebrates which may need attention,
but I believe that if we widen it too much it will take a long
time to achieve anything. I would much prefer to see what, to
my mind, is an excellent springboard become reality.
Mr Parker: I would agree with
my colleague that there is insufficient evidence to show that
invertebrates are capable of experiencing pain but there should
be an allowance for them to be included in the future, should
science go forward and show that they are capable of experiencing
pain. That is all we would ask—that it is not closed off.
Q688 Mr Drew: That is an interesting
dilemma, is it not, because if you were to look at the parallel
with the environmental field, it is generally assumed that the
precautionary principle is the one that we should adhere to in
terms of environmental policy. I understand the difficulties of
defining that, in terms of cruelty, an animal may not feel the
sort of pain that we do, but take me forward. What evidence would
you need to be shown to include invertebrates into the categorisation
within which we are only including vertebrates at the moment?
The problem with legislation is that it is a nice notion that
we can in 10 years' time say, "Evidence is on the table",
but look at how long it has taken to get this Bill to this stage.
Mr Parker: The basis of any work
is peer-reviewed science. So what any college would need and what
the law would need to prove would be peer-reviewed science in
invertebrates. I am not aware of much that has been done—that
is not to say it has not been—but that is not my particular
field. Animal welfare lies at the heart of the Royal College;
we swear an oath about the welfare of animals under our care.
Welfare is a difficult subject because where do its boundaries
lie? Where are its remits? Run-over hedgehogs are not really the
College's welfare remit. So what is? The College has tried to
determine the boundaries of its remit in saying that where cruelty
is indicated or illustrated by peer review science, then that
is where the boundaries are.
Dr McCracken: If I could make
a comment, also, I think it is too generalised to talk about vertebrates
and invertebrates in the sense that the conditions required for
vertebrates vary from species to species, and that will become
very evident when we sit down to look at codes for each of the
species. Likewise, I think, the same applies to invertebrates.
We have to look closely at invertebrates almost one-by-one, just
as we have done with vertebrates, to decide whether we believe
there is scientific evidence that they, too, can suffer pain and
what one can do about that, and what the five freedoms mean for
them.
Mr Laurence: What is enshrined
in the Bill, at the moment, is exactly the two things that you
have raised: scientific evidence and the precautionary principle.
The fact that the Bill is written so that these things can be
added when the evidence is available is another strength of the
flexibility of the Bill. So I think what is there is right but
it gives you the opportunity to add things as and when they should
be added.
Q689 Chairman: You have talked about
strength and flexibility. Let us get down to a point or two of
detail that both the College and the BVA have touched upon, which
is the question of the definition of "mutilation". As
far as the Royal College is concerned in paragraph 3 of your evidence
you say: "We assume that mutilation would not extend to an
operation carried out by a veterinary surgeon for good clinical
reasons, such as the necessary amputation of a damaged limb."
Indeed, as far as the BVA is concerned, you say 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. So,
given that there has been a fair amount of consultation, we gather,
between Defra and various organisations, here we are with a draft
Bill where something pretty basic to your professional activities
is called into question, as to whether certain acts, as you put
in your evidence, would come under your judgment into the term
"mutilation". So how can the Bill be improved to ensure
that what I might, as a layman, say are proper medical procedures
as carried out by trained veterinary surgeons do not fall foul
of the measures? What needs to be done to it?
Mr Parker: What needs to be done
to the Bill to ensure further mutilations do not occur?
Q690 Chairman: No, no. I will remind
you of your evidence. You say: "We assume that mutilation
would not extend to an operation carried out by a veterinary surgeon
for good, clinical reasons." That is pretty basic to your
trade, and yet you might be caught by the Bill.
Mrs Nute: We have been asked by
Defra, as you may or may not be aware, and we do have a list within
the Guide to Professional Conduct annex, on what are deemed to
be acceptable mutilations. We do not like the word "mutilations"
because it has all sorts of other—
Q691 Chairman: What do you think we could
use as a different word?
Mrs Nute: I am afraid I have not
been able to come up with a better one. I am sure there are people
who are far better with words than I am. However we have used
the traditional College approach. We feel that it is some time
since that list was compiled, we have had a meeting with Defra
and we have gone to all the specialist divisions with the BVA
to revisit that list to see if they are appropriate for this day
and age and various husbandry practices.
