Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
(ACPO)
I write on behalf of the Association of Chief
Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO)
in my capacity as the senior police officer with responsibility
for wildlife and environmental crime matters. You should therefore
take this response to be the official position of the whole police
service in England and Wales.
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The police service in England and Wales warmly
welcomes the Bill, which is badly needed. However, we have problems
with the drafting. The police position is that we do accept a
responsibility to deal with cruelty and fighting—we do not
see welfare as our problem The current draft Bill does not achieve
this separation.
1.2 The position of the RSPCA is unclear
in the Bill, and our suggestion of creating an accreditation regime
to enable them to operate has unfortunately not been taken up.
2. CLAUSES 1
AND 2
We are content with the thrust of these Clauses.
However as presented the use, for example, of a terrier dog in
a fox earth, or a ferret being used to kill rabbits would amount
to offence under Clause 2(1). I suggest that an exemption be added
to these clauses making it clear that such activities remain lawful—unless
of course it is the government's intention to make them illegal.
3. CLAUSE 3
We welcome the introduction of the welfare offence.
4. CLAUSES 11-14
4.1 The powers here apply to proposed offences
under Clauses 1, 2 and 3. You may be not aware that the police
service's formal position is that while we accept a need for continued
involvement in cruelty and fighting offences, welfare is not directly
our concern. This position has been put in writing and debated
at some length with Defra officials so it is with some concern
that I read Clauses 11-14.
4.2 As drafted, these Clauses included both
welfare and cruelty and will cause the police to have to deal
with welfare offences. This we are not prepared to do without
a clear instruction from government that animal welfare is indeed
our duty. We have had no such indication to date.
4.3 In practice the bulk of this work is
in fact done by the RSPCA, and I believe that it is Defra's intention
that this continues. However I am disappointed that our proposal
(to create an accreditation scheme similar to that used by the
Home Office and DfT) has not been adopted. This leaves the RSPCA
powerless to act without police assistance—which is not
likely to be forthcoming, given our view that welfare is not generally
a police matter.
4.4 Clause 11(3)
The timescale at 11(3)(a) of eight days is far
too short to be practicable, and requiring the police to ask for
an extension (Clause 11(5)) again causes us to get dragged back
into welfare matters.
4.5 Clause 14(4)
It is unhelpful to restrict Inspectors' powers.
This will simply encourage local authorities not to provide a
24 hour service and leave matters to the police who will, as stated,
be reluctant to deal with welfare cases.
5. CLAUSE 21(1)
This clause allows seizure of animals if an
arrest has taken place. It should be amended to when an offence
has taken place (or is reasonably suspected); an arrest is not
always going to occur.
6. CLAUSE 21(2)
Exactly the same issue as Clause 11(3) above.
7. CLAUSE 25(4)
An offence of failing to deliver an animal subject
of a deprivation order should be considered.
8. CLAUSE 28(5)
An offence of failing to deliver an animal subject
of an order of disqualification should be considered.
9. CLAUSE 39(1)
The reference to "reasonable time"
should be omitted. Offences of this type occur at unreasonable
times by their very nature, and evidence has to be gathered at
the earliest opportunity.
10. CLAUSE 39(3)
The power of entry under Clause 3 should not
extend to constables—but this issue is intimately linked
to my concerns about Clauses 11-14.
11. CLAUSE 40(4)
This Clause should be deleted in accordance
with my comments in relation to Clause 14(4).
Richard Brunstrom
Chief Constable/Prif Gwnstabl
20 August 2004
| 
