Memorandum submitted by the Society for
the Welfare of Horses and Ponies
Section 3 (5) (b). Owners of ponies kept on
extensive commons may claim that the animals' degree of domestication
is such that they can't be caught and so appropriate protection
from, and diagnosis and treatment of pain, injury or disease are
not possible. Owners frequently refer to such ponies as "feral"
which, of course, they are not.
Section 11 (3) to (8). This is, from our point
of view, the most contentious section of the Bill. Our aim has
always been to prevent cruelty, rather than to prosecute after
cruelty has occurred. Over more than 30 years, during which time
this charity has taken into care more than 400 horses and ponies
in dire need, we have only been involved with three prosecution
cases. Two of these cases were brought by the RSPCA and one by
the Police. In cooperation with the Police we have found that
the threat of prosecution has one of two outcomes. Either the
owner will agree to sign the animal over to the Charity, or he
or she will deny ownership. The effect of this section of the
Bill would be that, unless proceedings are instigated, the owner
of the abused animal may have it returned to him or her. Who is
going to bring these proceedings? Who is going to pay for proceedings?
Both the RSPCA and the Police are grossly overburdened with the
work and cost of prosecutions. This section appears to favour
those who abuse or neglect animals. The average time taken to
return to full health horses taken into care by the SWHP is of
the order of nine months.
Sections 24 and 25. We also feel very strongly
that prosecution may not always help the animals concerned; magistrates
frequently impose fines which may not ever be paid and, where
horses are concerned, the cause of neglect is often the shortage
of money and so a fine will only exacerbate the situation of any
other animals owned. Confiscation of the animal is the only effective
deterrent.
Section 26. Disqualification. A complete waste
of time and impossible to police. Individuals convicted and banned
from keeping horses simply transfer ownership to another member
of the family, or to a friend, and, in effect, the animals remain
under the same inadequate management regime.
Section 44. Appointment of Inspectors by Local
Authorities. Where horses are concerned the committee might consider
the selection of inspectors from organisations which are members
of the National Equine Welfare Council.
Schedule 3. Repeals. The repeal of the Abandonment
of Animals Act 1960 would be a complete disaster. It is the Act
which we use more than any other. It is both concise and precise,
and we, and the Police with whom we work, find it by far the most
valuable Act when dealing with cases or severe neglect.
August 2004
| 
