Memorandum submitted by R K and E F Catchpole
We have received from the office of Rt Hon Margaret
Beckett MP, a sheet containing 12 "Key Messages" and
a list of what Labour has delivered on Animal Welfare since 1997.
Regarding the "Key Messages", we ask
that you consider our following comments during your consideration
of this Animal Welfare Bill.
The fifth Key Message mentions increasing £5,000
to £20,000. Is this the figure for a fine or something else?
We hope that the Act will clarify this point.
On the sixth Key Message we congratulate you
for proposing the introduction of the ability to act before cruelty
is caused.
This provision is long overdue and is very welcome.
The tenth "Key Message" promises that
a cattery inspection will always in future include a vet. This
seems to us to be completely unnecessary. It is an additional
requirement that you are proposing to impose on all cattery operators,
the vast majority of whom, in our opinion, probably provide good
care to the animals with which they have been entrusted.
The current people who currently carry out the
inspections presumably have authority to call in a vet in circumstances
where they feel that a cattery is not being operated correctly.
If the current Inspectors cannot make this sort of judgement then,
in our opinion, they are not capable enough to be doing the job
in the first place.
We admit to having a vested interest in this
matter. Our cat spends time boarding in a small cattery where
she receives care and attention beyond that which many owners
give to their cats. Additional requirements such as that mentioned
above, and the associated costs, could deter the owner from continuing
her service. We prefer that our cat boards in a small local cattery
rather than a larger remote cattery which would mean longer journeys
to and fro, thus causing extra stress to the cat, not many of
which seem to like car or bus transportation.
We are keen that catteries should conform to
the standards but do not agree with a vet being "always"
included in the inspections.
Regarding Key Message number eleven, it is a
disgrace that you do not propose to include animals used in scientific
research from this Bill. These animals suffer enough without perhaps
someone causing them needless suffering by treating them cruelly.
It is possible that someone working in a laboratory could ill-treat
an animal. If they did we would like this Bill to include the
provision that they could be subjected to the same penalty as
someone who ill-treats an animal outside such an establishment,
including the same publicity for such a penalty that might be
imposed.
We feel that it is should be the same principle
that is applied to animals and birds being taken for slaughter.
Although they are due to be killed we believe that they have a
degree of protection from laws that seek to punish those who cause
cruelty to such animals and birds. Just because animals taking
part in scientific experiments are not en route for slaughter
they should not be deprived of the same protection as those that
are en route for slaughter.
20 July 2004
| 
