Examination of Witnesses (Questions 820-827)
MR DAVID
FURSDON, MR
CHRISTOPHER PRICE,
MR JOHN
JACKSON AND
MR GRAHAM
DOWNING
13 OCTOBER 2004
Q820 Mr Wiggin: I think that under the
current structure of this Bill if you did not dock and you knew
that your dog was likely to injure its tail because of the job
you had in mind you would already be in trouble. What I think
you are trying to suggest does help. The difficulty colleagues
face, I think, is the way we get the wording right in the Bill
because it looks to me as though if we were just going to dock
dogs that were intended for work it is too difficult to enshrine
that in the law because it pre-packages them, if you like. That
is not really quite what you intend. That means that if your bitch
was pregnant and having pre-sold you might be able to persuade
the vet that three of them were going to gamekeepers but the other
three of the litter that was due might not be. You can see how
that would be awkward for the vet and a decision would not necessarily
be forthcoming then and we want to make this crystal clear if
we can. Can you help?
Mr Downing: I would like a veterinary
surgeon to have the opportunity to take action which he regarded
in his professional opinion as being in the best interests of
the future welfare of the dog. It could be as simple as that.
Q821 Mr Lepper: We have concentrated
on tail docking. You mention in your evidence concerns about wing
clipping of pheasants as well. You have established with the tail
docking that animal welfare is your major concern. Do you have
the same criteria when it comes to the wing clipping of pheasants?
Mr Downing: I do not believe that
this should really be a welfare issue. One is not damaging the
limbs of the bird; one is simply snipping through the primary
feathers in order to render it temporarily flightless until such
time as it moults those pinion feathers and regrows new ones.
What one is doing is taking a temporary action to restrain the
bird and prevent it from flying out of the top of a release pen,
for example.
Q822 Mr Wiggin: Where it might well be
eaten by a fox. That is the purpose of restraining it. It is quite
important that people understand that.
Mr Downing: But, having said that,
because there is no definition within the draft Bill of mutilation
we have to raise the question: is this within the minds of the
legislators? I do not know the answer to that.
Q823 Chairman: One of the areas we have
heard a lot of concern about is the pretty open-ended power-making
regulations under clause 6 of the Bill and, interestingly, the
Countryside Alliance put forward a proposal that "it might
also be worth considering a new requirement that a minister should
certify the regulation as fit for ensuring animal welfare".
How on earth would such a process work in reality? Who would be
the certifying body?
Mr Jackson: Under the suggestion
it would be the minister.
Q824 Chairman: So it is self-certification?
Mr Jackson: We already have that
in relation to the human rights legislation.
Q825 Chairman: But in the context here
I get the impression that you are concerned that people should
not just go on willy-nilly introducing regulations for the sake
of doing it. There has to be purpose behind it and there has to
be worth in terms of it. You are not asking for any kind of external
objective test to be introduced?
Mr Jackson: No. Underlying the
remark is a concern that over time there might be a form of creeping
erosion and we do think that it is important that it should be
remembered that this Bill is concerned with animal welfare, that
what can involve animal welfare does not always command general
approval. We have made the point really to emphasise this aspect
that this legislation is about animal welfare. We think animal
welfare is important. We would like to see proper animal welfare
legislation introduced in relation to wild animals but we do not
want people to start making judgements about the way in which
people interact with animals if it does not involve the welfare
of the animals.
Q826 Chairman: Do the CLA agree? Do you
have a view about this? Do not worry if you have not.
Mr Price: Our view would be that
we have this arrangement already under the 1968 Act in respect
of farmed animals We do not think there is any problem with it.
Q827 Chairman: I just want to conclude
our session of questions with the Country Land and Business Association.
In paragraph 42 of your evidence you say, "We are concerned
about giving local authorities a general power to prosecute".
Why?
Mr Price: For two reasons. First
of all, my understanding is that local authorities already have
the power to prosecute under section 222 of the Local Government
Act 1972, so I am not quite sure what is intended that goes beyond
that. The only concern is that local authority staff have adequate
resources and competence to do it. It is very easy for the lay
person to misunderstand the way in which an animal is being treated
and we want to avoid that situation arising. That was the only
point.
Chairman: Gentlemen, unless there is
something that is so burning in your breast that you feel you
must put your hand up and say, "But I just want to say this",
I think we can bring matters safely to a conclusion. Thank you
very much for your contributions and again many thanks for your
written evidence.
| 
