Memorandum submitted by David B Morton
This Bill is a great advance on what we have
at present and as a piece of enabling legislation it appears to
leave room for development. I particularly like the notion of
being able to intervene to prevent any cruelty that might occur,
and the move away to promoting positive welfare not just emphasising
negative welfare.
I am surprised 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 will be tackled I hope using the principles
of good husbandry practices, rather than having to prove animal
suffering.
How will good practice be defined if there is
no Code of Welfare for that species?
Clause 3(6) suggests that killing animals is
not an offence. But if it is done without the owner's permission,
or if it killed by the owner for no good reason, and let's say
it was a chimpanzee, would that be acceptable? In other words
should this clause be qualified in some way to admit some line
of acceptable justification.
Clause 5. Does the word "give" include
"selling"? Could it be argued that someone who has bought
a raffle ticket and won has, in fact, been sold the animal?
Clause 16(7) Will there be a route for compensation
if animals have been seized or killed, without adequate justification?
Clause 30 Subsection (9). How is training fodder
to be handled eg animals kept to train the fighting dogs such
as cats, other dogs, and badgers?
The Bill places considerable reliance on the
veterinary profession delivering an informed opinion on both matters
of health and welfare and in many ways it is a cornerstone of
the proposed law. I am concerned that the depth to which animal
welfare is taught in veterinary schools, let alone at the undergraduate
level. The available courses and sources of digestible information
for CPD may also be found wanting.
23 August 2004
| 
