House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs First Report

9 Proposed first tranche of secondary legislation and codes of practice

295. In this part, we discuss the policy proposals listed below. We understand that these proposals have been included in the first tranche because they are either areas in which some legislation already exists, or they are areas in respect of which policy development is more advanced.

Proposals to be implemented by regulations made under clause 6(1)

Licensing of riding schools; licensing of dog and cat boarding; licensing of pet shops
Licensing of livery yards
Licensing of pet fairs
General licensing issues
- Shift to 18-month licences
- Frequency of veterinary inspections
Compulsory information leaflets to be provided by animal vendors
Use of electronic shock collars and training devices

Proposals to be implemented by orders made under clause 1(5)

Allowable mutilations: tail docking of dogs

Proposals to be implemented by codes of practice made under clause 7

Rearing of game birds
Sale of pet animals over the internet

Proposals to be implemented by regulations made under clause 6(1)

296. The following proposals all relate to licensing of animal-related activities. Although Defra does not state by what legislative means it intends to implement these proposals, we assume it intends to do so by way of regulations made under clause 6(1).

Licensing of riding schools; licensing of dog and cat boarding; licensing of pet shops

297. Although these proposals are referred to in annex L, no detail about them is given in the annexes, or anywhere else in the draft Bill document. Nor were the proposals discussed in evidence.

298. Riding schools, dog and cat boarding establishments and pet shops are currently subject to legislation which requires them to be licensed.[232] We understand, on the basis of additional information requested from Defra, that the Department set up working groups, which met between April and June, to examine these areas earlier this year.[233] The groups' remits all appear to have been to update existing licensing requirements. Following the groups' reports to Defra, the Department put forward proposals in each of these areas, "in light of [the groups'] conclusions".[234] Defra proposes that licensing of riding schools and dog and cat boarding establishments should be based on existing legislation, whereas licensing of pet shops should be the subject of new legislation, apparently because of the deficiencies in the existing legislation and in order to regulate both pet shops and pet fairs.

299. Subject to our comments below about general licensing requirements, at this stage, we have no comment to make on the areas selected by Defra for future legislation. We are concerned that Defra has not set out in the draft Bill document any detail on its proposals to license riding schools, dog and cat boarding establishments and pet shops, given that it intends to implement these proposals within a year of the Bill being enacted. A clear indication of the policy which Defra intends to implement in respect of these businesses should be made available if and when the final Bill is introduced to Parliament.

Licensing of livery yards

300. Details of Defra's proposal to license livery yards are set out in annex F to the RIA. Livery yards are currently subject only to a voluntary licensing scheme; Defra's proposal would introduce mandatory licensing and inspection for all livery yards in England. As with riding schools, dog and cat boarding establishments and pet shops, we understand that a working group set up by Defra examined livery yards earlier this year.[235]

301. The little evidence we received on this issue was supportive of Defra's proposal. The Home of Rest for Horses described take-up of the current voluntary code as "disappointing".[236] At this stage, we support Defra's proposal to introduce mandatory licensing and inspection for all livery yards in England.

Licensing of pet fairs

302. Details of Defra's proposal to license pet fairs are set out in annex B to the RIA. Defra describes the existing law relating to the sale of animals at pet fairs as "ambiguous". It states that, under existing legislation, some local authorities ban pet fairs altogether whereas others consider that they can be licensed. Defra proposes that local authorities should be able to license the organisers of pet fairs. It considers that pet fairs should be placed "on a similar regulatory footing" to pet shops, with similar standards of welfare being applied.

303. As with riding schools, dog and cat boarding establishments, pet shops and livery yards, a working group was set up by Defra earlier this year to examine the issue of pet fairs.[237] Defra's proposals on pet fairs have been prepared in light of this group's conclusions.[238]

Current law

304. It is unclear whether pet fairs are legal under the current legislation, the Pet Animals Act 1951. Section 2 of the 1951 Act provides that:

If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence.

When applied to pet fairs, the wording of section 2 raises several questions. Who is the relevant person carrying on the business—the person organising the event, the person selling the animals, or both? What constitutes a public place? The 1951 Act does not define this, and the term has several meanings in law. Similarly, what constitutes a market? The 1951 Act does not define this, either.

