Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Norwich
Plainhead Canary Club (SNPCC)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 Bill has moved RSPCA from a welfare
charity into an animal welfare police—not good in its present
form and could be an infringement of British citizens' rights.
1.2 Definitions of breaches of welfare,
distress, disease, environment need much tightening up.
1.3 Codes of practice need to be developed:
Canary council and Norwich Federation must be involved here.
1.4 Bird keepers to have legal right to
keep, breed, show and sell birds. This process must be openly
agreed and finalised without further harassment from Animal Rights'
Activists. Bird keeping contributes a great deal to society and
to the birds themselves. This must be recognised in law.
1.5 RSPCA must not be above the law in any
way. Once a situation arises in welfare it should be dealt with
fairly by warrant, by vets and by use of an agreed code of practice.
1.7 There should be very little cost implication
for fanciers in all of this.
1.8 Confiscation by legal authorities of
birds in some case will not be good for the birds and must not
be used as a matter of course.
1.9 If we are to proceed with local authority
licensing and monitoring, it is very important that the views
of bird keepers are taken on board and implemented. Species specific
groups or area councils of respected keepers and breeders should
be established to help audit and monitor the work of the RSPCA
and SSPCA after the Bill or a form of the Bill becomes law and
the Codes are being implemented across the UK by legal authorities.
2.1 FAILINGS
OF THE
APPROACH OF
THE BILL
Bill[9]
was needed in light of 1911 Act being out of date and to help
to bring it into line with farm legislation. Bill goes too far
in regulation: 100 pages to update 1911 Act is excessive. Bill
imposes much restriction on Human Rights—Article 5 of EC
Human Rights Protocol seems to be much ignored. Bill does not
seem to reflect many viewpoints apart from RSPCA and related bodies.
Bill has been written with little knowledge of the husbandry of
bird keeping it seems. Bill is an attempt to create an overall
animal police/welfare enforcement service, Option 3 as mentioned
on page 77 in the Bill. Option 2—self—policing and
consultation—certainly never tried out with Norwich clubs
and members. Where is the evidence and analysis that Option 2
has been tried in bird keeping? Much of the evidence against bird
keeping is anecdotal and biased in media and animal group productions.
Bill is strong in words such as "enforcement" "inspections"
"licence", not so good on "education" "communication"
"co-operation". Bird keepers, by the very requirements
of their hobby, do not condone or perpetrate much poor welfare
or cruelty; birds are too valuable, they need to be bred and shown
and be at their best. Bird keepers are totally against cruelty.
The bill seems to want to ban bird keeping, relations between
bird keepers and RSPCA have not historically been very good. Bird
keepers view anything that the RSPCA is in charge of with great
suspicion—not a good way to go forward! [10]Defra
must bring on board bird fancier councils, avicultural federations
to help make this Bill work in a much more representative and
liberal manner.
2.2 ANALYSIS
OF WEAKNESSES
PER SECTION
(i) Section 1—WELFARE
Who decides what is a breach of the "five
freedoms" in bird keeping and its degree? [11]
(ii) Section1(9)—Canary keepers are
suspicious of the ANTHROPOMORPHISING of animals and their husbandry—reference
to "humanity" is quite serious and seems to be the basis
for much of this Bill. An animal does not have human rights: to
transfer human emotions onto a bird and expect to judge the actions
of others towards birds in a human framework is not sensible and
will lead to much confrontation between bird keepers and inspectors
who might use emotion in a situation requiring specific knowledge
about bird keeping.
(iii) Sections 3,7 and 8—ENVIRONMENT,
DIET, BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS, PROTECTION FROM ILLNESS, DISEASE AND
DISTRESS
This is wide open to huge interpretations and
must be clarified with specific codes of practice and welfare.
Bird keeping is not an exact science—it is husbandry. These
codes must have great input from specific bird/animal group council
members.
(iv) Section 4—SELLING OF NORWICH
to people below 16
This is nonsensical and counter-productive.
We want young people to take up the hobby. 12 would be a more
appropriate age for the restriction to apply.
(v) Section 6—LICENCES FOR FAIRS AND
SHOWS selling a few birds
This would represent a tax on bird clubs who
will not be able to afford the extra costs, thus affecting hobby
keeping in society and is not progressive legislation.
