Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 16, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports
News & Reports bva
BVA poses questions about the impact of Scottish independence QUESTIONS about the future of the veterinary profession in an independent Scotland were posed by the BVA President, Robin Hargreaves, in his speech to the BVA’s annual dinner in Scotland last week. Speaking at the event, held in the Scottish Parliament building on May 14, Mr Hargreaves said that, as a non-partisan organisation, the BVA had not taken a position on Scottish independence; rather it had tried to provide a forum for informed debate among its members. It had also questioned the Scottish Government and the RCVS about the issue. However, he said, it was evident that there was a ‘degree of frustration’ among some members who were looking for clearer answers about the regulation of the profession in an independent Scotland, if this was the outcome of the forthcoming referendum. ‘We have questions around the impact on veterinary regulation; on funding for Scotland’s network of world-class research institutes and the potential for duplication; on funding for places at Scotland’s two excellent veterinary schools; and on veterinary surveillance,’ said Mr Hargreaves. The dinner in Edinburgh was one of four that the BVA holds in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each year, to bring issues of importance to the veterinary profession to the attention of policymakers and others with an interest in animal health and welfare. During his speech, Mr Hargreaves noted that, regardless of the outcome of the Scottish independence vote on September 18, Great Britain would continue to be a single epidemiological unit when it came to disease. In England and Wales, changes to veterinary surveillance were already underway; however, in Scotland, the veterinary profession and livestock industry were waiting to hear about plans for the future following the 2011 Kinnaird report on veterinary surveillance. ‘We’ve known that across the UK changes to scanning surveillance are being driven in large part by the need to reduce costs, but we have stated clearly that any decisions must be based on good surveillance and diagnostic outcomes, and not purely cost savings,’ said
The BVA President, Robin Hargreaves (centre) with (from left) John Scott, MSP, Sheila Voas, the Chief Veterinary Officer for Scotland, Christine Grahame, MSP, and Ronnie Soutar, president of the BVA’s Scottish Branch, outside the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh before the BVA’s annual Scottish dinner
Mr Hargreaves. In recent years the detection of Schmallenberg virus, identification of bleeding calf syndrome and the discovery of psoroptic mange in cattle had ‘served as timely and stark reminders that we reduce our surveillance capacity at our peril,’ he said. The BVA had raised concern that, in England and Wales, the AHVLA was in danger of dismantling the current system for surveillance before a new system had been tried and tested. ‘Here in Scotland, we still await the detail of the changes. Without wishing to sound too pessimistic, we know that’s where the devil lies,’ he said. Robust veterinary surveillance was essential if Scotland was to maintain its worldwide reputation for excellence in food, he said. Scottish food and drink was going from strength to strength, and he was in no doubt that a strong veterinary input into animal health and welfare and the partnership between vets and farmers had both had a significant role in this success. The BVA fully supported moves towards the creation of Food Standards Scotland, a new food standards body to replace the Food Standards Agency in Scotland, and saw a clear veterinary role within it.
Noting that a thriving aquaculture sector formed an important part of Scotland’s livestock industry, Mr Hargreaves pointed out that all livestock sectors, including aquaculture, were coming under increasing scrutiny over their use of veterinary medicines, particularly antimicrobials and anthelmintics. ‘Last November, we were shocked and saddened to hear comments by the UK Chief Medical Officer on Radio 4 claiming that salmon may well eat their own bodyweight in antibiotics,’ he said. While these inaccurate comments had been rightly challenged by the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation, the sad truth remained that the profession was battling against these types of headlines on a regular basis. The BVA was currently putting into place an action plan for responding to the UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy and was preaching a very proactive message of responsible use. ‘We have agreed with the principle of reporting and recording veterinary antimicrobial usage to demonstrate that we are putting our message into practice,’ said Mr Hargreaves. These steps were essential, he added, because when new veterinary medicines regulations came before the European Parliament later this May 24, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 515
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 16, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports year, the BVA was anticipating renewed calls from some countries for the ‘decoupling’ of the right to prescribe from the right to dispense. ‘It is a move that could seriously undermine the business model of UK veterinary practice and leave animal owners in rural and remote areas with little or no access to prescribed veterinary medicines for no proven benefit,’ he said.
Companion animals
Turning to companion animal issues, Mr Hargreaves said that the BVA had been ‘absolutely delighted’ when Richard Lochhead, the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural affairs, announced at the BVA’s Scottish dinner in 2013 that the Scottish Government would be consulting on the compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland. ‘We have been pleased to see so much political support for the move, which would provide a safe, permanent and effective way for any dog to be reunited with its owner – a significant dog welfare measure.’ However, the BVA had expressed serious reservations about another proposal within the Scottish Government’s consultation on measures to promote responsible dog ownership, the compulsory muzzling of all dogs in public (VR, January 11, 2014, vol 174, pp 29-30). The Association believed that this would have a hugely detrimental effect on the animal’s ability to express normal behaviour. It was therefore pleased to hear Mr Lochhead’s recent comments that recognised that widespread muzzling was not necessarily a proportionate step.