305. A further complication is created by section 1 of the 1951 Act, which authorises a local authority to grant a licence to a person "to keep a pet shop at such premises in their area as may be specified in the application." A pet shop is defined as "the carrying on at premises of any nature (including a private dwelling) of a business of selling animals as pets"—a definition which could arguably catch at least some pet fairs.[239] Consequently, it is unclear, first whether all pet fairs would be caught by the section 2 prohibition and, secondly, even if a pet fair can be said not to be prohibited by section 2, whether it would then come within the ambit of section 1, meaning that a local authority would be empowered to license it.

306. The draft Bill does not propose to repeal or amend sections 1 or 2, although Defra has indicated that, at the time of making regulations on this issue, it intends to use clause 6(3)(f) to repeal the whole of the 1951 Act.[240]

Evidence received

307. Strong arguments were put both for and against Defra's proposal to legislate so that pet fairs are clearly legal, and able to be licensed. Some witnesses strongly opposed Defra's proposal. Animal Aid disputed Defra's description of the current legal position as "ambiguous" and asserted that pet fairs are clearly illegal under current legislation.[241] It described the proposal to license—and thus clearly legalise—pet fairs as a "seriously retrograde" step and claimed that any licensing regime would require a significant increase in local authorities' resources.[242] Animal Aid was concerned that pet fairs created several problems:

[there are] perhaps dozens of itinerant traders, none of whom are licensed. You do not know the conditions in which the animals are kept before they arrive, you do not know what is going to happen after they depart, the ones that are unsold, etcetera. So it is enormously complex, and who do you prosecute?[243]

308. The Born Free Foundation referred to specific problems with exotic animals being sold at pet fairs:

[If pet fairs are legalised,] there is nothing to stop spontaneous buying and people not knowing how to look after exotic animals that have particular needs and particular environments that they need to live in …[244]

309. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was also particularly concerned about the possibility of exotic animals being bought and sold at pet fairs, describing pet fairs as:

obviously, temporary; they involve the transport of animals over, often, quite long distances; we are concerned about some of the conditions that they are kept in—in cramped conditions—and we are concerned … about the potential transfer of disease. We believe that shows are separate and if you want to show animals you can show them, but we do not believe that they are necessarily the best way to sell and buy animals, particularly exotics.[245]

IFAW also suggested that there was a risk of disease transmission between animals and humans at these events, referring to an event at which "a bird was found to have psittacosis which is a disease highly infectious to both birds and people".[246]

310. Like IFAW, BirdsFirst drew a distinction between events at which animals are bought and sold and events staged solely for exhibition purposes:

With the exhibitions a lot of the pet birds have a personal relationship with the person who is their main carer and provider. The bird will know that person as an individual. Even if it is just a canary or a budgie, it has a personal relationship with that person. It is very different for a bird to be driven up from Cornwall, to go to a sale in Newark or somewhere, then to be sold and passed on to somebody perhaps with less knowledge who lives in Carlisle.[247]

311. On the other side of the debate, the Pet Care Trust described pet fairs as:

… an important outlet for hobbyist breeders and essential to many types of animal hobbyist groups to enable them to keep going … it is a very successful way forward for a group of people who are interested in animals to get together and exchange information as well as animals.[248]

The Pet Care Trust emphasised that "people who go to fairs have the welfare of the animals uppermost in their minds because they are interested hobbyists and the last thing they want to do … is bring back an infected animal."[249]

312. The Federation of British Herpetologists (FBH) stated that its guidelines recommend that a vet should be present at every event. The FBH also said that it "always invite[d] the RSPCA to be present" at its events and that "in the last two years when we have had the RSPCA attend our shows they have yet to report a problem."[250] The FBH did not agree with the suggestion of some witnesses that welfare problems were more likely to arise at events at which animals are bought and sold, as opposed to events staged solely for exhibition purposes:

… the implication seems to be that if you are selling animals you do not care about the animals; you only care about the sale … that is entirely untrue because if … you do not care for the welfare of that animal you are going to lose that animal, it is going to die and you are not going to be able to sell it and make a profit. So the concern of everybody is in the welfare of those animals, and those shows are inspected.[251]

The FBH also described the suggestion that there was a risk of disease transmission between animals and humans at pet fairs as "overstated".[252]

Our position

313. It seems to us that the first difficulty to be dealt with in relation to the issue of pet fairs is that of what categories of event fall within the ambit of the term "pet fair". The term is not defined in law. It appears that it may be used in respect of events staged purely for exhibition purposes, including competitive exhibition purposes, as well as events staged for the purposes of sale and purchase.

