Memorandum submitted by PDSA
PDSA welcomes the opportunity to respond to
the Draft Bill. PDSA fully supports and endorses the aims of the
Animal Welfare Bill, especially the aim to introduce wider legislation
with the purpose of updating the existing animal welfare provision
in the UK.
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
PDSA has no regulatory role. By it's constitution
it is a non-campaigning organisation and as such has views only
on issues that are within its experience and encountered through
the provision of its veterinary services in the UK.
As Britain's largest provider of veterinary
care, through 46 PetAid hospitals and through over 300 PetAid
practices, we have a wide base of experience in the issues surrounding
the welfare of domestic pets and the relationship between owners
and their pets. PDSA is committed to the objective of increasing
the knowledge of those responsible for animals under their care.
Recently PDSA has launched a high profile and
sustained campaign to promote responsible pet ownership and encourage
the general public to become more aware of animal welfare issues
and preventive care.
PDSA supports the draft Animal Welfare Bill
and believes that it would help to ensure that owners recognise
the responsibility of animal ownership. PDSA also supports the
proposals under the Draft Bill that would make it an offence to
fail to provide a basic level of care for an animal.
PDSA is pleased that the Draft Bill contains
a radical review and welcomes the effort to modernise the existing
Animal Welfare legislation. PDSA hopes that this Bill will constitute
the framework for appropriate action in tackling the occasions
where a companion animal, although not currently suffering, is
being kept in such a way that suffering will inevitably follow.
This is always going to be a difficult area for which to legislate
and PDSA believes that the Draft Bill does balance the individual's
privilege to own or keep a companion animal with his or her responsibility
for ensuring its welfare.
PDSA agrees with the emphasis on the responsibility
of the care for a pet being placed with owners. The imposition
of this responsibility of such a duty of care within the Bill
is welcomed.
Additionally, particularly helpful as British
Veterinary Association President Professor Tim Greet said, "No
vet should ever again need to stand in the witness box trying
to define concepts such as cruelty or suffering." Most successful
prosecutions involve the expertise of Veterinary Surgeons; consequently
the profession is very much in the "front-line" of animal
welfare. The decision to modernise and to redefine such terms
is therefore welcomed by PDSA.
2. ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS
PDSA welcomes the inclusion in the Draft Bill
of the definition of what good animal welfare should be. This
includes the need for a suitable environment in which to live,
the need for adequate food and water at appropriate intervals
and the need to express normal behaviour.
Imposing a duty of care means that all domestic
or captive animals should be cared for in accordance with best
practice and their needs.
The realignment of Animal Welfare legislation
that covers farmed species with that of non-farmed species is
most welcome.
Similar to the promotion of welfare of farmed
animals, PDSA welcomes the fact that this Bill will provide powers
to introduce secondary legislation and codes of practice to protect
the welfare of non-farmed species. This is of particular value
as scientific knowledge and the understanding of animal welfare
issues do change. Ensuring that such changes can be enacted is
of vital importance to ensure the long term credibility and ongoing
effective implementation of Animal Welfare legislation in the
UK.
PDSA also supports the strengthened position
and the amendments relating to animal fighting, for which the
only current provision is the Protection of Animals Act, 1911.
PDSA supports a ban on mutilations—such
as the tail docking of dogs—subject to exceptions that are
limited to good, sound and evidence based reasons for the procedure.
PDSA would strongly recommend the inclusion of the term "evidence
based" in any justification.
PDSA would also support any intention that the
Bill has under proposals to phase out certain characteristics
in cats and dogs that result in a compromise of the breed's health
and welfare. This Bill would actually provide the ideal forum
for such legislation. Whilst breeding out of such detrimental
characteristics is a long term objective, PDSA feels that a regulatory
framework should be in place and incorporated within this Bill
rather than rely upon voluntary codes of practice. Our experience
through our own veterinary services indicates that the health
and welfare of many breeds has to date been compromised by inappropriate
selective breeding. PDSA believes that this must be incorporated
within the Bill to impact on this important aspect of the promotion
and protection of Animal Welfare.
PDSA supports the intention in the Draft Bill
that children under the age of 16 will be banned from buying a
pet. Additionally, the provision must also be made that when a
pet is "gifted" to a child—a parent or guardian
has a legal responsibility for the care and welfare of the pet.
PDSA welcomes the revised approach to imposition
of penalties and the increase in the effectiveness of Animal Welfare
law enforcement. Increasing the powers for inspectors from local
Government and the police should ensure that it is more difficult
for individuals to circumvent any disqualification orders made
by Courts. Additionally, widening the range of sentencing and
fines will enhance the deterrence that must exist to uphold the
protection of Animal Welfare in the UK.
PDSA believes that in relation to the licensing
of activities involving animals, the Bill should act to improve
regulation and improve the ability to routinely inspect and enforce
adherence to pre-defined standards. It is also commendable to
see that within the legislation inspectors would also be able
to inspect where belief exists that a person is carrying out a
licensable activity without such a licence.
PDSA supports the inspection process at 18 month
intervals for dog and cat boarding establishments, pet shops and
pet fairs. The recommendation to include animal sanctuaries is
also welcomed. However, the requirement of veterinary presence
at intervals of 5 years for both sanctuaries and boarding facilities
may require review and the adoption of shorter timeframes could
be considered. PDSA believes that the time intervals would be
better judged on a risk basis; with marginal establishments inspected
more frequently than those that achieved a higher standard in
previous inspections. The veterinary surgeon is well placed to
give independent and constructive input to this inspection and
regulation. Such veterinary surgeons must be completely independent
of the applicant or license holder. With local authority involvement
a risk does exist that such provision for inspection may not be
uniformly applied. There is a need to identify universal standards
and to ensure sufficient resources are available to guarantee
effective implementation of these proposals.
