Environment and Rural Development Committee, 07 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 7, 2005

Official Report 291KB pdf

---

Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Agenda item 2 is the third of our six planned evidence sessions at stage 1 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on 5 October. Our role, as the lead committee, is to consider the provisions in the bill and to report to Parliament with a recommendation on whether the general principles of the bill should be agreed to. For our evidence sessions, many witnesses with specific expertise on or an interest in key elements of the bill will come before us. We issued an open call for written evidence and have received a number of submissions, which have been circulated to members. Members of the public who are interested can find those submissions on the committee's web page.

I welcome our first panel of witnesses: Professor Christopher Wathes, chair of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and Peter Stevenson, political adviser for Advocates for Animals. With this panel, we hope to focus on the animal welfare provisions and, in particular, on how they relate to farmed animals. We shall also hear comments from Advocates for Animals on the animal health provisions, so we could explore a range of issues. As with previous witnesses, we will not take opening statements, but members have been able to read the written evidence that the witnesses submitted.

Before we begin, may I raise again a matter that I raised earlier? There appears to be a delay in issuing the Official Report of our meetings. Last week's report, for example, arrived only this morning, and I know that one or two of the witnesses have had difficulty because they could not, through webcasts or by other means, find out what went on at last week's meeting. Can you give us any background on why it is taking so long to produce the Official Report?

Thank you for raising that point with me earlier. In essence, the reason is pressure of work in the official report, partly because of the tram bills committees, which are meeting in addition to regular committees. However, we have investigated the matter and it is possible to see the evidence sessions that we have held thus far on the webcast. We shall endeavour to ensure that members have exactly the right web address so that their constituents can view the meeting. That is probably the best way to help at the moment.

Thank you.

Who would like to kick off with questions?

I have a question for Mr Stevenson from Advocates for Animals about vaccination policy. Your submission states that you advocate a vaccinate-to-live policy, and I am interested in hearing more detailed comments on that. Why should it not be a vaccinate-to-slaughter policy? Could you spell out your objections for us?

There was a feeling at the time of the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease—and that feeling has grown in a number of scientific reports since then—that more use should have been made of vaccination. I do not think that anybody is claiming that a major disease outbreak can be dealt with by vaccination alone, but the Royal Society's report "Infectious diseases in livestock" suggests that a combination of methods should be used. Of course infected animals and those animals that have had dangerous contact with infected animals have to be slaughtered, but there is a growing feeling that the idea of simply mass-slaughtering all the animals within quite a wide radius of an infected farm should be called into question more and more and that vaccination has an important role to play.

Many people in animal protection organisations and many members of the public feel uncomfortable with the idea that one might vaccinate animals and then just slaughter them anyway. They feel that, if one is vaccinating animals, that should be done to allow them to live out their natural commercial lives, so that they would be slaughtered at the normal age for their species. Indeed, the bill makes it clear that the only reason for vaccinating to kill would be to allow an earlier return to international trade. Under the complex OIE rules that determine when one can go back to trading after a disease outbreak, vaccinating to live would delay a return to trade, by and large, by only about three months. That is not a long delay.

Are you saying that it is somehow cruel to vaccinate and then slaughter an animal to avoid that three-month delay? Why is that such an issue for you? After all, you have said that these animals are for commercial purposes. Why should they not be vaccinated, if it benefits trade?

I am offended by the idea that a huge number of animals have to be slaughtered to control an outbreak of disease, no matter whether the slaughter happens immediately or after vaccination—unless such a measure is absolutely necessary because the animals are infected or have been in dangerous contact. To me, the whole point of vaccination is to reduce the number of animals that have to be culled—after all, in 2001, millions of animals were slaughtered—and to allow them to live to the normal commercial age. I do not think that the mere desire to get back to trading a little bit earlier is a good reason for having a vaccinate-to-kill policy. We should have a vaccinate-to-live policy. The bill should be amended to ensure that the minister is able to introduce a vaccinate-to-kill policy only if veterinary advice shows that it is needed to control a disease outbreak and not just because it allows people to get back to trading a bit more quickly.

In your submission, you say that the desire for

"extended slaughter powers runs counter to the widely accepted view that vaccination rather than mass killing should play a leading role in tackling any future FMD outbreak"

and that you believe that

"the existing slaughter powers are already sufficiently wide and that … new powers"

could be "open to abuse". Why might the Executive abuse those new powers?

The existing powers are very broad. For example, I—and, I think, many people—believe that under the powers that were used in 2001, far too many perfectly healthy animals were killed. That is the view not just of our non-governmental organisation, but of the lessons-learned inquiry.

On the new powers, as a solicitor—albeit an English one—I have seen no legislation, on animal welfare or otherwise, that has been drawn so broadly. Under the bill, the minister can slaughter animals if they are infected, if they have been in contact with an infected animal or if they have been exposed to any infected animal, if he thinks fit. That provision is extraordinarily broad. It could never be challenged in the courts under a judicial review, because in such actions one must be able to show that the minister has acted unlawfully. The bill gives the minister a blank cheque.

The new extended powers must be reined in, at least by stipulating that the minister must act on veterinary advice. Moreover, I would prefer it if, instead of the minister being able to slaughter animals if he thinks fit, he were able to do so if he thought it was necessary to control the disease outbreak. The powers are far too wide.

So to improve the bill you suggest that there needs to be more justification for slaughter.

Yes. Basically, the minister should act on veterinary advice. I am sure that he would assure us that that would happen, but the point is that such a requirement should be specified in the legislation.

From what I understand, you think that the ministerial powers on slaughtering are too extensive and that they should be accompanied by a stipulation that ministers must follow veterinary advice. However, at our previous meeting, it was suggested that ministers sometimes have to act with such speed that, because not enough vets are available, it is not always possible to get that advice as quickly as possible. Do you accept that?

No. I find it inconceivable that, in a major disease outbreak, the minister will not be able to speak to the chief veterinary officer or another senior veterinary officer, if only on a mobile phone. If necessary, a minister can get the appropriate veterinary advice speedily.

How could that be phrased or covered in the bill to make it legally watertight? I presume that, in any case, the minister would not take such a step without some kind of veterinary advice.

A similar phrase is used in other parts of the bill. For example, section 14 gives ministers the power to extend the definition of animal to other animals that are not currently included

"on the basis of scientific evidence".

That phrase, or a similar one such as "on the basis of veterinary advice" would be appropriate.

The second amendment that I would like is for the term "if they think fit" to be tightened up, because it is terribly broad. In relation to the use of the proposed new powers rather than the existing ones, the phrase should be "if they think it is necessary to control the outbreak effectively". That higher test is needed. Mass slaughter should not be the first resort; it should be nearer to being the last resort, particularly with the proposed new extended powers.

Is the bill tight enough on the action that people can take if the ministers decide, with veterinary advice, that a person's animals must be slaughtered? Are you satisfied that there is sufficient right of appeal against that? During the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, people with sanctuaries and other facilities in which animals were under protection had to go to the legal system to get affidavits to protect the animals. Should there be more legal guidance on what people can do in such circumstances?