314. Defra appears to use the term "pet fairs" to mean those shows run by hobbyists that are open to the public and any other commercial animal fair where commercial trading occurs, with the (sizable) exception of agricultural shows. These are the categories of event in respect of which Defra proposes that a licence will be required. Licences would therefore not be required for events staged solely for competitive showing purposes or for shows run by hobbyists that are member-only events.

315. Our discussion therefore proceeds on the basis that the phrase "pet fair" means an organised event at which animals are bought and sold, regardless of whether this is the primary purpose of the event. The animals bought and sold should not be traded for farming or agricultural purposes.

316. We consider it vital that the legal status of pet fairs be clarified. Obviously, the confusion caused by the wording of the Pet Animals Act 1951 is most unsatisfactory. Given the current situation is so murky, and that the ethics of pet fairs are so hotly contested, we are extremely concerned that Defra appears to have assumed that it should legislate so that pet fairs are clearly legal, without first consulting widely on this issue. Defra's consultation letter on a proposed animal welfare Bill, which was issued in January 2002, asked consultees only whether there should be greater regulatory control over public and private pet fairs—a question which assumed that pet fairs should be legal, and that the only issue was the extent to which they should be regulated. The remit of the working group set up by Defra earlier this year was to produce proposals for the licensing of pet fairs—again, the group was asked to proceed on the basis that pet fairs should be legal. Defra appears to have proceeded straight to the question of asking how pet fairs should be regulated, without first asking whether they should be clearly legalised. This is a significant deficiency in the approach adopted by Defra in updating animal welfare legislation. We recommend that, before Defra proceeds to draft regulations which would repeal the 1951 Act and introduce, in its place, a licensing regime on pet fairs, it first consult on whether pet fairs should be made unequivocally legal.

317. Currently, concerns about legality relate only to events where selling of animals occurs, because of the wording of the 1951 Act. By requiring events to be licensed only where buying and selling of animals occurs, Defra apparently intends to maintain this distinction. Presumably, this is because Defra considers that animal welfare issues do not arise in relation to events where animals are not bought and sold. We recommend that Defra reappraise the basis on which its proposed regime for licensing pet fairs is predicated.

General licensing issues

Shift to 18-month licences

318. Defra states that it is considering introducing 18-month licences in respect of a number of policy areas covered in the annexes to the RIA, including circuses, pet fairs, livery yards and animal sanctuaries. This would represent a change from many existing licensing requirements in animal welfare legislation, which provide that licences must be renewed annually, and would mean that businesses or premises would be inspected every 18 months instead of annually. Defra considers that an 18-month licence would reduce the costs for both businesses and local authorities as well as enabling inspection to be carried out at different times of the year. Defra acknowledges that an 18-month licence may prove "difficult" in respect of pet fairs which are held annually.[253]

319. The evidence we received strongly opposed the proposal to make licences renewable at 18-month intervals, although we acknowledge the possibility that those submitters who supported the proposal did not feel the need to say so. Animal Defenders International and the National Anti-Vivisection Society argued that "setting aside animal welfare for the sake of reducing costs to business goes against the fundamental aims of the Bill."[254] BirdsFirst described the proposal as "virtually nonsensical with regard to itinerant events", such as pet fairs, which can be annual events, or can migrate between local authorities.[255]

320. We do not support Defra's proposal to introduce 18-month licences, rather than annual licences, in respect of licensing of circuses, pet fairs, livery yards or animal sanctuaries, or in respect of any other business currently licensed under animal welfare legislation. The proposal would reduce the frequency with which businesses or premises would be inspected, and would therefore not promote the highest standards of animal welfare because it would increase the period of time during which breaches of legislation could go undetected. We consider that any possible benefits to business offered by a shift to 18-month licences are outweighed by animal welfare considerations. In particular, we consider 18-month licences would be entirely inappropriate for itinerant, annual, often one-off events, such as pet fairs. We therefore recommend that Defra does not pursue its proposal to replace annual licences with 18-month licences. In respect of pet fairs and similar events, we recommend that a licence for a pet fair should apply to a single event only, and that each separate event should require a separate licence.

Frequency of veterinary inspections

321. The inspection associated with an application for a new licence, or renewal of an existing licence, may or may not include the presence of a vet. In annex L to the RIA, Defra gives some indication of the frequency with which it proposes that a veterinary presence would be required at inspections. Defra proposes that a vet should be required to be present at every 18-month inspection, except in the case of livery yards, animal sanctuaries and dog and cat boarding establishments, where a vet would be required to be present only once every five years.