(vi) Sections 11, 12, 14 and 16—ENFORCEMENT
Too much power would be given to an inspector
with little knowledge of bird keeping. "Reasonable man"
test is not appropriate in this context—vets' and JPs' warrants
must apply. 1966 Vets' surgeons Acts seem to be getting put aside
here, giving lay people the right to prosecute on the grounds
of appearance rather than on fact learned through University or
through daily husbandry.
(vii) Section 45—IMMUNITY
Not acceptable. Police are liable in law. All
RSPCA and Defra inspectors should also be liable under the law.
Everyone in England and Scotland is responsible for his/her actions.
To do otherwise breaks with previous law and creates legal immunity
which is highly suspicious. [12]
(viii) Schedule 1, page 68—THE INSPECTOR'S
RIGHT TO INVITE others onto the site
This is very dangerous. These could be TV reporters,
Animal Rights terrorists. The rights of the ordinary person are
being jeopardised. Much of schedule 1 is highly intrusive in its
enforcement action.
(ix) Page 79—DATABASE
The possibility of a database being run by the
RSPCA for Defra is unacceptable to bird keepers in its present
form.
(x) 78/79—COSTS
It seems all costs have to be made by animal
owners even if they are legally innocent. This is not democratic.
CONCLUSIONS
SNPCC committee members have come to the following
conclusions:
3.1 Knowledge of working with animals leads
to a more humane society.
3.2 Use of large scale legal enforcement
will create confrontation and sterile animal welfare.[13]
3.3 Bill needs more evidence of accountability
as to how the RSPCA will proceed.
3.4 Bill effectively creates strict liability
offences regarding entry and disregards "mens rea".
3.5 The benefits of all of this to the general
public are questionable. Benefits to birds groups, limited, benefits
to animal welfare enforcement groups, very great.
3.6 Codes of conduct should not be conducted
by amateurs at the Secretary of State's desire but by expert people
within each section ie Canary Council or Norwich Federation.
3.7 Concept of a cruel—free welfare
world for birds is illusory.
3.8 Bill does not address the centuries'
old tradition of good bird husbandry.
3.9 Bill wide open to abuse by enforcement
agencies eg Section 1 (4)(9) —bird fanciers work with their
birds all of the time, sometimes emergency action has to be taken
to save a bird. Is this now illegal? Section 6 (2)—entertainment—does
this mean that an inspector can close down a bird show?
3.10 Committee feels very strongly about
birds being moved from a fancier's establishment. Very often this
is lethal to the birds and is not conducive to welfare. It is
much better to educate, use improvement notices, allow fellow
fanciers in to improve the code of conduct. Dead birds are the
last thing that fanciers wish and presumably also Defra.
3.11 Fanciers should be able to sell their
property without restriction, provided welfare issues are addressed.
(Page 100 in the Bill—"policy to be agreed on other
means of selling animals"). This must comply with Article
1 of ECHR protocol.
3.12 Bill elevates animal welfare and enforcement
agencies to the roles of judge, jury and
enforcer with draconian powers if so wished. Ordinary
bird fancier has little chance of redress or of being understood
or heard.
3.13 The committee of the SNPCC wish to
support Defra, RSPCA, SSPCA in action against cruelty and poor
welfare management and utterly condemn wilful cruelty. The committee
agrees that this should be punished and prevented. They, however,
feel that the Bill requires much more refinement when it comes
to dealing with the general body of canary and bird keepers.
21 August 2004
9 Draft Animal Welfare Bill will be referred to as
Bill from here on. Back
10
Government seems to be targeting bird shows, bird sales, bird
conveyancing which could terminally inhibit bird keeping. Back
11
Displaying "normal behaviour patterns" need definition
and scrutiny-it could be used against all bird keepers. Back
12
To invade a canary establishment on the basis of a phone call
and not be liable for damage done, is totally unacceptable. Back
13
Bird fanciers and aviculturists being singled out for registration,
licensing, inspections, payments, prosecutions, closures has overtones
of persecuting and "cleansing" a minority. Back
| 