516 | Veterinary Record | May 24, 2014
‘We agree it would be disproportionate,’ Mr Hargreaves said. ‘The vast majority of dogs are well behaved and their owners are responsible.’ Another issue on the Scottish Government’s agenda at present, he continued, was tail docking of dogs. In Scotland, tail docking is illegal, with no exemptions. However, when the ban on tail docking was introduced in 2007, the Scottish Government undertook to keep the issue under review. It was now considering its response to the recent publication of research by Glasgow university on tail injuries in working dogs (Cameron and others 2014, Lederer and others 2014). Mr Hargreaves noted that, when announcing the findings last month, Mr Lochhead had said he had not taken a firm stance on whether to make changes to the legislation, but that the research provided a sound basis for discussion. The BVA was currently formulating its own response, said Mr Hargreaves, but would question the robustness of the study of working dog owners. ‘We have always stated that we would look again at our position in favour of a complete ban on docking in light of new evidence, but initial comments from our members are that any concessions would be a retrograde step for Scotland, which has hitherto been considered to lead on this welfare issue. Our experience in England and Wales where exemptions are allowed is that it is almost impossible to prevent the rules being flouted for cosmetic reasons.’
Another topic discussed by Mr Hargreaves was non-stun slaughter. There had been, he said, a ‘media frenzy’ over this in recent weeks, into which the BVA had tried to inject some facts. ‘BVA has long argued that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. The welfare compromise associated with the legislative derogation for certain religious communities affects millions of individual animals every year,’ he said. Emphasising that the BVA’s concern was not to do with the practice of religious beliefs, but the practice of cutting the throat of an animal without first stunning the animal to render it unconscious, he said that the Association had been ‘overwhelmed’ by support from consumers who wanted to improve animal welfare at the time of death. Therefore, the BVA was also calling for clearer labelling of meat: ‘We know that it is a difficult and sensitive political issue, but the debate is already shifting towards a very strong call for clearer labelling: a call that politicians cannot afford to ignore. But to ensure the debate isn’t hijacked by those with other agendas, we recommend that products simply be labelled as stunned or non-stunned,’ he said. CAMERON, N., LEDERER, R., BENNETT, D. & PARKIN, T. (2014) Prevalence of tail injuries in working and non-working breed dogs visiting veterinary practices in Scotland. Veterinary Record doi: 10.1136/ vr.102042 LEDERER, R., BENNETT, D. & PARKIN, T. (2014) Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs and terriers in Scotland. Veterinary Record doi: 10.1136/ vr.102041
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3405
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 16, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
BVA poses questions about the impact of Scottish independence Veterinary Record 2014 174: 515-516
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3405 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/21/515
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports
News & Reports bva
BVA poses questions about the impact of Scottish independence QUESTIONS about the future of the veterinary profession in an independent Scotland were posed by the BVA President, Robin Hargreaves, in his speech to the BVA’s annual dinner in Scotland last week. Speaking at the event, held in the Scottish Parliament building on May 14, Mr Hargreaves said that, as a non-partisan organisation, the BVA had not taken a position on Scottish independence; rather it had tried to provide a forum for informed debate among its members. It had also questioned the Scottish Government and the RCVS about the issue. However, he said, it was evident that there was a ‘degree of frustration’ among some members who were looking for clearer answers about the regulation of the profession in an independent Scotland, if this was the outcome of the forthcoming referendum. ‘We have questions around the impact on veterinary regulation; on funding for Scotland’s network of world-class research institutes and the potential for duplication; on funding for places at Scotland’s two excellent veterinary schools; and on veterinary surveillance,’ said Mr Hargreaves. The dinner in Edinburgh was one of four that the BVA holds in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each year, to bring issues of importance to the veterinary profession to the attention of policymakers and others with an interest in animal health and welfare. During his speech, Mr Hargreaves noted that, regardless of the outcome of the Scottish independence vote on September 18, Great Britain would continue to be a single epidemiological unit when it came to disease. In England and Wales, changes to veterinary surveillance were already underway; however, in Scotland, the veterinary profession and livestock industry were waiting to hear about plans for the future following the 2011 Kinnaird report on veterinary surveillance. ‘We’ve known that across the UK changes to scanning surveillance are being driven in large part by the need to reduce costs, but we have stated clearly that any decisions must be based on good surveillance and diagnostic outcomes, and not purely cost savings,’ said
The BVA President, Robin Hargreaves (centre) with (from left) John Scott, MSP, Sheila Voas, the Chief Veterinary Officer for Scotland, Christine Grahame, MSP, and Ronnie Soutar, president of the BVA’s Scottish Branch, outside the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh before the BVA’s annual Scottish dinner
Mr Hargreaves. In recent years the detection of Schmallenberg virus, identification of bleeding calf syndrome and the discovery of psoroptic mange in cattle had ‘served as timely and stark reminders that we reduce our surveillance capacity at our peril,’ he said. The BVA had raised concern that, in England and Wales, the AHVLA was in danger of dismantling the current system for surveillance before a new system had been tried and tested. ‘Here in Scotland, we still await the detail of the changes. Without wishing to sound too pessimistic, we know that’s where the devil lies,’ he said. Robust veterinary surveillance was essential if Scotland was to maintain its worldwide reputation for excellence in food, he said. Scottish food and drink was going from strength to strength, and he was in no doubt that a strong veterinary input into animal health and welfare and the partnership between vets and farmers had both had a significant role in this success. The BVA fully supported moves towards the creation of Food Standards Scotland, a new food standards body to replace the Food Standards Agency in Scotland, and saw a clear veterinary role within it.
