Memorandum submitted by the Donkey Sanctuary
1. DEFINITION
OF "ANIMAL"
1.1 Whilst welcoming and appreciating the
main thrust of the Bill, in respect of its application to all
vertebrates other than human, this response deals only with matters
relating to equines in general and donkeys in particular.
2. SPECIFIC OFFENCES
2.1. Clause 1. Cruelty
The most significant feature of the Bill is
the proposal to introduce a duty of care whereby the owner/keeper
of an animal must demonstrate that he/she has taken reasonable
steps to ensure the animal's welfare.
2.2. This is a vast improvement upon the
1911 Act which requires the presence of unnecessary suffering
in the animal as a pre-requisite before prosecution may be considered.
2.3. Clause 1(7) relates to the administration
of "any poisonous or injurious drug or substance". Would
this include the reckless administration of alcohol to an animal?
3. WELFARE
3.1 Clause 3(3)—Abandonment
This continuity of ownership places a heavy
responsibility on owners to ensure proper steps are made to document
the transfer of ownership when an animal is sold or otherwise
transferred. The new arrangements would make such persons properly
accountable for animals that have been abandoned.
3.2. Clauses 4 and 5. The proposed prohibition
of selling animals to persons under 16, and the ban on giving
animals as prizes, are most desirable and welcome.
4. ANIMAL WELFARE
REGULATIONS AND
GUIDANCE
4.1 Clause 6
The proposed power to introduce regulations
to promote welfare is comprehensive and practical. Introduction
of standards or restrictions may prove useful tools in preventing
anomalies that may arise from specific activities that are not
in themselves cruel.
4.2 Clause 7—Codes of Practice
The equine welfare sector is currently well
served by a number of codes of practice, supported by specific
publications relating to various aspects of animal care. These
should be given due credence in the formulation of future Codes
on behalf of the Secretary of State.
5. ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS
5.1 Clause 11—Powers to Take
Possession
5.2 Clause 11(3)
This proposes an initial time limit of eight
days for retention of an animal seized under the provisions of
this Clause. It is not difficult to envisage circumstances where
this may be insufficient time to identify owners or other persons
responsible for the animals' care.
5.3 There is no definition within the draft
or the explanatory notes of further time limits that must/may
be imposed by magistrates, following an application for an extension
under clause 11(3).
5.4 Whilst accepting the need to place some
form of restriction on such matters—and acknowledging the
facility to apply to a magistrate for an extension—may I
make the following proposals:
(a) That the initial time limit for retention
of an animal seized under clause 11(3) be extended to TWENTY days,
to allow for proper investigation which may (or may not) lead
to proceedings being instituted; and
(b) Clarification of the limitations placed
upon magistrates with regard to further extensions under this
clause.
6. POWERS FOLLOWING
CONVICTION
6.1 The primary consideration throughout
the equine welfare sector is the prevention of animal suffering.
If this cannot be achieved without resorting to prosecution then
it follows that the well-being of the animals that are the subject
of proceedings becomes the most important consideration. Punishment
of the offender is of little interest.
6.2 The powers proposed under clauses 25
and 26 appear to provide a necessary balance between the conflicting
claims of the welfare sector for the imposition of compulsory
deprivation towards those who have been convicted of an offence
under the Act, as opposed to the understandable aim to preserve
the independence of the judicial process.
6.3 The draft appears to demonstrate a willingness
by the authorities to make magistrates much more aware of their
powers in this connection, together with the desirability of depriving
irresponsible owners of their right to own or keep animals. The
requirements of clause 27 should provide a useful tool towards
encouraging magistrates to make orders under clauses 25 and 26.
6.4 Provision should be made in the Act
for the court to order animals being held by a third party during
the prosecution process—and not subject to an order of deprivation
or disqualification—to continue to be held in lien in their
place of safety until all fines and costs relating to the prosecution
have been discharged to the court's satisfaction.
6.5 Clause 33—Licences
The proposal regarding the suspension, disqualification
or cancelling of licences held by persons convicted of offences
should provide an effective means of improving the degree of responsibility
that must be demonstrated by licence holders towards the more
general provisions of animal welfare legislation.
7. INSPECTORS
7.1 In determining the suitability of persons
that may be regarded by local authorities as competent in relation
to their possible inclusion on the list of suitable persons, the
importance of national representative bodies in this respect should
not be disregarded.
7.2 Such bodies are in an excellent position
to provide an objective overview of such matters. The Donkey Sanctuary
would actively encourage and support any training that may be
required to enable inspectors to reach a satisfactory level of
knowledge or achievement towards this objective.
8. REGULATORY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
8.1 Paragraph 16
It has always been the case that police were
reluctant to become involved in cases of animal cruelty—mainly,
one suspects, through lack of knowledge. ACPO's questioning of
the extent to which police should become involved is therefore
understandable. The conclusions reached by Defra and local authorities
is sensible, although there should also be an acknowledgement
of the requirement to involve the police to prevent a breach of
the peace.
8.2 Paragraph 29
The Donkey Sanctuary welcomes the proposal to
increase regulation in a number of activities. We would be extremely
interested in submitting evidence at the appropriate time in relation
to:
8.3 Paragraph 37
Development of a shared Animal Welfare Enforcement
Database is a very interesting proposition that may (subject to
stringent controls) be of great use throughout the equine welfare
sector. Again, The Donkey Sanctuary would wish to play a full
part in trying to move this forward.
8.4 Paragraph 38
The equine welfare sector has the resources
and necessary enthusiasm to assist in the facilitation of cross
boundary working between local authorities. Specialist training
in the handling of different equine species is available from
a number of organisations, including The Donkey Sanctuary. In
this respect the National Equine Welfare Council (NEWC) would
perhaps be the most effective means of providing an impartial
and objective overview of what may be available in this respect.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 Having been involved for a number of
years in various matters relating to equine welfare, and experienced
at first hand the frustrations brought about by the restrictions
that are inherent in the 1911 Act, The Donkey Sanctuary is pleased
to commend this Bill.
9.2 The general tone of the draft sends
a positive message to all parties—owners, keepers, local
authorities and, not least, welfare organisations—that,
at long last, we appear to be close to having the tools necessary
to promote the cause of animal welfare in a practical and effective
way.
24 August 2004
| 