322. We received evidence expressing concern that the proposed frequency of veterinary attendance at inspections was too infrequent. For example, with respect to livery yards, the British Equine Veterinary Association recommended that a veterinary inspector should be present at "all initial inspections" and that:

Inspections should be carried out every 15 months with a maximum interval of 30 months for veterinary inspections. If the veterinary involvement is diluted further there is a real risk of compromising the quality of these inspections and therefore compromising the welfare of the animals kept in these yards.[256]

323. We consider that a five-year interval between vet-accompanied inspections is too infrequent, particularly in the case of livery yards and animal sanctuaries, in respect of which Defra proposes to legislate for the first time under the draft Bill. Furthermore, the proposed five-year interval appears to us not to mesh with the proposed 18-month licence period—Defra surely intends to require vet-accompanied inspections every four and a half years, or at every third licence inspection. We recommend that vet-accompanied inspections of livery yards, animal sanctuaries and dog and cat boarding establishments should be required at least every two years, rather than Defra's proposed requirement of only once every five years. If Defra accepts our recommendation to provide for annual licences, rather than the proposed 18-month licences, then a vet-accompanied inspection should be required every two years—at the time of application and at every second licence renewal thereafter. If Defra proceeds with its proposal to introduce 18-month licences, then a vet-accompanied inspection should be required every 18 months—at the time of application and at every licence renewal thereafter.

Compulsory information leaflets to be provided by animal vendors

324. In annex C to the RIA, Defra proposes that "all vendors of pet animals" should be required to provide information leaflets, in order to "help educate prospective purchasers in the husbandry and care of the animal(s) they are considering owning".[257] However, by "all vendors of pet animals", Defra appears to mean only pet shops and dog breeding establishments. The leaflets would be those which are currently produced by the Pet Care Trust, which Defra describes as "the pet trade representative body".[258]

Evidence received

325. Concern was expressed that compulsory information leaflets should not be provided by an industry body such as the Pet Care Trust. The Animal Protection Agency commented that:

Inviting pet dealers to set their own or the public's standards of care may be akin to inviting prison inmates to devise locks! Therefore, only genuine and fully independent expert advice from non-trade-related sources should be invited to devise comprehensive information on pet care.[259]

326. We also heard suggestions from bodies including the British Veterinary Association, Animal Aid and the International Primate Protection League that pet fairs risked an increase in 'impulse' buying of animals by people who lack knowledge of the welfare needs and husbandry of the animal which they are buying.[260] Ken Livingstone stated that he did "not feel that responsible pet ownership can in any way be compatible with pet fairs, which encourage impulse buying and give no recourse to follow-up information on care."[261] Animal Aid argued that cases of cruelty and neglect of exotic animals were increasing as a result of such purchases at pet fairs:

The RSPCA report a shocking 200% increase in the number of exotic animal rescues in 2000 compared with 1999. Most of these cases involved ill-informed owners who were unaware that they were causing any suffering. Our investigations at bird and reptile fairs reveal that the average stallholder possesses neither relevant qualifications nor experience in bird or reptile husbandry. Customers are often given misleading and inaccurate advice about the animal's full-grown size, lifespan and complex physiological and behavioural needs.[262]

Our position

327. We commend Defra on its proposed scheme to require pet vendors to issue appropriate information about animal husbandry and care at the point of sale. However, we are concerned that Defra has apparently failed to consider extending this requirement beyond pet shops and dog breeding establishments to other vendors of pet animals, such as vendors at pet fairs and at other types of breeding establishments. It is inconsistent to propose compulsory distribution of written information at some pet animal vending outlets and not others. The limitations of the proposal also risk undermining the purpose of the clause 3 welfare offence, which seeks to promote education about animals' welfare needs. We therefore recommend that the proposed scheme be extended to other vendors of pet animals. We recommend that the information which vendors are required to provide to prospective and actual purchasers should be able to be provided by the Pet Care Trust only if Defra first institutes a system whereby the information is checked by an independent, expert source prior to being published.

Use of electronic shock collars and training devices

328. We received a number of submissions commenting on the use of electronic shock collars and training devices. This was despite the fact that Defra has set out no proposals in the draft Bill document with respect to either regulating or banning the use of electronic shock collars and training devices. On the basis of the evidence we have heard, these devices appear to be used on dogs for the purposes of either what might be termed 'aversion' training or in order to contain dogs within a particular area without the need for fences. The drafting of clause 6(2)(j) does indicate that Defra intends to use the clause 6(1) delegated power to "make provision for prohibiting or regulating the use of equipment in relation to animals."

