Memorandum submitted by the British Small
Animal Veterinary Association (AW 70)
The BSAVA is the largest specialist division
of the veterinary profession and represents some 6,000 members,
the majority of whom are in general practice and who have an interest
in the treatment of small animals (dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents
and other species including pet birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Draft Animal Welfare Bill is welcomed by
the BSAVA. We are pleased to observe that the Draft Bill seeks
to assemble and modernise a number of existing laws governing
the welfare of domestic and captive animals, and to remove any
loopholes.
Particularly welcome is the proposal to introduce
a duty of care on the animal owner and the decision to redefine
the offence of cruelty—ensuring that an offence may be committed
by act or omission.
The BSAVA acknowledges that this Bill will be
a useful framework on which to hang further secondary legislation
and we welcome the flexibility inherent in its structure.
The development of appropriate Codes of Practice
to support both this and any secondary legislation is of paramount
importance and work on these Codes should be commenced without
further delay.
Our commentary follows over the next few pages
and is broadly supportive of all the proposals within the draft
Bill. However, the BSAVA cannot accept the proposal to allow exemptions
from a total ban on the docking of dogs' tails.
We are encouraged by many of the proposals in
the draft Bill but we have concerns for our profession from other
sources. In particular, the Competition Commission proposals are
likely to bring financial pressure to bear on an industry of small
businesses that are competing for a decreasing market share.
If animal welfare is to be given the priority
it deserves, and if the draft Bill is to be successful in its
aims, then it is vital that the government listens to the needs
of the veterinary profession, who will play a key role in delivering
those aims.
We very much hope that the Efra Committee will
bear these concerns in mind.
1. The BSAVA welcomes the publication of
the draft Animal Welfare Bill and considers that, if implemented
and properly enforced, it will improve animal welfare in England
and Wales. The BSAVA hopes that similar legislation will also
be introduced in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
2. In this response the BSAVA provides a
brief commentary on the draft Animal Welfare Bill with reference
to matters pertaining to small (companion) animals. It is outside
our remit to comment on farm animals, horses or other equidae.
3. The draft Bill seeks to tidy up existing
legislation governing the protection and welfare of domestic and
captive animals, which is long overdue. The BSAVA welcomes this
draft Bill introducing primary legislation and a framework under
which secondary legislation could be developed.
4. The BSAVA considers that this framework
will allow the legislation to adapt and welcomes the flexibility
inherent to the Act that will allow protection to be extended
to other species [Clause 53 (3)] if scientific evidence demands.
5. The most important part of the protection
of animal welfare is yet to come in the development of the Codes
of Practice, which will be an essential ingredient in the development
of secondary legislation. The BSAVA offers its help in constructing
these Codes for small animals.
6. The BSAVA believes that the production
of such Codes is not a major task given the willingness of the
industry to assist. Consequently we consider that the production
of such Codes for the duty of care for the major species should
be feasible within a year of enactment of the legislation and
the Association urges DEFRA to speed up their proposed timetable.
7. Particularly welcome is the proposal
to impose a duty of care on the keepers of animals, and the decision
to modernise and redefine the offence of cruelty. The BSAVA is
pleased to note that it will be possible to take steps to prevent
unnecessary suffering before it occurs. (Clause 1).
8. The BSAVA supports the ban on mutilations
[Clause 1 (4)]. However we consider the definition of the word
"mutilation" to be potentially difficult—there
are some people who would argue that routine neutering is a mutilation.
It may be necessary for the Secretary of State to be enabled to
provide a list of banned mutilations.
9. The BSAVA is implacably opposed to the
docking of dogs' tails and presents its case in an appendix accompanying
this response.
10. We note the intention to extend the
protection encapsulated in the Agriculture Miscellaneous Provisions
Act 1968 to non-farmed livestock and support this proposal wholeheartedly.
(Clause 3) We accept that the variation across the breadth of
species kept as companion animals is far greater than for farmed
species but this should not deter legislators from properly defining
what is required through regulations and Codes of Practice.
11. The BSAVA considers animal fighting
to be totally abhorrent and incompatible with modern British society
and is heartened to see the increased range of offences relating
to fighting, wrestling or baiting. We support the increased penalties
for involvement in these activities, including the ability to
seize the animals.
12. The BSAVA supports the concept of sale
of animals only to persons over the age of 16 years. However,
the implementation of this regulation will need to be carefully
enforced if the proposed legislation is not to be brought into
disrepute. Consideration must be given to how a pet shop employee
(or other vendor) is to determine the age of a child or youth
demanding to buy a pet.