There will be no right of appeal in relation to the new extended powers. In responding to members of the public who have written about the issue, the Executive has stated that judicial review is possible. That suggestion is a little naughty—I do not see how, as the bill is drafted, anyone could go to judicial review on the issue, because to do so one would have to show that a minister had acted unlawfully. However, as the power is so broad, the minister would not have acted unlawfully—he would just have said, "I think fit." If the wording was circumscribed so that veterinary advice was required and so that the requirement was not just that the ministers thought fit, but that they thought that the slaughter was necessary to control the outbreak, judicial review might be possible.

Some of the animals in sanctuaries and pet farm animals that were slaughtered during the foot-and-mouth outbreak were perfectly healthy, but the Executive took an inflexible attitude. The compensation that will be required under the bill might be what commercial farmers want but, for people who have pet farm animals or a sanctuary, monetary compensation is not the issue. I would like a higher test when it comes to slaughtering pet farm animals or animals in sanctuaries so that ministers would have to show that the animals had been infected or had been in dangerous contact with an infected animal. I would like a higher hurdle in relation to those animals.

The evidence from the Shetland Sheep Society states:

"Vaccination for eventual slaughter is not an acceptable option. Contiguous stock should be tested for disease: positive result invokes slaughter, negative result could invoke vaccination. Contiguous stock should be isolated and monitored. More use should be made of diagnostic tests."

Do the panel members think that that would be an appropriate approach for rare breeds?

Yes. I should have included rare breeds in my comments on pet farm animals and animals in sanctuaries, for which special provision must be made. I did not catch all the comments from the Shetland Sheep Society, but I agree broadly that we should move to slaughter only after tests have shown that the animals are infected and that if we are vaccinating, we should vaccinate to live and not to kill. That is particularly important with rare breeds.

We are talking about beasts that are found mainly on fairly remote islands, but diseases can nevertheless be carried to those places. However, some breeds are so rare that a special approach might be required. Does the other panel member agree with Peter Stevenson?

It would be useful to get special exemptions in particular circumstances.

Because of the rarity of certain breeds.

During the cull in 2001 in Wigtownshire, healthy beasts were slaughtered on 109 farms, while infected beasts were slaughtered on only one farm. That compares with ratios of 13:1 in Wales and 27:1 in Gloucestershire. We found ourselves calling that a success. Was it a successful way of dealing with the outbreak?

No. Clearly, it was not a success and far too many healthy animals were slaughtered. Indeed, the lessons-learned inquiry that was set up after the outbreak said that most contiguous premises—in other words, those on which animals were slaughtered—were not infected and probably would not have become infected.

I like to think that, when we next face a disease outbreak, we will not go down the road that we went down in 2001 and that a much more subtle and varied approach to controlling disease will be taken than simply slaughtering every animal in a 3km radius of an infected farm.

Do you have a suggestion about the wording in this case? That is the nub of the problem. You say that the powers are too wide, but how can they be stated given that there have to be exceptions or alterations to the approach, two examples of which I have given you?

Certainly, any wording must be included in the bill; it is not enough to rely on assurances from the Executive. That is not to say that one does not trust the Executive, but the fact is that ministers change. There must be some form of wording that would permit the slaughter of rare breeds, sanctuary animals and those on pet farms only if the minister had established that the animals were infected or had possibly been in contact with an infected animal. That would tighten the situation.

We heard evidence from earlier panels about the forward planning that would take place and the monitoring of various diseases that would be done as outbreaks occurred. That was one of the issues that we discussed at great length with the first couple of witness panels.

Maureen Macmillan will introduce a new topic.

I want to ask about animal mutilations or acts of surgery—people who disapprove of them call them the former and people who agree with them call them the latter. We have had evidence from farmers to the effect that those acts of surgery are necessary for the welfare of some farm animals. Professor Wathes, in your submission, you question whether some of the mutilations would be necessary if there were better understanding of the husbandry of animals such as pigs. For example, rather than cutting off pigs' tails, we could address the reasons for tail biting.

Pending the outcome of current research into the causes of tail biting and other injurious behaviours in pigs, it is sensible to allow the form of mutilation known as tail docking. The main contention of the Farm Animal Welfare Council is that the appropriate legislative framework should be in place. Because mutilation is the lesser of two evils, our main concern was about implementation, not whether mutilation should be allowed.

Are you happy with current practice on farms in relation to the acts of surgery?

Where veterinary advice shows that such acts are in the long-term best interests of the animals, the short-term suffering that is entailed by the mutilation is justified by the long-term gain.

Mr Stevenson, do you have the same views?

I take a rather different view, I am afraid. From both scientific and practical experience, the factors that are involved in tail biting have been known for a long time. Often, it is to do with keeping pigs in barren environments so that there is nothing that they can do with their foraging and rooting instincts. In a barren pig pen, they will tend to turn to whatever is there, which will tend to be the tails of other pigs. Tail biting starts off almost as chewing rather than as an aggressive behaviour. However, as the pigs see blood, the chewing begins to develop into biting.

A range of factors can be used to prevent tail biting. The law—at a European Union level and, therefore, at a Scottish level—prohibits the routine tail docking of pigs and says that it can be done only if the farmer has first taken other measures to stop tail biting. If he has taken those other measures, such as giving the pigs more space and straw, but those measures have failed, he can then tail dock. The permission to tail dock is narrow.

What worries me from investigations that we have made on Scottish farms is that a substantial number of Scottish farmers are ignoring European and Scottish law and are just carrying on routinely tail docking illegally. We have real problems. Pig farmers should be required to comply with the law. Enough is known for us to say that the current law is good and that tail docking should be permitted only if other methods of dealing with tail biting have failed.

So the law exists already, but it is not being adhered to.

Yes, the law has been in force since 2003.

There is controversy about whether working dogs should have their tails docked. The argument for docking is that their tails might be damaged when they go after game through briars and brambles. I believe that neither of you is comfortable with that argument.

I would like to confine my advice to the committee to farm animals rather than working dogs.

I understand that. I am sure that Peter Stevenson will have something to say.

Yes. We believe that tail docking of dogs, like tail docking of pigs, should not be happening. The bill as drafted prohibits mutilations but allows the minister to make exceptions. We hope that those exceptions will be as narrow as possible. Docking of a dog's tail should be carried out only for therapeutic reasons, such as if a dog has a diseased or injured tail, which the vet advises needs to be amputated wholly or in part. However, the idea of docking working dogs' tails on a preventive or prophylactic basis is unacceptable and the argument for it is not borne out by the evidence. With working dogs such as terriers and various spaniels, tail docking is arbitrary. Some breeds traditionally have their tails docked, but others do not. Tail docking is being carried out for cosmetic and breed standard reasons.

The evidence is that few dogs have tail injuries and most of those injuries can be dealt with by simple first aid. They are not a huge trauma. To subject every puppy of certain breeds to the mutilation of tail docking, which the science has established is painful—sometimes acutely and sometimes for a prolonged period—just because a few of them might injure their tails is totally unacceptable. Tail docking should be carried out only for therapeutic reasons and not as a preventive measure.