Evidence received

329. We received evidence representing a wide spectrum of views on the use of electronic shock collars and training devices. Animals in Mind argued for a ban on the general use of these devices because of the dangers of misuse. It described the reactions of dogs when shock collars were used on them as "violent and terrified" and claimed that many police and other working dog units had stopped using electric training collars, "assessing that they are cruel devices."[263] Guide Dogs for the Blind concurred with Animals in Mind that all electronic shock devices should be banned.[264] Both Animals in Mind and the Kennel Club believed that "unwanted behaviour in dogs is best discouraged by positive training methods" which are more effective and less cruel.[265]

330. Opinion was divided on the appropriateness of using electronic shock collars for the purposes of containing dogs to a particular area—effectively, as a perimeter fence, where the electric wires are buried underground. Animals in Mind argued that the use of electronic shock collars for perimeter fence purposes increased the potential for dangerous situations because dogs are likely to link the shock with the first thing they see at the time of receiving the shock, which could lead to attacks on children, for example.[266] The Kennel Club, however, drew a distinction between using electronic shock collars for training purposes and using them to contain dogs within a particular area without the need for fences. It supported a ban on the former use but was satisfied that the latter use should be permitted to continue.[267]

331. On the other side of the argument, we received evidence from Jennifer Dobson, an animal behaviour consultant, and from Duncan Davidson, a veterinarian, both of whom argued that electric collars are "an irreplaceable last resort method" when all other methods of training a dog, including positive reinforcement, have failed.[268] Ms Dobson stated that, in her experience, electric collars were not "appropriate or necessary for most dogs, or for routine obedience training"; nor were they "suitable or effective as a quick-fix or lazy option" for people who cannot be bothered to train their pets.[269] Mr Davidson told us that collars are sometimes necessary in cases where other training methods have failed and pointed out that, without the use of a collar, some dogs might have to be euthanased or kept in a way in which welfare implications might arise.[270] Like Jennifer Dobson, Mr Davidson suggested that banning the collars would be difficult and would increase the risk that dog owners might instead use inappropriate equipment.[271]

332. PetSafe Ltd and Electronic Pet Training Systems, a manufacturer of electronic shock collars and perimeter fence devices, argued that its systems were already widely used in the UK, and had been for some time:

This is a boundary fence system used by many families for their dogs and cats for over 13 years now in the UK. Many hundreds of radio fence owners are writing to their MPs to protest about any hint of a ban. They feel that their pets' lives have been saved.[272]

Our position

333. We understand from Defra that it believes the current scientific evidence with respect to these devices to be ambiguous and therefore considers it is not in a position to prepare proposals either to regulate or ban them. Defra has told us it is considering the feasibility of undertaking a research project into the devices, as a matter of priority. If electronic shock collars and perimeter fence devices have indeed been in use in the UK for 13 years now, as one submitter claimed, then we are surprised that Defra has not yet undertaken sufficient research into these devices in order to have formed an opinion of them, particularly given the controversy surrounding their use. We urge Defra to undertake a process of consultation and research about the possible regulation of these devices as soon as possible.

334. At this stage, it seems to us that an appropriate approach to electronic shock collars and perimeter fence devices would be to outlaw their use for purposes of training except, perhaps, with the exception of suitably licensed veterinarians. On the basis of the evidence we have received, we do not oppose the use of these devices to contain dogs within a particular area without the need for fences. However, we emphasise that this is very much a preliminary view; we would certainly seek to hear further evidence on this issue before taking a view on any future draft regulations seeking to control this area.

Proposals to be implemented by orders made under clause 1(5)

335. The following proposals would constitute exemptions to the ban on mutilations set out in clause 1(4).[273] Such exemptions would need to be implemented by way of orders made under clause 1(5).

Allowable mutilations: tail docking of dogs

336. Details of Defra's proposal to ban or restrict the docking of dogs' tails are set out in annex G to the RIA. Defra proposes that the docking of a dog's tail for prophylactic purposes should be banned or restricted but that there may be arguments for allowing the docking of dogs whose tails are particularly prone to injury, such as certain working dogs. In oral evidence, the Minister told us that tail docking will be banned "except for therapeutic or welfare reasons".[274] Defra has indicated to us that its rationale for its position is based on strong scientific evidence suggesting that puppies feel pain when docked, and that the benefits of docking for cosmetic reasons do not offset the pain felt.

