Memorandum submitted by the Anglican Society
for the Welfare of Animals
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Society generally welcomes the Bill as a
small step in the right direction.
1. The Society welcomes:
1.1 the "duty of care" which will
be required of those who keep "protected" animals as
a small step forward in the right direction;
1.2 the recognition that some actions are
likely to cause suffering, and are therefore wrong, even
where actual suffering cannot be proved;
1.3 the prohibition of mutilations (but we
regret the exemptions such as farmed animals, "working dogs"
[those involved in hunting], and all laboratory animals which
are excluded anyway;
1.4 the greater powers given to inspectors
and the police; and
1.5 higher penalties, which must be rigorously
enforced.
2. The Society is disappointed by:
2.1 the lack of tighter legislation for the
conditions in which farmed animals, including game birds[1],
are kept;
2.2 the failure to prohibit animal acts in
circuses;
2.3 the great incongruity in the exemptions
in the Bill: it does not make sense to recognise cruel and therefore
punishable acts towards one group of animals and yet implicitly
to condone similar acts when these are inflicted on animals which
fall outside the definition of "protected animals".
While there is a proposed "duty of care to promote the welfare
of all animals kept by man", there is no such duty, for example,
towards wild deer.
2.4 There is also implicit discrimination
between domesticated animals and animals used in scientific research.
The rationale behind this latter exemption is that the "designated
procedure" supposedly "takes account of the welfare
requirements of these animals". Yet there is overwhelming
evidence that many animals used for scientific research suffer
significantly and quite unnecessarily.
3. We look to the Government to ensure that
"duty of care" is enforced on those who keep animals
in intensive farming systems, in particular in the poultry and
pig industry, where common sense as well as a significant volume
of scientific evidence clearly indicate that no care is being
given to satisfy the strong behavioural and exploratory needs
of animals nor, in many cases, to ensure their comfort and freedom
from pain.
4. We hope that the Government will move
quickly in bringing this Animal Welfare Bill before Parliament
so that it can become law in the near future.
5. We welcome the higher penalties introduced
by this Bill for those who offend against the "duty of care"
required of them by this proposed legislation.
6. Other comments from Officers of the Society
include:
6.1 the practice of tail docking should be
generally outlawed. The Kennel Club has so far shown itself to
be very slow in encouraging the phasing out of this practice.
Docked breeds are still very evident at most championship shows
and are still being awarded prizes. If docked animals were no
longer eligible for the show-ring, the practice of docking would
immediately cease.
6.2 The Bill seems to rely on charities to
carry out much if not all the inspection work: would it not be
preferable for the government to fund inspectors itself rather
than relying on the charity sector to do the inspection work in
animal welfare on its behalf?
15 August 2004
1 Independent reports have shown that many cruel practices
take place in the rearing and hunting of game birds. For example,
the fitting of pheasants with "spectacles"-apparently
to stop them harming each other. Birds of the same species will
only usually harm each other because they are being kept in overcrowded
conditions. Shooting parties are now often arranged on a "corporate"
basis and used for hospitality purposes by companies: many of
these "businessmen' will not be experienced shots. The result
is that many more game birds are now being wounded and never recovered
rather than cleanly shot and consequently suffer a slow death
usually due to lead poisoning. Back
|