I would like to make two further points. First, FAWC is looking into the welfare consequences of tail docking and castration of lambs, on which it will publish a report next year advising ministers on the practicalities of local anaesthetics and analgesics. Secondly, I congratulate the Scottish Executive on introducing an animal health and welfare plan under the rural development programme, which will mean that certain mutilations of farm animals will need to be considered alongside veterinary advice. Those plans have not yet been introduced in England and Wales; Scotland is pioneering their development and implementation here, which is excellent news for farm animal welfare in the long run.

Thank you for that endorsement of the Scottish Executive and Parliament.

I want to press Peter Stevenson a bit more about the tail docking of dogs. You said that there was scientific advice that the practice is cruel and painful for the dog. Is it painful even for tiny puppies?

Yes.

I have heard that when a pup is only a few days old, its tail can be docked perfectly painlessly.

That is one of the myths perpetuated by those who wish to carry on tail docking of puppies. The scientific evidence shows that, if anything, a young puppy will feel the pain more than an older dog. I cannot remember all the details, but the issue is to do with the make-up of the dog's nervous system. The idea that a young puppy will not feel the pain is simply scientifically incorrect. Similar research has been done on lambs. A few years ago there used to be a notion that tail docking and castration of very young lambs was not painful, but all the scientific research shows that it is painful. The amount of pain is pretty well the same at any age; it is not reduced because the lamb is young. The idea that a young puppy does not feel it is scientifically unfounded.

Will you let us know how to get hold of that scientific research?

Yes, of course. If I may, I will write to the clerk to cite the research.

We would appreciate that, because the issue of whether pain and suffering are involved is obviously contentious.

The bill puts a duty of care on a wider range of people than just farmers; it also puts a duty of care on people who keep domestic animals, which will require inspection and enforcement. What are your views on the financial implications of the extra work that will result from the bill?

You touch on an incredibly complex area—the economics of farm animal welfare. What is it that determines that the price of bottled water is two to three times that of bottled milk in the supermarket? FAWC will probably investigate the economics of farm animal welfare—including the costs of regulation and other issues—in a report in the next few years. It is tricky to understand fully where the costs are incurred and by whom they are borne. An investigation would allow us to expose once and for all who is making a profit out of farming.

Do you believe that the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill adequately lays out the additional costs of the legislation?

We stated in our submission that we were a little surprised that more funds would not be made available to local authorities to enforce the bill, but we have not done the detailed financial calculations on how much extra we think local authorities would need.

The financial implications for the individual owners of animals are not necessarily that great, as in the end those people are being asked merely to treat the animals according to reasonable standards. However, there are implications for local authorities. Local authorities already license things such as pet shops, kennels and the keeping of dangerous wild animals, but they will now be asked to license and therefore enforce conditions in other areas, such as the welcome provision that dealers in puppies—in particular, we are thinking of puppies that come from puppy farms in Ireland—will also have to be licensed. The resource implications will not only be financial, but will relate to expertise.

We already have a problem. Although some local authorities do an excellent job of enforcing animal welfare legislation, others do not. Local authorities are already stretched, as there are so many areas in which they have to enforce the law and they do not always have the expertise—many local authorities do not have even one employee whose full-time task is the enforcement of the range of animal welfare legislation that they are meant to enforce. The Executive must work with local authorities to find out how they can be given more resources and expertise. Otherwise, we will find that a lot of the legislation is not enforced or is inconsistently enforced and that standards of enforcement vary considerably between authorities.

You mentioned that local authorities might have to spend more to roll out the licensing that the bill provides for. What about other issues on which the bill touches? Have their implications been laid out adequately in the financial memorandum? I am thinking in particular about situations when people breach the duty of care. Will that have financial implications if there are more requirements for the police or local authority inspectors to visit premises?

Yes. That is another area in which the police and local authorities will get involved. That will have implications. My biggest worry, apart from the obvious financial one, is the lack of expertise. I am not saying that all authorities lack the expertise, but some do. Some of the areas concerned are difficult. If the same person has to go and look at pet shops, puppy farms, dangerous wild animals and boarding kennels, they will need an awfully broad range of expertise.

Another concern is the Executive's proposal, in one of the accompanying documents, for the various licences generally to run for three years—currently, they usually run for just one year or slightly longer. I do not mind the licence running for three years but it is imperative that inspections under the licence be undertaken by the local authority annually. After all, a lot of things can go wrong in a year. An establishment that is well run now could deteriorate rapidly over a year. If it is going to be inspected only once every three years, that is a problem. Therefore, despite the resource implications, inspections should be annual—with the obvious proviso that, if the authority finds a real problem, it may suspend or withdraw the licence.

At the moment, the licence lasts for one year, so an automatic inspection goes with the granting of the licence. Are you saying that there would automatically be three-yearly inspections if the licences were provided on a three-year basis?

At the moment, circumstances vary with each little bit of legislation, so it is hard to make a general statement. The Executive seems to want three-year licences, which would worry me if it meant having three-yearly inspections. I do not have a problem with the three-year licences as long as there is an annual inspection so that, if a problem arises, the licence can be withdrawn before it runs its full three years.

We can take up that issue with the minister when he comes before us in a few weeks' time.

Thank you very much for that evidence. We have two other panels to hear from, so I imagine that one or two of the questions will arise again.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I welcome members of panel 2. We have with us Mike Robson, president of the Scottish branch of the British Veterinary Association; Lynne Hill, president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; and Dr Mark Eisler, head of the animal health and welfare division of the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh. I thank you all for coming this morning and for giving us your written statements in advance.

We have invited you to give us a broad overview of the health and welfare provisions in the bill, particularly from the perspective of the business and regulation of the veterinary profession. Quite a few questions have already come up, both this morning and previously, about the role of vets in providing ministers with advice. The role of farmers has also been mentioned. There is a lot to discuss and Nora Radcliffe will kick off.

I notice that the British Veterinary Association thinks that the definition of "animal" in the bill could be widened, because there is scientific evidence that invertebrates suffer pain. Could you expand on that a little?

That was noted as an omission. Given the information that has recently been made available, we felt it appropriate that the definition should be expanded to cover those categories of animals.

The bill contains provision to expand the definition. You think that it can now be expanded in the light of current evidence.

Yes.

With your combined expertise, perhaps you could talk about mutilation, in particular the question whether very young puppies suffer pain if their tails are docked.

I have been in practice for quite a number of years and it is about 10 years since we stopped doing any docking. The perception from practice is that the dogs certainly feel pain. I have no doubt about that. I do not have evidence to cite for you, but the point is generally accepted in veterinary circles in several countries, some of which are already more progressive in their attitudes towards tail docking in dogs. For instance, in Austria, our colleagues are obliged to report to the authorities owners of dogs that have been docked.

There is some evidence from work in other animals, particularly mice, that amputation of part of the tail can produce a substantial long-term—and possibly permanent—increase in the sensitivity to painful stimulation of the tail and hind limbs. I do not have the reference for that work available today, but I can obtain it for you.

I agree. Even animals that have their tails docked for therapeutic reasons—when the tail has been amputated correctly and under general anaesthetic—can continue to show some pain from the tail. The procedure can have longer-term effects.