Current law

337. Currently, it is illegal for anyone other than a veterinary surgeon to dock a dog's tail.[275] In deciding whether to dock a dog's tail, a vet is required to have regard to guidance issued by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). The RCVS guidance states that:

The Royal College has for many years been firmly opposed to the docking of dogs' tails … unless it can be shown truly to be required for therapeutic or truly prophylactic reasons … Docking cannot be defined as prophylactic unless it is undertaken for the necessary protection of the given dog from risks to that dog of disease or of injury which is likely to arise in the future from the retention of an entire tail … docking cannot be described as prophylactic if it is undertaken merely on request, or just because the dog is of a particular breed, type or conformation.[276]

Evidence received

338. We received a wide spectrum of evidence on this issue. The RSPCA, the All Party Group for Animal Welfare in the National Assembly for Wales, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Anti-Docking Alliance all called for a ban on docking dogs' tails except for therapeutic reasons.[277] The British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Union of Country Sports Workers supported a ban with exemptions for therapeutic and, in some cases, prophylactic docking, such as for working dogs.[278] The Kennel Club and the Council of Docked Breeds (CDB) opposed Defra's proposal;[279] the CDB argued that:

… the likelihood is that a ban on the docking of non-working dogs will result in a substantial number of breeders ceasing to breed dogs of the customarily docked breeds. Registrations of docked breeds will fall, and there will also be a very considerable loss from the dog world of the huge experience built up by experienced breeders over many decades. It is our view that, in consequence, the breeds themselves will suffer.[280]

339. With regard to the question of whether docking causes puppies pain, we received veterinary evidence supporting both sides of the debate. Joseph Holmes, a veterinary surgeon, said that, in his experience, the operation lasted 10 seconds and puppies went straight back to sleep following the procedure.[281] On the other hand, Professor David Morton told us that very young animals were more likely to feel pain than older animals and argued that tail docking should be allowed only for therapeutic reasons when in the best interests of the individual animal, rather than for prophylactic or cosmetic reasons.[282] Both the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) believed that docking should not be allowed except for therapeutic or prophylactic reasons. However, both bodies were somewhat unclear about how they proposed that their position on prophylactic docking should be defined in practice. The RCVS commented that:

dogs should not have their tails docked except … 'for prophylactic or therapeutic reasons'—therapeutic would be quite simple; if a dog has got a badly damaged tail, that is more than a young puppy, I do not think anybody would argue, providing the veterinary surgeon's evidence was right and proper. It is the "prophylactic" which is probably going to be the problem.[283]

The BVA submitted that "we need clear scientific evidence which will justify [prophylactic docking]. If that evidence is not available [then] it is not justified."[284]

Our position

340. We consider that tail docking in dogs should be banned for cosmetic reasons. Tail docking should continue to be permitted for therapeutic reasons, where it is in an animal's best welfare interests. The question of allowing an exemption for prophylactic docking for certain breeds or types of working dogs is more difficult. For example, there is a risk that a whole litter of puppies which might one day be used as working dogs could be docked as a precautionary measure. Unless there is a system to guarantee that a docked puppy will be used as a working dog, an exemption for prophylactic docking risks being abused.

341. We therefore support Defra's proposed position on this issue. To prevent an abuse of any exemption for prophylactic docking, we recommend that a puppy's tail should be permitted to be docked for prophylactic reasons only where the following conditions are met:

as is currently required by law, tail docking should be carried out only by a veterinarian

the veterinarian should take all reasonable steps to satisfy him or herself that the puppy is of a specified breed of dog, generally used as a working dog, or that the puppy is likely to be used as a specified type of working dog

the veterinarian should be required to maintain records demonstrating why he or she was satisfied that these conditions were met—for example, a gun licence

the veterinarian should be required to microchip any puppy which he or she docks; the microchip should contain the details of the veterinarian who docked the puppy, and

the veterinarian should provide the owner with a certificate endorsing the tail docking; the certificate should include the details of the veterinarian who carried out the procedure.

Proposals to be implemented by codes of practice made under clause 7

342. Defra appears to intend that the following proposals would be implemented by way of codes of practice made under clause 7.

Rearing of game birds

343. In annex I to the RIA, Defra states that there is "little concern generally" about the welfare of game birds reared for sport shooting purposes. Despite this, Defra considers that, under clause 7, it would be appropriate to introduce a code of practice addressing the rearing of such birds, in order to "alleviate an apparent anomaly between birds raised for food [currently regulated under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968] and those primarily raised for sport shooting". The Game Farmers' Association (GFA) currently has a code of practice in place for the rearing of game birds; about half of the 300 or so game farms in England and Wales are currently GFA members and are therefore required to comply with the code of practice. Defra intends that the GFA code should form the basis for the proposed statutory code of practice, which would apply to all game farms in England and Wales. Defra states that it has consulted with the game farming industry on this issue.

