Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA)

  1.  I am writing to convey the views of PDSA on the Animal Welfare Bill, published on the 14 October 2005. 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.

A.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  2.  PDSA supports the Animal Welfare Bill and believes that it will help to ensure that owners recognised the responsibility of animal ownership. PDSA also supports the proposals under the Bill that would make it an offence to fail to provide a basic level of care for an animal.

  3.  PDSA is pleased that the 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 to legislate for and PDSA believes that the Bill does balance the individual's privilege to own or keep a companion animal with his or her responsibility for ensuring its welfare.

  4.  PDSA is pleased 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. It is welcomed that the Bill ensures people who own, or are responsible for, non-farmed animals will have a duty in law to ensure their animals' welfare.

B.  ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

    —  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". Does this have more of an impact than considered? What happens if a pet owner does not get their dog vaccinated—offering protection from disease? Clearly an understanding of the application of this worthy aim is required. Additional guidance in light of this Bill will be required by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to ensure that Veterinary Surgeons are put into difficulties with regard to client compliance to the Bill.

    —  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 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 recommend the inclusion of the term "evidence based" in any justification and believes that the Bill currently does not enable this requirement.

    —  PDSA would also continue to call that the Bill ensures animal breeders 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.

    —  Section 16 allows an inspector or constable to take whatever steps need to be taken to alleviate the animals suffering. Subsection (4) allows an inspector or constable to kill an animal without waiting for a vet. 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.

    —  Clause 1 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." Whilst recognising that subsection (3a) allows further definition to be applied through regulations PDSA would suggest consideration should be given to using the above definition for clarity and consistency given the increasingly diverse pet owning characteristics of the general public in the UK.

C.  CONCLUSION

  5.  PDSA believes that the 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.

  6.  This Bill 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 to the individuals who oversees the welfare needs of animals within their control is firmly supported.

Richard Hooker BVMS (Hons) MRCVS

Chief Veterinary Surgeon,

PDSA

November 2005



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 14 December 2005