I suppose that it mirrors what humans feel with an amputated limb.

Yes.

The other area that I want to explore with you is the training of inspectors. Do you have views about the level of training that would be required and who should train inspectors?

The British Veterinary Association has not discussed that matter, but it is obvious from the discussions earlier this morning that it is a real problem. In our submission, we noted concern about inspectors being asked to make life-and-death decisions about animals. It can be challenging for a vet to make an on-the-spot diagnosis; without a vet's experience and training, it is virtually impossible to make such a diagnosis. An animal that one might perceive to be in dire straits might not be at all, so there is a real danger of somebody who is not qualified to give a diagnosis making the wrong decision. There is obviously a role for better communication or a line of command leading back to veterinary advice for inspectors in the field. At the moment, that is not straightforward for local authorities, because there are no longer—and have not been for years—any county veterinary surgeons.

There is an obvious need for training, because animal welfare is fraught with problems of definition and recognition. There is currently a Europe-wide project to give better definitions to welfare standards. I hope that the bill is flexible enough to incorporate those standards as they become clearer. We have an opportunity to enhance the standard of inspection.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons feels that nobody should undertake any type of inspection—whether an inspection of premises or an inspection that is even more important to animal welfare—without sufficient and proper training. We would always support a proper training scheme, which would have to involve veterinary surgeons training inspectors. That is vital for the public interest and for public confidence in inspections.

That issue was raised with the previous panel of witnesses, who were concerned that local authorities might be stretched in trying to provide the right range of expertise, given their new responsibilities under the bill. Should safeguards be built into the bill or should they be introduced through secondary legislation? How should the training issue be resolved?

The bill should assume that there will be training of inspectors. That should be built in as a fundamental starting point. If it were to come later, that would be too late and wrong.

I also support what was said earlier about the three-yearly inspections of premises used for purposes licensed under section 24. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is concerned that a situation can change greatly within three years. Although the licensing could be for longer, we feel strongly that premises should be inspected annually, in general terms. I accept that the bill says that there might be a grading, with some being inspected every year, some every 18 months and some even less frequently, but we think that there should be an annual inspection.

You have no doubt heard the evidence that has been presented to the committee about ministerial powers over slaughter. We have had advice to the effect that a requirement for veterinary advice should be built into the bill. What are your views on that? I am particularly interested to know exactly when and how in a disease outbreak you feel that veterinary advice should be introduced. We are trying to work out how ministers should be taking advice, which body they should go to and at what point in the process the advice should be introduced.

With a disease outbreak, there must be veterinary advice from the start. It has to be available almost before the outbreak takes place, which is why, within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there are contingency plans for disease. DEFRA has set up links and committees that will enable it to call on certain people's expertise at any point. Veterinary advice must be available in anticipation of a disease outbreak and must be absolutely involved from the beginning of an outbreak.

One concern of the veterinary profession has been about the contiguous cull that took place during the foot-and-mouth outbreak. As has been stated, the evidence that is coming out now shows that a number of people who could have given veterinary advice would have had a different opinion on whether the contiguous cull should have taken place and doubt whether it had any effect on disease control, because the disease was under control before the contiguous cull was started. Our concerns at this point are that, if the minister is given the powers but it is not a requirement that veterinary advice must be forthcoming and taken into account from an early stage, we could make similar mistakes again.

Is there a statutory requirement for veterinary advice to be built into the contingency planning process at the moment?

I do not know the answer to that. I know that a number of committees have veterinary advice within them and, obviously, the chief veterinary officer would be involved. One of the problems last time was that the advice from the modellers was sometimes at odds with the veterinary advice. My colleagues might be able to talk further about that.

I endorse what Lynne Hill has just said. It is important that the advice that is given is multidisciplinary. Different groups of experts will bring different skills to the table in deciding on a policy to control a disease outbreak in real time. I think that the veterinary profession has a great deal to offer because of its extensive range of practical experience of controlling animal disease and its intimate knowledge of the workings of farms, the movement of animals and the nature of animal diseases. That is not to say that valuable input cannot be made by other groups, such as epidemiological modellers. There are pitfalls, though, in taking advice exclusively from one group without considering the weight of evidence and encouraging dialogue among those different groups in order to formulate the best strategy.

Under the bill, should ministers be consulting only veterinary surgeons or should a range of stakeholders be included? We have had calls for veterinary advice to be included in the bill but you suggested that the views of epidemiological modellers would also be useful. I know that they featured heavily in the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Does their participation have to be specified in the bill?

No, but it could be specified that a range of disciplines should be consulted. The veterinary profession should be specifically identified because controlling infectious animal diseases is a core activity of veterinary surgeons. Their omission would be wholly unacceptable.

Although we rather tend to hark back to foot-and-mouth disease as an example, we should remember that the bill covers all diseases and that, at some point, novel diseases that we are not familiar with are likely to emerge. With the carte blanche that the minister will have to control something that might not be well defined or to which there might not be any neat answers, we have to be careful that in such circumstances he does not shoot from the hip instead of acting under a proper protocol. It strikes me that the bill does not provide for any approach to a novel disease. Indeed, most of part 1 is based on modelling that was carried out on the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

I certainly agree that veterinary input is essential at the initiation of any measures. However, as we have said, people such as virologists and immunologists are also involved in animal disease and their knowledge is essential in allowing us to reach appropriate decisions.

It is also worth mentioning that many emerging human diseases are, in fact, zoonotic diseases that originate in animals. One good example is the recent outbreak of west Nile virus in the United States, which has spread widely across North America and caused a large number of human fatalities. The considerable delay in identifying the agent of the outbreak resulted from a lack of communication between the veterinary and medical professions. As a result, given the importance and extent of the threat of zoonotic diseases in the emerging disease category, we should also point out that including the medical profession in the process and encouraging dialogue between the medical and veterinary professions on new, unforeseen disease outbreaks should be given prominence.

I notice that quite a range of people could be involved in such a process. I see from my notes from previous meetings that people have raised the issue of the advance planning, discussion and dialogue that should take place with key parties before any outbreak happens. From your comments, it appears that contacting people after an outbreak does not give enough time to establish such networks. Perhaps the answer lies partly in the upfront work on long-term emergency planning that we discussed last week, as such an approach will allow people to know who the experts are and whom to call on in such crises.

We got the sense that diseases are being monitored all the time, so we must ensure that that work is plugged directly into the overall management of these matters. Could aspects of that advance planning be included in the bill or form part of its background? Instead of focusing on how we deal with a new disease that no one is able to identify, do you have any views on the day-to-day, regular monitoring of west Nile virus, avian flu and other diseases that could affect farmed animals?

The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department is very aware of the need for disease surveillance and various steps are being taken to improve the situation. For example, part of the animal health and welfare strategy is to monitor disease levels at the farming end through the database of farm animals.

With the previous panel of witnesses, I took the liberty of quoting from the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies submission on the number of healthy animals that were killed in Wigtownshire as a result of foot-and-mouth disease compared with the number of animals that were actually affected by the disease. The submission also says:

"Moreover, subsequent analyses of the 2001 field data, reported in peer-reviewed journals, consistently refute the value, need, or desirability of such a culling policy".