344. In annex L to the RIA, Defra indicates that, for animal health purposes, game farms are currently subject to inspection by the State Veterinary Service, and that the SVS could therefore be expected to undertake inspections for animal welfare purposes, too.

Evidence received

345. Evidence from the game farming and shooting industry was generally supportive of Defra's proposal. The GFA and the National Gamekeepers' Organisation (NGO) both urged that the statutory code of practice should adopt the existing text of the GFA code without modification.[285] The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) went one step further, suggesting that Defra had already undertaken to adopt the existing GFA code as a statutory code of practice: "Defra Ministers have said that they intend to approve the existing [GFA code] … BASC supports this course of action".[286]

346. The GFA and NGO expressed concern about "vagaries in the Bill that might lead to unwarranted prosecution of gamekeepers and game farmers" for what appear to be standard game farming practices.[287] For example, they were concerned that the draft Bill should make it clear that clipping a bird's wing for game farming purposes could not be said to be a mutilation under clause 1(4):

… within game farming the clipping of the feathers of one wing is a very common practice before game birds are released. This detains the bird temporarily for a few weeks within an open-top release pen in the woodland. The idea is that the bird in the release pen is safe; it can be looked after by the game keeper while it is acclimatising to the wild. The feathers on the wing that has been clipped will re-grow and, in due course, once it is able to escape and fully adapt into the wild, the bird will flutter out over the open-top fence and be released into the wild.[288]

Concern was also expressed that a game keeper might be said to have "abandoned" a bird after it has been released into the wild, and that he or she could therefore continue to be said be have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure the birds' welfare, under the clause 3 welfare offence.[289]

347. The GFA and NGO also discussed the numbers of game birds reared for sport shooting and what happens to them, once they are released:

Approximately 20 million … pheasants and partridge are reared and released into this country each year. About 40% of those get shot. There are some figures … on what happens to the other 50 to 60%. A proportion go on to breed in the wild and become, effectively, part of the wild stock, a proportion are lost to predators, a proportion, obviously, will be taken in road accidents, although that has never been quantified, and some, indeed, a very small proportion, will be caught up again for breeding purposes in subsequent years.[290]

348. By contrast, submitters from outside the game industry were strongly critical of the GFA code. Animal Aid described it as "thoroughly inadequate" and "self-serving".[291] The League against Cruel Sports (LACS) urged Defra not to accept "the assurances of a self-regulated industry which has thus far failed to resolve the welfare problems it faces" and submitted that failure to abide by the terms of the proposed statutory code of practice should itself be an offence.[292] These organisations were also opposed to certain game rearing practices on welfare grounds, including wing clipping but extending to beak trimming, fitting game birds with spectacles and with bits, which the Farm Animal Welfare Network (FAWN) described as "devices that are clipped into the birds' nostrils and fed between the upper and lower beak, so preventing beak closure"; these are apparently used as anti-aggression devices.[293] LACS submitted that:

… things like wing clipping and bitting and burning and beak trimming … all of these are done to the bird because of the conditions in which people try to keep that bird and the problems that are associated with that. In principle, we would much rather they solved those problems than mutilated the bird … part of the five freedoms is for those animals to be able to express their normal behaviour and if you are going to stop them flying you are not meeting the requirements of the five freedoms.[294]

349. LACS believed that the clause 3 welfare offence draft Bill would apply not only to game birds that are being reared but also to birds beyond "the point of release"—meaning that, under clause 3, gamekeepers would continue to be responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure the birds' welfare.[295] Similarly, the Wales Opponents of Pheasant Shooting claimed that gamekeepers continued to provide food, shelter and water for game birds even after they have been released into the wild and that they would therefore continue to be responsible for the birds' welfare after their release.[296]

350. Animal Aid described the GFA and NGO's account of the numbers of game birds reared for sport shooting and their fate, once they are released, as:

… a very anodyne presentation of what takes place … The BASC … in Shooting Times a couple of years ago talked about 35 million birds released. What we are talking about is millions and millions of birds massproduced inside sheds … principally for the purpose of being shot, not for eating, but for sport.[297]

