Memorandum submitted by the Farm Animal
Welfare Council (FAWC)
FAWC sees significant improvement issues represented
in the draft including:
— Modernisation of existing law for
both farmed and companion animals.
— Real strengthening in respect of
companion animals (although this is outside of our remit).
— Establishing the basic principle
of "ensuring an animals welfare".
— A real strengthening of the provisions
and sanctions for animals likely to be in distress/likely to suffer
in addition to those in actually in distress/suffering, including
not just Court penalties but a very positive stance on deprivation
and disqualification.
— Bringing some clarity to when a defendant
is in breach of a disqualification order.
— Greatly enhanced enforcement powers
for inspectors and constables and delegated powers of prosecution
for Local Authorities to deal with the welfare of animals.
We believe that all of these improvements are
absolutely essential to the impact of the eventual legislation
and it will be critical to ensure that they survive the debates
between now and enactment. We will be happy to provide advice
and assistance during this process.
This Bill is a great advance on what we have
at present, and places considerable reliance on the veterinary
profession delivering an informed opinion on both matters of health
and welfare. It is critically important that welfare is seen as
an issue in its own right. We are confident that the veterinary
profession is adequately trained and experienced to handle matters
relating to health and disease. On the contrary, we do have concerns
that the depth to which animal welfare is taught, both in veterinary
schools and to the practising profession through Continuing Professional
Development, is not adequate for the demands of this proposed
legislation. We are aware that the profession has recently recognised
this but there will be a need for further activity from the RCVS
and Government to ensure the strength of this cornerstone of the
proposed law.
Some comments on the detail:
s1(1) Does it really need (c) if the Bill is
meant to be inclusive and all of (a)(b)(d) need to be satisfied
to show cruelty.
s1(4) This prohibits activities classed as mutilations
unless there is a specific order by the appropriate national authority
(subsection 5). Tail-docking and teeth-clipping is currently permissible
on pig farms in some circumstances under veterinary supervision.
The understanding of related problems (eg tail-biting) is not
fully understood and is under current research. It is important
for welfare reasons that the ability to continue with teeth-clipping
and tail-docking where circumstances are deemed appropriate under
veterinary health plans is in place at the same time, ie by a
national order as described, before this part of the bill is introduced.
It is a surprise that "animal" is
not defined within the Bill itself. It raises the issue of potentially
equating vertebrates with non-vertebrates, which may be a thorny
problem, but one that may be tackled using the principles of good
husbandry practices, rather than having to prove animal suffering.
On that point, it will be difficult for good practice to be defined
if there is no Code of Recommendations for Welfare for that species.
s1(7) Suggest wording should be changed after
"in each case" delete "knowing the" "to
reasonably should have known the".
s3(6) Requires some clarification via Regulation
and/or Code of Practice. Clause 3(6) suggests that killing animals
is not an offence. But if it is done without the owner's permission,
or if a higher primate, eg a chimpanzee, is killed by the owner
without good reason there might be some cause for concern. This
clause could be qualified in some way to admit some line of acceptable
justification.
s5 If the word "give" could be interpreted
as including selling then it might be argued that someone who
has bought a raffle ticket and won has, in fact, been sold the
animal?
s6(1) Confusing, are animals kept by man not
"protected animals"?
s6(2) An opportunity to integrate livestock
Codes to cover all aspects not just single aspects.
s6(2)(c) This section might be construed as
allowing an owner to not give a prescribed medicine in the diet
even when advised that it is needed by a vet.
s8(4) Double negatives makes this very confusing.
Is it not the case that after 40 days, or if resolved earlier
then the draft is approved.
s7, 8, 9, 10 There appears to be no transitional
provisions for existing Codes of Practice although this is referenced
in the explanatory notes.
s11(3)(b) When are "proceedings begun"—eight
days could in some circumstances be very tight depending on the
actual meaning.
s11(4) Insert "or Regulations made thereunder"
after "Act"
s13(2) and (3) If this section gives a constable
or inspector the right to kill a protected animal, we hope there
is a requirement that such individuals should have training or
otherwise have shown the ability to humanely destroy a range of
animals.
s15(2)(c) Presumably this is the authority whereby
the RSPCA and similar welfare organisations gain the powers to
have duties in respect of actual prosecutions and perform as prosecutors
under the Act. It is suggested that authorisation should be actioned
by a Memorandum of Understanding or similar formal agreement with
defined conditions of operation, responsibility and reporting
and all necessary sanctions that are deemed relevant.
s16(7) There will presumably need to be an allowance
for compensation if animals have been seized or killed without
adequate justification This will obviously be a retrospective
judgement.
s26 The new stance on disqualification will
improve the current problems of custody, the real proof will be
when tested in Court, ie does the terminology of the section effectively
achieve its objective.
s27 Sets a real positive approach for Courts
to consider deprivation/disqualification to those in breach by
giving reasons if case not concluded with either or both actions.
s30(9) There is no mention of how training fodder
are to be handled, eg animals kept to train the fighting dogs
such as cats, other dogs, and badgers. Is the use of lures and
hares to be included in the Bill in coursing?
s31 Although outside of our remit, it is accepted
that animals used for fighting is the only item that can be seized
and destroyed under the Act. What is the situation of seizure/destruction
of other items used for and about animal fighting are these subject
to confiscation/deprivation/destruction under other legislation?
s34(2) Would suggest that one year is too short
a period.
s44 Will be interesting to see what "qualifications"
are drawn up for the purposes of this section. Constables may
have equal powers and then there are those persons operating under
a "Prosecutors" powers where those people are employed
by authorised welfare authorised organisations.
s54(1)(a) It is assumed that Unitary Councils
and Metropolitan Councils are covered by the term District Councils.
Annex 1, page 94—FAWC is a little surprised
at the small number of game farms suggested in this aspect. It
would be useful to set out what the definition of a game farm
is. The Game Farmers Association's proactive stance in producing
a code of practice for keepers is to be applauded. Although many
game enterprises operate to high welfare standards it may be argued
that there is a need for more proactive assessment of stockmanship.
It may be that FAWC could undertake an assessment of game rearing
for a future report.
Council is concerned about the apparent lack
of any additional financial resources from Central Government
to support this major initiative. A Regulatory Impact Assessment
suggesting no additional funding for the work of Local Authorities
and other enforcement agencies simply understates and weakens
the potential benefits that this legislation could bring to the
welfare of animals. In order for the law to have the impact it
deserves it must be effectively enforced and this will require
funding from Central and Local Government.
27 August 2004
| 