In the light of that statement, do you think that the minister should have such wide powers to slaughter animals in the event of a disease outbreak?

Wide powers are useful, but they must be used judiciously. As you rightly point out, in the case of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak there are, with hindsight, grave question marks over the usefulness of the contiguous cull, particularly given the extent of the slaughter. I am reluctant to say that powers of slaughter should be limited in the legislation, because we live in a world that is threatened by a number of emerging diseases, many of which are particularly virulent and potentially damaging to both livestock and humans, so it is prudent to continue to have available the instruments of slaughter so that a cull can be implemented rapidly if appropriate advice is given that indicates that that is the correct thing to do.

Do other members of the panel have a view?

I agree with Mark Eisler on that point. It is also important that if there is to be a contiguous cull or a similar type of action following veterinary advice we take more account of individual cases—not only sanctuaries and rare breeds, but individual circumstances of which the veterinary surgeon on the ground in the area will be aware but of which the department, far away in a separate place, may not be aware. Individual circumstances must be taken into account more if there is another disease outbreak. Individual circumstances were taken into account on a certain number of occasions—I know of cases when that happened—but in other cases the approach was that everything in an area would be killed and individual farms were not taken into account.

Are the new powers in the bill on vaccination acceptable?

The new powers are valuable, but each case is different.

I was involved in the foot-and-mouth situation in south-west Scotland for a few weeks. The decision to have a widespread cull of sheep was taken at a point—it was in March or April—when we were not confident that we had succeeded in closing the outbreak. The stocking density of that part of Scotland is phenomenally high. In the winter, most of the animals are housed, so they were in relative isolation from one another but, come spring, they would all go out to grass and there would be wall-to-wall livestock from Moffat down to the end of Wigtown. There was a strong feeling that if we had not solved the problem before turnout, we would totally lose control. Therefore, at the time, there was an excellent reason for carrying out the cull.

Other factors could have helped us. Diagnosis of that outbreak was encumbered by the practicalities. Only a small percentage of animals in infected flocks showed clinical symptoms. We had no field test to diagnose the disease, so inevitably there was a lag between sampling animals and confirming the disease, in which time the disease could spread. The profession was in a fix.

That was a specific situation. If there was an outbreak of a different disease that does not spread in the same way we might not be dealing with the same scenario; it is important not to generalise on the basis of one disease. Ring vaccination policies are an obvious option that we would consider, provided that we had the appropriate vaccine. We may not have on the shelf a stock of every vaccine for every conceivable disease.

The Shetland Sheep Society states in its submission that it hopes that there would be more use of diagnostic tests. I think that you are confirming that such provision should be available more widely rather than only for rare breeds. Should the bill reflect the possibility of using more diagnostic tests?

I think that there was a comment about trying to improve diagnostic tests. Every effort should be made to do that. It would be relatively simple to do so for foot-and-mouth disease as it is a well documented, well researched and well monitored disease. As I say, such tests may not be so practical for other diseases.

How long is it until a vaccination prevents an animal from getting infected? Is there a delay?

There is a delay, but it varies. It depends on the vaccine and the disease.

Within what parameters? Is it days or weeks?

From a few days to a couple of weeks.

It is useful to bear that in mind.

I want to raise an issue that I do not think the bill covers, although I wonder whether it should. I wanted to raise it with the previous two witnesses, but I did not get the opportunity. The issue is ritual slaughter. I am talking not about ritual slaughter in abattoirs, but about the ritual slaughter of animals of which there is growing evidence in many English cities, particularly in some sectors of the community. The practice may or may not eventually spread to Scotland. Should the bill cover that sort of activity?

I defer to Lynne Hill on that.

I am not going to answer that. In fact, I was going to suggest that Mike Robson should answer it because the matter does not fall within the remit of the RCVS.

The bill should cover such activity. Clearly, it has potential to cause animals suffering and to compromise animal welfare. Therefore, to walk away from the issue and say that it should not be covered by legislation is patently wrong.

Does it not come under meat hygiene legislation, which covers conditions of slaughter that are inappropriate for producing a hygienic product?

I am not sure. I understand that there is legislation covering abattoirs. People have views on whether ritual slaughter should be allowed in abattoirs. As sectors of the community grow and decide that they want to carry out slaughter of their animals in that way—and if that starts to happen here in Scotland—we should pay close attention to the matter. Perhaps the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill is the appropriate vehicle for that.

Anything that has the potential to cause animals suffering and that is not done in a correct manner needs to be attended to under legislation. If the issue is not covered by the meat hygiene or abattoir legislation—I do not know the legislation well enough to be sure whether or not it is covered—it should be included somewhere. Obviously, it is important that animals are treated correctly and with respect.

The practice might be covered by the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.

The matter has now been raised and put on to the agenda. We have a little bit of time to consider the issue over the next couple of weeks. I see that there have been some hurried discussions between the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre on the matter, and we can potentially return to it next week, to clarify whether it comes under the duty of care or the bill's slaughter provisions. We will see whether or not it fits somewhere in the bill. Presumably, the critical issue is not the intent but the process of the slaughter and the impact on the animals. None of us is sure about the issue, so we can return to it.

I want to ask about animal fights, but first I want to ask a supplementary to something that was said in reply to Nora Radcliffe. If I heard him correctly, Mr Robson said that dogs' tails have not been docked for 10 years.

There was initial UK Government legislation and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons produced guidance on the ethical aspect. The RCVS advised that vets should be selective and dock only working dogs that were deemed to be at risk. Most practices have stopped docking pups' tails, but a few of them operate according to the guidance in selected cases.

Do you have any comment to make on pigs' tails, which we heard about earlier?

The problem is that, although we know many of the causes of tail biting among pigs, we cannot identify them in some circumstances. There is also a potential practical problem with pig producers who produce weaners. They grow the pigs to a certain stage and then move them on to finishers or fatteners. Tail biting tends to take place in the fattening areas rather than in the early rearing areas, but if one buys pigs that are already docked from several sources there can be practical problems. Once the problem has arisen, it is far too late, and it is horrific to see tail biting, because they actually chew off the ends of the tails, so the base of the spine is exposed. It is horrific. There are practical problems in defining when tails should be docked and what the risk is for newborn pigs when we do not know where they will end up or how they will be moved around, because there will be a change of ownership in the process.

Thank you.

I would like to move on to animal fights. Your submission states that you support the section in the bill on animal fights, but you mention that much of the money that is made from animal fights is made from recording them and selling on the recordings, which does not seem to be covered in the section on fights. Would you suggest new wording for that section?

Yes. I am not a lawyer, but we suggest that recording fights should be added to the crime.

Presumably, that would have to be carefully worded, because lawful authorities might be recording animal fights for the purpose of law enforcement.

Yes. We presume that wording could be found to make recording such events for financial gain or similar unauthorised purposes a crime.

Section 21(5) states:

"an ‘animal fight' is an occasion on which a protected animal is placed with an animal, or with a human, for the purpose of fighting, wrestling or baiting."