PDSA welcomes the recommendation that the retail
of pets is further regulated. Sales must be restricted to adults
and sales staff must be able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge
of the species offered for sale. The provision of appropriate
information at the point of sale is also vital. Such information
should be generated with the appropriate input from the veterinary
profession.
3. INDIVIDUAL
POINTS
Is there a conflict between this legislation,
and the "liberation" of experimental animals? Although
this is mentioned in the Bill, and is covered by separate legislation,
could it be argued that releasing experimental animals is defended
in this bill? Clause 50 (Clause 3) does cover this, but
PDSA considers that this would benefit from further clarification.
PDSA recommends that within the Bill adequate
provision is made for animals seized after intervention.
The keeper of an animal commits an offence if
he fails to take reasonable steps to ensure the animal's welfare.
These needs are taken to include "the need for appropriate
protection from, and diagnosis and treatment of, pain, injury
and diseases". PDSA would question whether this might have
a greater impact than has been considered. Does the Bill intend
to cover what happens if a pet owner does not get their dog vaccinated
and therefore an owner fails to offer protection from disease?
4. CLAUSES
Clause 11 subsection (2) allows a constable
or inspector to seize an animal without the certificate of a veterinary
surgeon where the particular urgency of the situation requires
this. This is welcomed but PDSA suggests that clear criteria should
be identified in determining levels of appropriate action to ensure
that this power is not abused. Does it require empowerment by
the police?
Clause 13 allows an inspector or constable
to take whatever steps needed to be taken to alleviate the animals'
suffering. Subsection (3) allows an inspector or constable to
kill an animal without waiting for a veterinary surgeon. Whilst
these are rare occurrences, PDSA would urge that consideration
is given to the practicalities of this power and whether individuals
tasked with such a responsibility can discharge it effectively
and humanely.
Clause 26 concerns the disqualification
from owning an animal. Subsection (1) states that where a disqualified
person continues to live in a house with animals owned or kept
by other occupants, that he should be disqualified from taking
any part in the care of those animals. PDSA believes that this
would be impossible to enforce effectively.
Subsection (2) provides that disqualification
may be imposed in relation to any animals or kind of animal. For
example, a farmer convicted of cruelty to his cattle might be
disqualified from having livestock but not fish. PDSA believes
that failure to care effectively for one species is transferable
to other species, since both species require a duty of care.
Clause 44 clarifies issues surrounding
the appointment of inspectors by local authorities. What are the
criteria relevant to inspectors? What training is involved? Does
this apply to other areas of animal keeping, such as pets at schools?
Clause 47 deals with powers to stop and
detain vehicles. Are there any considerations regarding transporting
pets in cars, and their safety? PDSA believes that pets should
be in crates or held securely within pet seat belts and asks that
this should be included in this legislation.
Clause 53 defines animals as vertebrate
animals other than man. A definition in the Scottish Executive
Draft Animal Welfare Bill was "any non-human vertebrate,
cephalopods or crustacean kept by, owned by, managed or dependent
on people." PDSA believes that all UK legislation should
be consistent and that consideration is given to using the above
definition given the increasingly diverse pet owning characteristics
of the general public in the UK.
5. REGULATORY
IMPACT
17. A ban on tail docking for cosmetic purposes
is supported by PDSA.
19. Electronic training aids should not
be used, and PDSA would support a ban.
21. Breeding out of excessive and potentially
harmful breed characteristics is supported by PDSA. This area
justifies further attention.
37. DEFRA does outline in the Bill as to
who would have access to the database but consideration should
be given to the required co-operation and the sharing of such
information with the veterinary profession.
6. COMMENTS ON
ANNEX SECTIONS
A. This extends the regulations to all those
who work with animals, not just circuses. This may apply to the
promotional work of many organisations including PDSA, where pets
are taken along to promotional or publicity functions. Although
the Annex does say that "small amateur theatrical productions
should be exempt" should exemption from the above also be
permissible if a veterinary surgeon is in attendance?
G. Tail docking, removal of dew claws and
breeding out characteristics that make a dog or cat more prone
to suffering. The Bill proposes the introduction of a code to
regulate the competency of non-veterinarians permitted to undertake
mutilations eg removal of dew claws. PDSA is of the opinion that
only veterinary surgeons should be allowed to perform such procedures
as defined by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. It is our experience
that illegal docking by lay people is widespread throughout UK.
Very large numbers of puppies are seen to be docked for only cosmetic
reasons and which will never be in any danger of tail injury in
the normal course of events.
7. CONCLUSION
PDSA believes that the draft Animal Welfare
Bill represents a major step forward in the legal regulation of
animal welfare especially relating to companion animals. This
Act provides not only the necessary emphasis on the prevention
of cruelty but also the promotion of animal welfare from a much
more effective and holistic basis.
This draft represents a significant step forward
in the requirement for increasing the awareness of animal welfare
and PDSA believes that the Bill applies correctly the duty of
care. The emphasis that such responsibility exists for the individuals
who oversee the welfare needs of animals within their control
is firmly supported.
23 August 2004
| 