13. The BSAVA notes that on many occasions
in the draft Bill mention is made of "slaughter" of
an animal when referring to methods of disposal [for example:
Clause 16 (2) (f), Clause 17 (1) (c) and (2) (c), Clause 25 (8),
Clause 28 (10)] or destruction. Whereas "slaughter"
is an appropriate term for the disposal of farm animals it is
not a suitable word for the dispatch of pet animals and the Association
respectfully suggests that both terms: "slaughter" (for
farm animals) and "euthanasia" (for pet animals) be
used.
14. The BSAVA is dismayed at the proposition
that pet fairs may be legalised (Annex C). Our current advice
is that they are illegal and should remain so. We consider it
almost impossible to protect the welfare of the animals involved.
We would be even more concerned if such fairs were allowed to
sell dogs and cats—this could result in a return to the
worst conditions for animal welfare before the introduction of
pet shop licensing.
15. The BSAVA welcomes the proposal to licence
greyhound racing (Annex H). While the National Greyhound Racing
Club (NGRC) is making slow progress towards the provision of high
standards of welfare at their tracks, the independent tracks are
some way behind and urgently need regulation to ensure that similar
standards of animal welfare are attained. In particular BSAVA
considers a veterinary surgeon should be present at every track
when any dog is raced or trialled, as is the practice in horse
racing. We believe legislation should be introduced now.
16. The BSAVA supports the concept of dual
licensing and registration, mentioned in Clause 6 subsection 2
(h) and 2 (i), for smaller operations. The financial burden on
smaller establishments of full licensing would be likely to result
in some ceasing operation and this would inevitably leave a deficit
in welfare provision. However we are concerned that inspections
are to be reduced from an inspection every 12 months to one every
18 months. While we understand the financial motive, we consider
that the resulting potential for degradation of welfare levels
does not justify the cost benefit.
17. Clearly enforcement of any legislation
is a key issue and the BSAVA is aware that enforcement of current
legislation is inconsistent and often ineffective. We consider
this to be the result of:
— A lack of resources at local government
level.
— Inadequate investment in the proper
training of inspectors and other persons who might be involved
in the enforcement of the legislation.
The Bill suggests that local authorities should
take note of "the criteria (qualifications, experience etc)
that are relevant to the appointment of inspectors". (Clause
44) We urge the Secretary of State to issue a list of approved
persons who are suitably qualified for appointment as inspectors.
It should be mandatory for Local Authorities to use inspectors
from this list. [Clause 44 (2)]
It is essential that the extended powers of
entry should not lead to a situation where these powers are abused.
Therefore the persons charged with the powers of entry must be
appropriately trained and be held responsible for their actions,
should these not be carried out in an appropriate manner. (Inherent
to this statement is acknowledgement of Clause 45 Protection of
Inspectors).
18. The role of the veterinary surgeon covers
more than the treatment of animals. It extends to inspections
and compliance and to expert opinion in disputed cases of animal
cruelty and welfare. This expertise should be recognised and utilised
under any future proposals for implementing this Act, any secondary
legislation or Codes of Practice.
19. The draft Bill seeks to improve animal
welfare in the UK, and envisages a key—and much increased—role
for vets in doing so. This is right and proper because veterinary
surgeons make animal welfare their prime concern through their
everyday work.
20. However, is it reasonable to expect
this of an industry that faces real challenges if, as expected,
the DTI goes ahead with reforms to the way in which prescription-only
animal medicines are delivered? If the DTI opts to implement in
full the recommendations of the Competition Commission then the
results could be damaging for the veterinary profession, and the
pet owners and animals, which they serve.
21. The Competition Commission has recommended
changes to the way that Prescription Only Veterinary Medicines
are delivered to animal owners. If the Competition Commission
proposals are implemented they are likely to drive an increase
in up-front consultation charges. Many pet owners still do not
understand that there is no NHS-style service with subsidised
costs for pets. Vets fees will have to rise to maintain an income
healthy enough to keep the business going.
22. Paragraph 36 of the Regulatory Impact
Assessment notes that in the long term there will be "significant
savings" on enforcement and judicial costs, as the Bill will
encourage a "more responsible attitude to animal ownership".
It adds that putting mechanisms in place to increase regulation
and making the public more aware about the need to be pro-active
in good animal care will be key to reducing prosecutions. However
rising veterinary fees are likely to lead to pet owners being
deterred from visiting a vet until a later stage or indeed not
at all, and we foresee that this could lead to a contingent rise
in animal suffering or worse, the animal being abandoned. If the
government is keen for the public to be "more aware about
the need to be pro-active in good animal care," a rise in
veterinary consultation costs is hardly likely to encourage such
pro-activity.