What is your understanding of the term "protected animal" in that subsection? Have you looked at it that closely?

I assume that it is talking about badgers.

I might want to clarify the detail, convener, for the benefit of committee members.

Another submission on animal fighting, from the Scottish Exotic Animal Society, states:

"fights between most animals should be included … however many reptiles naturally fight—to trigger a breeding response".

Do you have any comments on that?

I am quite ignorant of the sexual habits of reptiles, I am afraid. I could not answer that question.

We could pick that up later.

Such animals would not be kept for the purpose of fighting or of training them for fighting. If fighting is a natural activity for those animals and part of their biology, that could be quite clearly distinguished.

Does the bill as drafted cover that situation?

I think so, yes, because it talks about a person who

"keeps or trains an animal for an animal fight"

and I do not think that those animals would be kept or trained for the purpose of fighting.

Like you, I find the fighting of animals abhorrent, but we would not want the legislation to cover things that it is not meant to cover.

Section 28 will prohibit the offering of animals as prizes, and there are no exceptions. However, NFU Scotland has pointed out that, on occasion, farmers gatherings offer a valuable prize such as a cattle beast, and it feels that an exception should be made for such prizes in farming company. The Showmen's Guild of Great Britain is also worried that the traditional goldfish won at the fair will be prohibited. It feels that it has safeguards in place: anyone who is given a goldfish as a prize will be given information on how to look after it; and showmen will be careful about who is given such a prize and will ensure that someone who is over 16 is present.

What are your views on the issue? Do you think that a total ban is necessary, or could some exceptions be made if there were safeguards?

On farm animals, if the competition was restricted to livestock owners in the first place, there is probably no potential problem. However, at quite a lot of the more public events that will not necessarily be the case.

The onus should be placed on the organisation awarding the prize to ensure that the individual to whom the animal is given is competent to keep it. If that is done satisfactorily, it could be argued that placing a blanket ban on giving animals as prizes is draconian.

That is interesting. Thank you.

I have a final question, which is similar to the question with which we kicked off on inspections and best practice. One of the suggestions from the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh is that animal welfare in farming establishments should be tied to subsidy payments. Is that a practical suggestion? Would it concentrate farmers' minds? Who would be responsible for that?

I agree that there might be practical difficulties with that, but where farmers are not paying due heed to animal welfare, awarding subsidies might encourage them to do so. I am not a lawyer and I would not like to comment on the practicability of that or on what the right wording in legislation would be. However, it is inappropriate to give farmers subsidies for keeping animals in a manner that compromises their welfare.

We might want to test with the minister mechanisms to reinforce good practice and whether to withdraw public subsidy if an establishment is not being run in line with legislation.

The animal welfare strategy that is already in place in Scotland was alluded to earlier. Herd health planning, annual visitation by a veterinary surgeon and farm planning link in closely to issues of welfare on the farm; due note of welfare issues is taken in planning. The Government helps to support that at present. We support the strategy.

I agree with that point. There is a Government target that by 2012 80 per cent of livestock units should be operating herd or flock health plans that will involve an annual veterinary visit and input. That covers the welfare aspects. Legislation is hardening in this area to make welfare an essential part of livestock keeping. There is concern that farmers avoid licensing, although we license various other people. We need to have veterinary supervision and advice. The strategy provides an excellent route for that. Farmers can see the advantage in planning.

That is helpful. Rob Gibson has a brief question. I am conscious that we are running very late, so it should be very brief.

I hope that it will be. At previous meetings, there has been controversy about the extent to which the definition of a protected animal as one that is

"under the control of man"

applies to certain wild animals, particularly deer. Do the witnesses have a view on the potential for tightening up the legislation so that it does not conflict with legitimate shooting?

I acknowledge the problem. Obviously, there are farmed deer, which have been fenced in for some time, and we are seeing the fencing in of estates to control deer. The line between the two is narrow. I do not have any bright ideas on legislation. There is concern about the transition.

No other witnesses are volunteering an answer. The issue will return.

I thank you all very much for your comments.

We will have a short suspension to allow the members of panel 3 to take their seats.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I welcome our third panel of witnesses and thank them all for coming. Peter Scott is a consultant veterinary officer with Performing Animals Welfare Standards International; Christopher Dickie is the secretary of the Scottish Exotic Animal Society; Matt Collis is the parliamentary officer of the International Fund for Animal Welfare; and David Windmill is the chief executive of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland.

We will ask you about the animal welfare provisions and about how animals are kept in certain situations. In particular, we would like to discuss how the provisions generally relate to the care of exotic animals and the proposed power to prohibit the keeping of certain animals. We hope to have quite a focused discussion. We will not hear opening statements from the witnesses, but I thank you very much for your written submissions, which we have been able to read in advance of this evidence-taking session; no doubt they will spark off questions from colleagues.

Ted Brocklebank has caught my eye first, so he can kick off.

The question is for David Windmill. In your submission, you state:

"The Animal Health and Welfare Bill currently being considered by the UK Parliament does not have the equivalent of Clause 25 (Prohibition of keeping certain animals) of the Scottish Bill."

In your view, that

"would place the Society at a considerable disadvantage to English and Welsh zoos."

Could you explain that?

Yes. An issue of consistency is involved. The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland is involved in many animal breeding programmes and in maintaining animals' conservation status. If a minister were to tell people that they were not allowed to hold a particular type of animal, that could prevent us from taking part in such worldwide conservation breeding programmes. We would then be kept out of that particular area of conservation work, which we want to be involved in. We would be put at a potential disadvantage compared with zoos not only in England and Wales, but in Europe.

I suppose that there is an argument, which will presumably be developed, to the effect that there are big question marks over exotic or rare animals being kept in captivity in any case. Do you want to talk about the specific animals that you might not be allowed—

No. The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland should not be prohibited in any way from considering holding certain animals provided that we can provide the correct welfare and management conditions. That does not necessarily mean that we will hold those animals, but we should be able to consider holding any exotic animal if we can meet the correct welfare standards.

So you think that section 25 of the Scottish bill should be removed?

I recognise that there may be issues to do with animals being kept in domestic or unsuitable premises. However, zoos in Scotland are governed by the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and fairly ferocious welfare standards must be met before the zoos become licensed. I do not see the point in having more legislation that may conflict with the existing legislation and add many complications to our lives.

Section 25 mentions "domestic premises" and "other premises". What would "other premises" be? What is the definition of "other premises"? The phrase is broad. Do the other witnesses have a view on that?

Why should anyone be prevented from keeping animals if they meet the same appropriate welfare standards that zoos meet? I do not understand the basis for having such a double standard.

But the zoo representatives are worried that zoos will be excluded.

I support the zoos if they can provide the appropriate facilities in which to keep a species well and if its welfare is acceptable, but I do not see why a person with a private collection should be prevented from keeping that collection simply because they have a domestic situation—which might be extremely extensive—as long as suitable welfare standards are achieved. We should consider the welfare standards and not the species.