FAWN concurred with the view that "a probable thirty million birds are reared annually for shoots" and claimed that, of those, "only a small … number … are 'caught up' from the wild, [in order] to boost the health status of the millions that are purpose-bred".[298] The Wales Opponents of Pheasant Shooting claimed that "enormous game bird releases" were necessary to fulfil the BASC's "recommended maximum bag of 500 birds per day".[299] On this point, the BASC stated that it has not published a guideline limit, but that "in practice it would advise that no more than 500 birds per team, not per individual, should be shot".[300] The BASC advised that for the vast majority of shoots—"perhaps 90 or 95%"—bags of a fifth or a tenth of that size would be more typical.[301]

351. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) applauded the Game Farmers' Association's "proactive stance" in producing a voluntary code of practice but expressed surprise that Defra suggested that there are only about 300 game farms in England and Wales. It noted that a "more proactive assessment of stockmanship" on game farms could be needed and that an assessment of game rearing could be the subject of a future FAWC report.[302]

Our position

352. We are disturbed that Defra considers that there is "little concern generally" about the welfare of game birds reared for sport shooting purposes. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence we have received. Defra states that it has consulted with the game farming industry on this issue. If Defra has consulted no more widely than the industry, it is unsurprising that it should have uncovered little concern about the rearing of game birds. We are also concerned by FAWC's suggestion that Defra may have underestimated the scale of game farming in England and Wales. We recommend that, prior to drawing up a draft code of practice on the rearing of game birds for sport shooting purposes, Defra should ensure that it has consulted with a broad range of groups and individuals with an interest in this area, including those groups which are critical of current game bird rearing practices. The Government should ensure that it has solid data on the numbers of game farms in England and Wales and the scale of these farms.

353. On the basis of the evidence we have received, we do not support the existing Game Farmers' Association code of practice being adopted as a statutory code of practice under clause 7 without further consideration first being given to the appropriateness of certain rearing practices, including beak trimming and burning and the fitting of bits, masks and spectacles. We consider that gamekeepers should be required to try other methods first before resorting to these practices, as currently appears to be the requirement in relation to tail docking in piglets.[303]

354. We are also concerned that, of the game birds being reared, only 40% end up being shot. Limiting the numbers of game birds that are able to be reared could perhaps be one way of lessening aggression amongst birds as they are being reared. However, we have heard insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusion on this issue.

355. We do not consider that gamekeepers should continue to be responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of game birds once they have been released into the wild, in terms of the clause 3 welfare offence. However, as the draft Bill stands, we consider there is scope for prosecutions to be brought in this respect. We recommend that the Government ensure that the protection provided by the draft Bill does not extend to game birds once they have been released into the wild. We have discussed the difficulties with the clause 3(3) provision on abandonment in greater detail in part 4.

Sale of pet animals over the internet

356. In annex D to the RIA, Defra states that trading in pet animals over the internet "is not subject to the same provisions that regulate pet shops".[304] Defra suggests that "a possible option" to deal with internet trading would be a code of practice. Defra appears to intend that the code of practice would require vendors who sell pet animals over the internet in England to comply with minimum welfare standards, although it is not clear if, by "minimum welfare standards", Defra means anything other than a requirement for vendors to provide information about an animal's welfare needs.

357. In annex L to the RIA, Defra states that, in its proposed first tranche of secondary legislation and codes of practice, it intends to make provision with regard to "other means of selling animals". In light of the information given in the annexes to the RIA, we assume this phrase is intended to include Defra's intended code of practice on internet trading. However, Defra states that its policy with respect to "other means of selling animals" is yet to be agreed.[305]

Our position

358. We support Defra's suggestion that vendors who sell pet animals over the internet in England should be subject to a code of practice, issued under clause 7, which would set out minimum welfare standards. However, given that Defra describes its policy in this area as "to be agreed", we doubt whether Defra will be in a position to issue such a code of practice within a year of any Bill being enacted, as is its stated intention. We recommend that the Government assess whether it is really in a position to issue a code of practice on internet trading within its intended timescale.

Final recommendation on first tranche proposals

359. Given the importance of any secondary legislation made under a future Act for the practical operation of the Act, we consider it is important that Parliament should have some indication of what policies the Government is proposing to implement under the delegated powers in the Act. This is particularly crucial given the wide-ranging concerns that have been raised in evidence about many aspects of the policies proposed for implementation in the first tranche of secondary legislation and codes of practice. We therefore recommend that the Government publish revised details of its proposed policies for implementation in the first tranche at such time as it may introduce a final Bill to Parliament.