Noting that a thriving aquaculture sector formed an important part of Scotland’s livestock industry, Mr Hargreaves pointed out that all livestock sectors, including aquaculture, were coming under increasing scrutiny over their use of veterinary medicines, particularly antimicrobials and anthelmintics. ‘Last November, we were shocked and saddened to hear comments by the UK Chief Medical Officer on Radio 4 claiming that salmon may well eat their own bodyweight in antibiotics,’ he said. While these inaccurate comments had been rightly challenged by the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation, the sad truth remained that the profession was battling against these types of headlines on a regular basis. The BVA was currently putting into place an action plan for responding to the UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy and was preaching a very proactive message of responsible use. ‘We have agreed with the principle of reporting and recording veterinary antimicrobial usage to demonstrate that we are putting our message into practice,’ said Mr Hargreaves. These steps were essential, he added, because when new veterinary medicines regulations came before the European Parliament later this May 24, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 515
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 16, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports year, the BVA was anticipating renewed calls from some countries for the ‘decoupling’ of the right to prescribe from the right to dispense. ‘It is a move that could seriously undermine the business model of UK veterinary practice and leave animal owners in rural and remote areas with little or no access to prescribed veterinary medicines for no proven benefit,’ he said.
Companion animals
Turning to companion animal issues, Mr Hargreaves said that the BVA had been ‘absolutely delighted’ when Richard Lochhead, the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural affairs, announced at the BVA’s Scottish dinner in 2013 that the Scottish Government would be consulting on the compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland. ‘We have been pleased to see so much political support for the move, which would provide a safe, permanent and effective way for any dog to be reunited with its owner – a significant dog welfare measure.’ However, the BVA had expressed serious reservations about another proposal within the Scottish Government’s consultation on measures to promote responsible dog ownership, the compulsory muzzling of all dogs in public (VR, January 11, 2014, vol 174, pp 29-30). The Association believed that this would have a hugely detrimental effect on the animal’s ability to express normal behaviour. It was therefore pleased to hear Mr Lochhead’s recent comments that recognised that widespread muzzling was not necessarily a proportionate step.
516 | Veterinary Record | May 24, 2014
‘We agree it would be disproportionate,’ Mr Hargreaves said. ‘The vast majority of dogs are well behaved and their owners are responsible.’ Another issue on the Scottish Government’s agenda at present, he continued, was tail docking of dogs. In Scotland, tail docking is illegal, with no exemptions. However, when the ban on tail docking was introduced in 2007, the Scottish Government undertook to keep the issue under review. It was now considering its response to the recent publication of research by Glasgow university on tail injuries in working dogs (Cameron and others 2014, Lederer and others 2014). Mr Hargreaves noted that, when announcing the findings last month, Mr Lochhead had said he had not taken a firm stance on whether to make changes to the legislation, but that the research provided a sound basis for discussion. The BVA was currently formulating its own response, said Mr Hargreaves, but would question the robustness of the study of working dog owners. ‘We have always stated that we would look again at our position in favour of a complete ban on docking in light of new evidence, but initial comments from our members are that any concessions would be a retrograde step for Scotland, which has hitherto been considered to lead on this welfare issue. Our experience in England and Wales where exemptions are allowed is that it is almost impossible to prevent the rules being flouted for cosmetic reasons.’
Another topic discussed by Mr Hargreaves was non-stun slaughter. There had been, he said, a ‘media frenzy’ over this in recent weeks, into which the BVA had tried to inject some facts. ‘BVA has long argued that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. The welfare compromise associated with the legislative derogation for certain religious communities affects millions of individual animals every year,’ he said. Emphasising that the BVA’s concern was not to do with the practice of religious beliefs, but the practice of cutting the throat of an animal without first stunning the animal to render it unconscious, he said that the Association had been ‘overwhelmed’ by support from consumers who wanted to improve animal welfare at the time of death. Therefore, the BVA was also calling for clearer labelling of meat: ‘We know that it is a difficult and sensitive political issue, but the debate is already shifting towards a very strong call for clearer labelling: a call that politicians cannot afford to ignore. But to ensure the debate isn’t hijacked by those with other agendas, we recommend that products simply be labelled as stunned or non-stunned,’ he said. CAMERON, N., LEDERER, R., BENNETT, D. & PARKIN, T. (2014) Prevalence of tail injuries in working and non-working breed dogs visiting veterinary practices in Scotland. Veterinary Record doi: 10.1136/ vr.102042 LEDERER, R., BENNETT, D. & PARKIN, T. (2014) Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs and terriers in Scotland. Veterinary Record doi: 10.1136/ vr.102041
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3405
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 16, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
BVA poses questions about the impact of Scottish independence Veterinary Record 2014 174: 515-516
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3405 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/21/515
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
