Examination of Witnesses (Questions 720-733)
MR JOHN
PARKER FRCVS, MRS
LYNNE HILL
MRCVS, MRS JILL
NUTE MRCVS, DR
BOB MCCRACKEN
AND MR
CHRIS LAURENCE
12 OCTOBER 2004
Q720 Chairman: Go on, say it again.
Mrs Nute: Exsanguination.
Q721 Patrick Hall: I will never forget
it. Is that the same as euthanasia?
Mrs Nute: No.
Q722 Patrick Hall: But the suggestion
is that the term "euthanasia" should be used in place
of "slaughter".
Dr McCracken: No.
Q723 Patrick Hall: That is what it says
in your evidence.
Dr McCracken: Yes, because in
this instance we are talking about "euthanasia" where
the death of the animal is brought about in a pleasant manner.
Q724 Patrick Hall: A gentle manner.
Dr McCracken: Yes, as opposed
to "slaughter", which is, quite rightly, stated already
in legislation in relation to the slaughter of food animals, for
example. That has a very specific meaning, certainly within that
Act.
Q725 David Taylor: Clause 26 of the Bill,
Chairman, seems to me to be pretty specific in that it empowers
courts to prevent persons guilty of committing offences from keeping
other animals either directly or by proxy. The BVA go on to suggest
in their evidence that it is unclear whether those convicted individuals
will be able to continue to keep other species of animal than
the one that was the subject of the offence. It seems unambiguous
that the disqualification may be imposed in relation to that type
of animal or animals in general or specific categories. Why do
you feel it is unclear? Can I put this to Dr McCracken?
Dr McCracken: One of the concerns
we had at one stage was, if someone were found to have committed
an offence, whether the penalty imposed in relation to the keeping
of protected animals referred to all protected animals or did
it not? Is the Bill such that it will ensure that the person who
has committed—for example, in the case of a horse and a
pet dog in the home—an offence in relation to a horse, does
the Bill infer that having been found guilty there will be disqualification
from the keeping of any protected animal?
Q726 David Taylor: I think that is up
to the Court, as far as I read it, but I am not a lawyer. I do
not know if other Members can help me out here. It would appear
that if, in the Court's wisdom, it wants to broaden the category
of disqualification from the type of animal that was the subject
of the offence, well then it will do so, but it does not routinely
or automatically do that—nor is it required to do that.
Dr McCracken: Presumably, our
concern largely stems from the fact that if an individual is found
to be deficient or incapable of ensuring the welfare of an animal
there are many instances where that same welfare deficiency would
be seen in other species, and it is a question of whether that
should be left to the judgment of the Court or whether it should
be in the legislation itself.
David Taylor: I believe the legislation
does leave it to the judgment of the Court, but that is not an
official interpretation. Chairman, what do you think?
Q727 Chairman: I am looking at Jill Nute
who is indicating she might want to contribute to this interesting
discussion.
Mrs Nute: I was just looking at
26(2) which says "Disqualification under sub-section (1)
may be imposed in relation to animals generally or in relation
to animals of one or more kinds", which to me would imply
that there is discretion according to the circumstances.
Chairman: As we have an eminent lawyer—who
I think is in the audience—as our next witness, this looks
like a key question to get the lawyer's view on. There is nothing
like having pre-warning of an area for further investigation.
So, David, you can come back to that.
David Taylor: I will do that.
Q728 Chairman: I want to conclude our
inquiries by asking about pet shop inspection. Defra's proposition
is that this should happen, effectively, once every 18 months,
in what is described as "a veterinary presence to be compulsory
at all inspections". Is it really necessary to have a veterinary
presence to inspect pet shops?
Mr Laurence: What is more important
is the competence of the person that is doing the inspecting.
Yes, veterinary surgeons, by definition, know about animal welfare
and animals, so the great majority of inspectors would be veterinary
surgeons. However, there are others as well who are equally competent.
The reptile keeper in a large zoo is probably far more competent
at inspecting reptiles than most vets would be. So this comes
back to the discussion we were having earlier about the Secretary
of State's list and the competence of the people on that list,
and ensuring the competence of that person.
Q729 Chairman: I know this is a terribly
difficult question to answer, but have you done any estimating
about the kind of costs that could be imposed on pet shops in
relation to having a veterinary presence? There is talk in the
Bill, and in a lot of the material surrounding it, about full-cost
recovery.
Mr Laurence: Indeed. That is currently
the case with the current legislation. We would actually be much
stronger on questioning whether the interval should be 18 months
rather than the cost. The cost of an inspection in the totality
of the turnover of a pet shop, even a fairly modest one, is, frankly,
small beer—it is a few hundred pounds, where turnover is
going to be many, many tens of thousands of pounds. So it is a
very small proportion to ensure that animal welfare is properly
up-kept in that establishment.
Q730 Chairman: Do you think 18 months
is too frequent or not frequent enough?
Mr Laurence: Nothing like frequent
enough.
Q731 Chairman: So a year?
Mr Laurence: We would want twelve
months, with the ability to have spot checks between.
Q732 Patrick Hall: I would find it helpful,
in looking at the section on proposed changes in how pet shops
are inspected, to have a brief summary of your view on the current
system, current practice, and how it can vary across the country.
Mr Laurence: The variation is
from application for a licence to automatic granting of that licence
without any inspection by the local authority, to the other extreme,
where there is an annual veterinary inspection, and there is virtually
every shade of grey in between that black and white.
Q733 Patrick Hall: In the case of the
annual veterinary inspection through the local authority, do you
know how the costs of that are met?
Mr Laurence: It is normally done
on an hourly charge and the local authority then passes that cost
on to the establishment that is being inspected, so it is a direct
passing on of one cost from one to the other and in global terms
it is a modest amount of money.
Mr Parker: We have been talking
about petshops but there is another notable area of inspection,
and that is of riding establishments and livery yards to come.
The British Equine Veterinary Association are strongly in favour
of the inspection being retained at twelve months rather than
going to an interval of not more than 18 months which is what
is proposed, but they would say 12 months again.
Mr Laurence: Raising one more
issue very quickly on greyhounds, we very strongly believe that
legislation on greyhound racing and inspection of greyhound tracks
and kennels should be introduced at the earliest opportunity.
While NGRC are making strides on NGRC tracks there are many independent
tracks where there is no control, no inspection, and no veterinary
surgeon on site when these dogs are racing, and dogs can lie on
the side of the track with a broken leg for an hour before somebody
arrives, and that is not good enough.
Chairman: Thank you for that statement
because that accords with other evidence we have taken on the
subject.
Mr Lepper: This is not a question for
answer now but could I ask, if the BVA has a view on pet fairs,
would they let us have a note of that, please, rather than answer
now? Thank you.
Chairman: May I thank you all very much
indeed for helping us with our inquiry and, again, for your written
evidence, and on the subject of pet fairs we look forward to a
further contribution. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