23. The Competition Commission proposals
are likely to bring financial pressure to bear on an industry
of small businesses that are competing for a decreasing market
share. Indeed as more large animal vets turn to small animal practice
to maintain their failing incomes, companion animal vets are facing
a future with falling numbers of dogs and a population of cats
that has reached a plateau.
24. If animal welfare is to be given the
priority it deserves, and if the draft Bill is to be successful
in its aims, then it is vital that the government listens to the
needs of the veterinary profession, who will play a key role in
delivering those aims. A demoralised profession struggling to
make a living may find it difficult to help to deliver a real
improvement in animal welfare.
APPENDIX TO
PARAGRAPH 9
Proposal to Ban or Restrict the Docking of Dogs'
Tails (Annex G)
Paragraph 9 of the BSAVA response states:
"The BSAVA is implacably opposed to
the docking of dogs' tails"
1. Therefore the Association supports
a complete ban on the docking of dogs' tails in line with our
Policy Statement No 23 quoted in its entirety below:
"23. Corrective Cosmetic and Mutilative
Surgery
1. The BSAVA Council continues to support
the BVA policy on devoicing and declawing.
2. The BSAVA Council is of the opinion
that the docking of puppies' tails is an unnecessary mutilation
and urges the RCVS to promote legislation leading to the outlawing
of the procedure, unless the tail has previously been injured
and the injury cannot be managed by any other means.
3. While the BSAVA Council appreciates
the necessity for surgical correction of certain abnormalities
in dogs in order to alleviate pain and suffering, the Association
deplores the fact that some owners may take advantage of the correction
and knowingly deceive, by not revealing that corrections have
been made. The BSAVA Council strongly supports the Kennel Club
initiative on the reporting of operative procedures, which alter
the natural conformation of a dog.
4. The BSAVA Council strongly condemns
the practice of ear cropping."
The BSAVA welcomes the proposal to ban cosmetic
docking of dogs, which will result in the show dogs of the future
being presented with tails.
We do not believe there is any scientific evidence
to show that undocked working dogs damage their tails any more
than undocked non-working dogs and therefore see no justification
for an exemption for working dogs.
We consider that any such exemption would be
unworkable and would result in dogs continuing to be docked unnecessarily.
A blanket ban can be implemented and enforced.
Once exemptions are introduced into the law there will always
be someone prepared to exploit the loophole and inevitably the
law will fail to protect the animals that the Animal Welfare Bill
is intended for.
Quoting from the minutes of a Defra meeting
held on Thursday 5 August 2004: "Anyone wishing to have
their puppies docked would have to demonstrate that they were
likely to become working dogs. This could be established by the
breeder producing documentary evidence showing that he participated
in sporting shooting. This might include a membership card of
a gun club, shotgun certificate or firearms licence, proof of
employment as a gamekeeper or pest control officer."
This "solution" is at best naive—pups
are presented at approximately three days old for docking. How
is the breeder to know without doubt that they are to become working
dogs? Because if they were not to become working dogs, then they
would surely have been docked illegally since there is to be a
ban on cosmetic docking? In addition, it will be an easy task
to create "membership" documents of bogus gun clubs.
Or people wishing to circumvent the ban would hand over their
pups to someone else, perhaps someone holding a firearms certificate.
A further quote from the meeting: "A
veterinary certificate would be required to show that the operation
had been carried out by a vet, and that he had seen the necessary
documentary evidence leading him to believe that the puppies would
be worked. The legislation would specify the documentary evidence
that would need to be produced."
This requirement is unequivocally unworkable:
Unless they are permanently identified at the time of docking
by microchip or tattoo, how would anyone know in the future which
dog the certificate referred to? A vet can only certify that he
has seen documentary evidence—he cannot comment on the validity
of that evidence, neither can he certify in any way that the pups
are likely to be used for working. What does a veterinary surgeon
do when presented with Rottweilers, Poodles and Boxers—all
apparently belonging to members of a gun club and "likely
to become working dogs"?
The breed-based exemption was considered unworkable
but the solution based on the likelihood of an animal becoming
a working dog is equally obtuse. The prospect of a veterinary
surgeon certifying that a puppy aged only a few days old will
be used as a working dog is untenable.
The BSAVA urges the Secretary of State and the
Minister to re-consider this decision to allow exemptions for
some working dogs.
In the Foreword to the Bill by the Rt Hon Margaret
Beckett MP she states that "The Bill is a watershed in ensuring
that this country re-establishes itself as the pace setter for
animal welfare standards throughout the world".
It is a sad reflection that this country is
set to allow a number of dogs to have their tails docked. We can
only hope that no other country follows our pace-setting example
on this matter.
25 August 2004
| 
