Justice 1 Committee, 29 Oct 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Clydesdale Horses (Couping) (PE347)

The next item is the petition.

Is there any chance of a half-time break?

There will be a half-time break after the petition. We will discuss the petition and then go into private session. We will have a cup of coffee for that.

The petition is PE347, by Mr Kenneth Mitchell, on the couping of horses. I refer the committee to paper J1/02/36/5 and specifically the options in paragraphs 13 and 14. I should also mention that I received apologies from Sylvia Jackson—who is heavily involved in the petition—because she has a clash of committees. Where have we heard that before? It can be very difficult for members.

What are committee members' positions on the options given? You will have seen the responses from the British Equine Veterinary Association, Jim Sharp, who has now taken over the petition after unfortunate demise of the original petitioner, Animal Concern and the Laminitis Clinic. If you have had the opportunity to examine them, I should like your guidance on how you wish to proceed.

First, it is an area that I know nothing about but, secondly, having read through the stuff, I thought that the most sensible suggestion was that judges in showing classes should be instructed to examine horses to see whether they had been couped. They would then blacklist or exclude any horse that was shoed in that unsatisfactory and dangerous way. I can see the difficulty about having vets in Benbecula or wherever, and one respondent says that they have tried instructing the judges, but it does not work. However, that might change if a message went out from the committee that we would propose legislation if judges did not get their act together and disqualify horses that had been couped. I should prefer that rather than bashing into legislation.

Sylvia Jackson said that she hoped that we would support the petition because she supports it very strongly. I do not think that we should do nothing and, as Donald Gorrie said, we should first try to encourage best practice. However, it seems from some submissions that that is not happening and that people just duck out of it. Donald Gorrie said that the judges could be the ones to impose best practice, but the farriers could do that by not couping horses. Perhaps we should write to the Worshipful Company of Farriers to ask about its stance on couping. Depending on its answer, we could then examine whether to recommend legislation.

Couping is possibly a cosmetic practice that has grown up over the years for no good reason. It is perhaps done just so that horses walk more prettily. It makes me think of Chinese women having their feet bound, although that is clearly an extreme example. However, the principle is the same. It is supposed to be something beautiful, but in the end it causes damage to the health of the horses.

I agree with Maureen Macmillan. I do not think that we should do nothing. I note the correspondence from a senior vet, who said that evidence that couping causes orthopaedic problems does not seem to exist. I cannot help but think that it must cause some problems. If it was done to a human being, I am pretty sure that it would cause some difficulty in future years.

I am not so sure about Donald Gorrie's proposal about the judges. I would prefer to go to the Clydesdale Horse Society to ask whether it is prepared to ban couping from its events. I would want to know whether the Farriers Registration Council is prepared to ban its members from doing it. If not, we should be prepared to take action and recommend that legislation be introduced. I do not think that we should ask those involved to introduce new standards of best practice—they are either for it or against it. If they wish to continue with the practice of couping in some form, that is unsatisfactory and we should be prepared to recommend legislation.

I agree with Michael Matheson's point; we should allow for a response from the British Equine Veterinary Association, which is similar to what Donald Gorrie suggested. We need to be careful about the kind of legislation that could realistically be introduced that would not take us into the animal welfare arena. However, not only Clydesdale horses but other animals suffer regularly for showing purposes. If we were to consider legislation, it could focus not purely on the plight of Clydesdale horses, but on many other animals that have similar experiences.

We have only to visit exhibitions that show animals to see the kind of activities that must be of some discomfort to them. The issue could become an animal welfare issue, rather than being focused on Clydesdale horses. We have to focus on allowing for a response from the BEVA. If it is not willing to educate its members who are involved in couping, the Parliament must consider what to do for the sake of horses' welfare. As I said, we have to be careful and realistic about whether we could allow for focused legislation on couping, or whether this relates to a wider animal welfare issue.

I take the view that legislation should be the last resort in any circumstances and that we should change culture and policy.

I agree with what the convener has just said. I would be grateful to know more about the scale of the problem. I would like to know exactly how many horses are involved and whether the problem exists throughout Britain rather than just in Scotland. I would like a more accurate and complete picture of the extent of the problem.

I suspect that that information is somewhere in the papers that we have, although I have not seen it. The view of the committee is that couping is, to put it mildly, an inappropriate, cosmetic practice that is carried out on horses for no reason other than to change their natural walk to what humans think is a more appropriate walk.

We should write to the Farriers Registration Council and the Worshipful Company of Farriers expressing the view that couping is distasteful to us and that we wish it to end by consensus. We should ask them whether they would undertake to ban members or mark members—that is not the word that I want—if they continue to be involved in couping. We should also write to the Clydesdale Horse Society expressing similar views. We should tell the society that we have written to the organisations that I mentioned and ask for a response saying that judges in its competitions will not consider horses that have been shod in that manner and that those horses will be disqualified. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Having done that, we should perhaps address the scale of the problem, although I do not think that the numbers that are involved are relevant. The practice is either right or wrong. I do not think that we should say that if it involves only 20 horses it is right, but if it involves 200 horses it is wrong.

We should identify the scale of the problem. I agree that the practice is either right or wrong, but we should be aware of the scale. I do not think that if it involved only 10 horses I would be less concerned than I would be if it involved 40 horses. I am concerned whatever the number is.

I take your point.

If we know the numbers and scale, it is easier for us to obtain evidence about the number of horses that have actually suffered adverse consequences as a result of the practice.

From what we have discovered in our trawling around, it is difficult to get such evidence. The British Equine Veterinary Association had difficulty in giving us that information. I may have misread that evidence, but I think that the association was unable to tell us that. I am quite content that we should try to make inquiries, and perhaps the clerks should do that. Paragraph 7 of the paper for this item states:

"BEVA also states that it would be difficult to enforce the legislation which the petitioner seeks due to ‘lack of objective facts (on couping)' and ‘diverse interpretations of the definition of couping'."

That is something else that I meant to address. I seem to remember that there was mention of degrees of couping, for some reason. The paper goes on to say that the BEVA

"suggests that it may be more appropriate to encourage best practice through the Farriers Registration Council, the Worshipful Company of Farriers and if necessary the existing law in relation to farriery",

about which I know nothing.

We could come back with proposed letters next week as part of the convener's report and see whether members are content with them. In fact, we could e-mail them. Somebody could always lodge a parliamentary question, although that might already have been done. I fear that we might not get the information that we need in any digestible fashion, but we will try.

I accept the principle that you stated: that the practice is either wrong and should be stopped or it is not. However, it would be useful to have as much background as possible.

I know that it would be useful, but I do not know whether we will manage it. We shall endeavour to get that information. Are members content to consider letters at the next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

It was agreed that the next item—consideration of a draft report—should be taken in private.

Meeting suspended until 16:25 and thereafter continued in private until 16:47.