There is something else in section 25, as it is currently framed, that we have possibly neglected. Section 25 states that the regulations may include "provision … for exemptions". There is no reason not to have that provision and to look specifically at domestic situations while giving exemptions to the likes of zoos. However, we must be clear in distinguishing between situations in which animals are held in captivity in zoos—in which there will be a considerable amount of scientific expertise and contributions to international captive breeding programmes, which David Windmill mentioned—and what a domestic keeper can contribute. It is clear that the welfare standards in most captive domestic environments are not at the same level as those in zoos. That is not a comment on what zoos should hold—I am distinguishing between domestic situations and situations in zoos, which play a part in captive international breeding programmes that domestic situations never will.

My submission mentions a couple who were private keepers and bred many species of marmosets and tamarins. They were among the first people in the United Kingdom—perhaps in the world—to breed certain species; indeed, I think that they were the first to reintroduce pygmy marmosets back into a colony. Zoos throughout the world—including Edinburgh zoo—have dealt with the keepers, who have now stopped what they were doing. Their rearing notes are used by zoos throughout the world. Without those keepers, we would not have the husbandry knowledge that we currently have.

Perhaps having a licensing system that is similar to that in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 would be more appropriate, so that much more stringent restrictions can be placed on who can keep animals. Proper care must be provided. Many private keepers can provide the same—or perhaps even better—care that a zoo can provide. They might have more funds and might not have to rely on receiving funds from the public. They might have more time and more personal relationships with the animals and can therefore build up knowledge.

There are countless examples of species that have been bred in captivity in private hands rather than in zoos. Most zoos worldwide use techniques that were developed by John Stoodley in his private collection of parrots. He was a private keeper who had an extensive collection of parrots and who worked from home. He also lectured worldwide.

There are similar examples of private keepers of reptiles. There are many aquarists who work with public aquariums and individual species and who also provide facilities to hold spare and breeding stock. Many examples can be cited, from the past 50 years at least, to support private keepers keeping such animals. Nobody is saying that everybody keeps animals to appropriate standards—that is where licensing comes in. Plenty of pet homes keep animals very badly, but there are plenty of dogs' homes that look after dogs badly. One cannot single out one species as an example to target.

We can reflect on that. We got into that subject because of the zoos' worry that the bill would automatically exclude them from keeping certain animals, but now we are debating who else might be excluded. It would be interesting to get the minister's perspective on the objective behind the provision and to ask why it has been drafted differently from the United Kingdom bill.

I notice that the IFAW would rather that live animals were not sold over the internet. It is concerned that the internet is not mentioned in the guidance to the bill. Are you concerned about the sale of animals as pets over the internet? During the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, the internet was used as a way of promoting genuine cattle and sheep sales, and I would not like to see that possibility being excluded.

The focus of our work on internet sales is on pet animals. The worry is that although the legislation and the accompanying draft regulations mention sales of pets, they do not mention internet selling at all. From the recent report that I forwarded that looked at internet sales of wild animals as exotic pets, it is clear that this is a growing phenomenon. If we ignore internet sales in the early stage of the bill, we run the risk of the bill being out of date already.

The issue is addressed in the Westminster Animal Welfare Bill under the selling of pets. Therefore, there is a possibility of cross-border issues arising and of people relocating their businesses here to sell via the internet. We will not have the provisions that England and Wales will have to ensure the welfare of animals that are bought and sold in that manner, which would be to our disadvantage.

How would you regulate internet sites from abroad?

That is not possible under the bill. However, the issue should be taken up by the UK Government at an international level and through international agreements.

Is it a huge problem? Are there many such sites?

Yes. We did a week-long intensive survey that looked at five specific areas of animals in which we had an interest. We found more than 9,000 specimens for sale in the space of one week. That was not just on UK websites, but on sites from all over the world. That demonstrates the scale of the problem, which desperately needs attention not just in the UK but internationally.

We should ensure that the provisions that cover the welfare of animals that are sold as pets by people in this country to other people in this country are dealt with appropriately. There are issues about people not seeing the animal that they buy; they may not know what condition it will be in when it arrives and they may not be able to trace the seller if there are welfare concerns.

The anonymous nature of the internet allows such things to happen. That is why we believe that internet sales should be covered in the regulations that look at the selling of pets.

I agree with some of that. There is a loophole in the pet shop regulations that allows traders to buy in animals to sell them on without requiring a licence. That should be resolved.

However, the internet is a valuable resource for people who breed animals and regulations should not restrict people who breed animals then sell them on. For example, it is sometimes hard to find things for reptiles through phone contacts. There are classified websites that people can visit. Often those websites include pictures, and a lot of sellers agree that the animals can be looked at before they are bought. Therefore it is not in the breeder's interest in most cases to sell the animal to somebody who is unable to look after it. Sellers are interested in the welfare of the animals that they produce.

So a reputable breeder would not object to being licensed for internet sales?

I am not sure how people would respond to that. I was talking specifically about traders who buy animals from a breeder, then sell them on. The pet shop licence covers visits to pet shops. However, if buyers do not visit the premises and an animal is sent by courier, the seller does not require that licence. Many people have raised that point before. Breeders should be left alone; they are breeding their own animals. Perhaps there could be tighter controls on what they have to do. I do not see a licence coming into that.

Are you saying that, even once they start to sell the animals, there should not be regulation?

There should not be much difference between selling animals on the internet and perhaps selling them by phone. Somebody could phone up a breeder and ask whether they could send them a particular animal by courier. What is the difference between that and somebody buying an animal off the internet?

That area makes me feel slightly anxious. Do any of the others wish to comment?

Distance-selling regulations cover some of that area. It is difficult to draw a distinction between someone simply putting an advertisement on the internet to demonstrate that they have an animal available for others to look at and their actually selling that animal. The problem is where that line strays into ticking a box, handing over credit card details and receiving an animal by post. That is more uncomfortable and, potentially, it ought to be licensed. However, it may be licensed already under the distance-selling regulations.

Yes. What is the difference between doing that and putting an advertisement in the local paper selling kittens or whatever?

There is a definite and important distinction between selling and just advertising. Obviously, some people may want to see the advertised animal that they wish to buy. That is a difference. We suggest that codes of practice should perhaps be put in place to regulate that level of advertising. Those codes should say that whether the animals are being sold on the internet, through free advertisements or in pet shops, certain things should be taken into account when they are advertised. For example, consideration should be given to transport and whether the animal will be moved over a long distance.

The UK bill proposes that people who sell via the internet should be licensed like pet shops, because that is, in essence, what they are. The difference is just that their premises may not be visited to buy the animal. That is a step forward, but we must not forget that sites such as chatrooms and auction sites allow private individuals to sell. It has been said that those people should be covered by a statutory code of practice to ensure that the animals' welfare needs are covered in such situations.

Okay. Perhaps there is an unintentional loophole in that regard, to which it will be worth returning. That is another matter—there are a lot of them—on which we can test the minister when he comes before us.

My questions are for Mr Dickie. Your submission says that you are concerned about unnecessary suffering, which is covered in section 17. In particular, you mention the feeding of live rodents to other animals. Why are you concerned about that? Do you have any suggestions for how those concerns could be overcome?