Q692 Chairman: So what is the Defra offer?
Is it to produce some kind of code of practice list annexed to
the Bill which will say "The following are accepted"?
Mrs Nute: I believe that will
be the way forward, but I am afraid I cannot read Defra's mind.
Q693 Chairman: Do not try and read Defra's
mind, tell us what you think ought to be done.
Mrs Nute: We think that it is
time to revisit the list the Royal College has for what are perceived
to be mutilations. We will also consult with the other veterinary
organisations with a specialist interest for the various species
and revise that list, and then go back to Defra with the reasons
for any revision that may be necessary.
Q694 Chairman: How does the BVA look
at that?
Dr McCracken: Certainly from our
point of view we believe that the Bill accommodates this in the
sense that it does allow for—whatever the circumstances
are—exclusion of certain procedures. I believe that there
is no reason why we cannot sit down and decide this, and it is
not purely within the veterinary profession domain either, I accept
entirely. We have to draw up a list of those procedures which
we believe are acceptable under this welfare Bill. That is what
I believe is allowed for already in the Bill, and what will be
deemed to be mutilation and what will not be mutilation will be
an informed decision of those involved with certain—
Q695 Chairman: Just to be absolutely
clear, Jill Nute has told us there has got to be an updating and
amendment of a list of procedures which it would be recognised
are, if you like, in the permitted area. Is that the type of approach
that you would favour? You highlighted in your evidence neutering
and castration as two procedures, but I am sure there is a much
more exhaustive list of things that you would normally do to animals
for various perfectly acceptable reasons. Then we get into tail-docking,
and we will come back to that in a minute because that is quite
an interesting area. Do you want a definitive list? If so, do
you want it to have the power of law—in other words it is
included as an annex to the Bill—or do you want it as a
stand-alone code of practice which will be referred to?
Dr McCracken: As the Bill stands
I had believed that it would be enshrined in law, and perhaps
I say this from a veterinary point of view, but we need to start
somewhere, and where a list already exists it strikes me as very
appropriate to sit down and examine that list to see what should
be added to or subtracted from it, and that will then become part
of the Bill.
Q696 Chairman: The only thing is you
express this sort of doubt in your question, because you said:
"It is important. It needs to be clarified"—that
is the definition. So we are starting from here but you are asking
a question. I am just looking for information.
Dr McCracken: Really, I suppose,
what I am getting at is, "in such circumstances as the appropriate
national authority may specify". In other words, what we
are saying is the Bill as it stands does not lay it down but I
believe, and we believe, that that is something that will be required
to be done.
Q697 Joan Ruddock: How are you going
to reach that revised list of exemptions? Where is the evidence
that you are going to seek in order to advise Defra or be advised
by Defra? We have heard lots of interesting evidence which suggests
that, for example, if you have got a pet dog and you want its
tail docked because you like it to look that way, then that might
be considered to be a mutilation. If you had a working dog that
was going to be constantly snagging its tail and do itself injury
you might be able to justify that "mutilation". How
are your two professional associations going to come to some decision?
Mr Parker: The Royal College said
at a recent meeting that the docking of dogs is unacceptable except
for truly prophylactic and therapeutic reasons. Therein lies the
problem, the definition of "therapeutic and prophylactic".
Q698 Joan Ruddock: We have heard that
through our evidence.
Mr Parker: Who is to decide on
that? We could tell you, as part of our disciplinary process,
what may be likely to happen as to therapeutic or prophylactic.
At a meeting with Defra the other day this was discussed, and
there is no conclusion because those definitions have to be met.
Q699 Chairman: When you say "there
is no conclusion" is that because nobody wanted to reach
a conclusion, or was it just too difficult in definitional terms?
Mr Parker: I think it is too difficult
in definition. Secondly, it needs further input into: should you
decide that a dog may have its tail docked prophylactically because
it is a working dog, how would that certification—which
very much is part of the Royal College—be worked out? And,
indeed, whether it would be based on breeds of dogs or a declaration
of whether that dog was likely to be a working dog. It has got
no further than that.
| 