From my understanding, some snakes have difficulty in feeding, particularly if they have been caught in the wild and brought into captivity. Some people are for that and some are against, so I cannot comment. The snakes may have difficulty in moving straight on to commercially available rodents that are sold frozen and are then thawed.

The snakes are meant to react to the sense of heat, as they would in the wild, but some will not react unless the rodent is moving. Some people use pre-killed rodents, in which case they kill them immediately before feeding so that the snake has a freshly killed animal. In extreme cases, I believe that it is currently legal to feed a live mouse to a snake under veterinary advice if the vet says that there is no other way. I am not totally sure of the legality of that, but a couple of people have raised concerns with me that, if their snakes could not feed, it would affect their welfare. Surely the owner has to try every way possible to make the snake feed, although there is a conflict of interest between the mouse and the snake in how exactly feeding is carried out.

Are you saying that some snakes in captivity would die rather than eat defrosted rodents?

Yes.

I wondered about that. I am sure that some cats would like to eat live birds but, personally, I would rather feed them Whiskas.

I am totally for that if the animal will eat it. I am not saying that we should stop selling frozen rodents and just use live rodents. Live rodents are necessary in extreme cases in which a snake will not feed in any other way. Surely, if the snake will not feed, it will eventually die, which is unnecessary suffering for the snake.

But you think that section 17 would mean that a person would be breaking the law if they fed such a snake live rodents.

Yes. Perhaps we could do with further comment on that from the veterinary profession.

You might have heard me asking the previous panel of witnesses about animal fights, on which you have raised an issue. Will you comment on that?

In captivity as well as in the wild, it is natural behaviour for bearded dragons and other lizards to do ritual displays to each other and then for the male to grab the female behind the head to position himself for mating. That can sometimes cause slight bleeding and, in my understanding of the bill, could be classed as an animal fight. I think that a lot of snakes do the same, but I am more interested in lizards, so I have better expertise in them.

Are you happy that the previous witnesses seemed to think that the drafting of the bill does not class such behaviour as an animal fight?

I cannot remember examining those provisions in the bill as introduced. I have not received a hard copy of the bill; I have only looked at it on the internet.

Do you accept that the previous witnesses seemed to think that the bill would not cover such behaviour?

Yes, if they are happy with it, but I would prefer to see the provisions myself, of course.

Perhaps we could get further comment on that, convener.

Yes.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare's submission talks about the registration of larger animal sanctuaries under the bill and says that, as a result of those provisions coming into force, there might be a substantial need to rehome certain animals, which would put pressure on the smaller animal sanctuaries in particular. Will you expand on that? The committee is concerned about introducing appropriate regulation. We do not want smaller sanctuaries to go under, but what is the appropriate level of regulation for the smaller sanctuaries, which the bill will not cover?

It is important to remember that the bill is an animal welfare bill and is about ensuring welfare standards for animals wherever they might be homed. Therefore, if there is a risk that a certain area in which animals might be homed is not covered, we are in danger of doing animals a disservice; that is true particularly if they have become in need of rehoming because of previous cruelty or welfare problems and they have ended up somewhere where, no matter how well intentioned the care, the welfare standards cannot be met. I am not saying that that applies to all small sanctuaries, but there may be one or two for which it is the case.

It is important that all sanctuaries be covered, but the burden of regulation can vary depending on a sanctuary's size and the complexity of the animals that are homed in it. Obviously, a hedgehog sanctuary will have very different issues to one that houses primates. Primates are highly intelligent animals with extremely complex needs, so a lot more would need to be taken into account in an inspection of a primate sanctuary and a lot more expertise would be needed to perform such an inspection. An inspection of a smaller sanctuary might not require the same level of expertise, so the charge for inspection could be significantly lower so as not to put too much of a burden on such sanctuaries.

As you said, we do not want the sanctuaries to go under—animals might need to be rehoused in them—but, equally, we cannot just leave them to one side and assume that everything is fine. There might be cases in which an animal that is in need of rehoming as a result of poor welfare gets diverted to another place that is not addressed in the bill or not until 2008.

You would like more sanctuaries to be brought under the provisions of this bill.

Yes, but I think that the licensing system should be responsive to the size of the sanctuary and the species held, because that will determine the facilities for husbandry and care that are needed in those sanctuaries.

Would that put an additional burden on inspectors? We have heard about the financial implications of all the additional licensing and other activities that might come out in the bill.

It would, but the level of that burden would depend on the level of inspection that is required, which would depend on what that sanctuary is holding. I would endorse the points that Advocates for Animals made about expertise in local authorities and inspectorates. A sanctuary that houses particularly unusual animals will be in need of a level of expertise that inspectors might not have at the moment.

So, there is an issue about training.

There is a need for the inspectors to be trained so that they are capable of dealing with various animals. That is as important as the possibility that more inspectors or capacity might be needed to do the work.

I have a question that relates to the IFAW's comments about the keeping of primates as pets. Do you have any information about the number of people who keep primates in Scotland? To what extent is that an issue? What might happen to those animals if a ban were to be introduced? What is it about primates that makes them a special case among animals? If there is an issue about keeping primates as pets, why can they be kept in zoos?

Over the past few years, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has had a number of calls about escaped monkeys, cases of neglect, sanctuaries and whether it is possible to adopt primates as pets. The Captive Animals Protection Society, which has investigated breeders and traders of primates, believes that one or two of the major UK dealers are based in the Edinburgh area. Over the past few years, there have been quite a few adverts offering to sell or to buy primates. The problem is UK-wide, however; it does not affect only Scotland. It is difficult to give exact figures because of the lack of a regulatory environment. The only regulation or licensing of primates that we have is under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

Mike Radford, from whom you have taken evidence, and others were commissioned by DEFRA to analyse the implementation of that act. They found a non-compliance rate of about 85 per cent, which means that the animals that are registered might be only the tip of the iceberg. The primates that are the most commonly held in the UK, such as marmosets, do not require licences, so their numbers are not reflected in the licensing figures.

The bill outlines the needs of animals. Primates are a special case, because it is hard to see how anyone can provide for their needs in a domestic setting. I will use the squirrel monkey as an example. As it is one of the species that is licensed, we know that there are at least 90 of them in the UK.

Squirrel monkeys are wild animals. They live in social groups of up to 50 individuals; they have a lifespan of 21 years; they occupy home ranges of 60 to 130 hectares; and they spend less than 1 per cent of their time on the ground. It does not take much more than basic understanding to realise that it would be difficult for the private owner of a pet to meet those needs. In zoos, however, there is a level of scientific expertise and skill. Zoos also play a role in international captive breeding programmes and in education, research and conservation. A distinction can be drawn between private owners and zoos in terms of the purpose of keeping the animals. In zoos, there is a specific conservation and research aim, but for private individuals—no matter how many claims of altruism they may make—the aim is never, I think, the reintroduction of a species. There is a clear distinction between keeping an animal in captivity for conservation and research and keeping an animal as a pet.

That was a helpful clarification. There do not seem to be any more questions so I thank all the witnesses for the evidence that they have given today and previously.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—