Memorandum submitted by the British Horse
Society
The proposed Bill is a great improvement on
the 1911 Act, providing more protection for animals and scope
for preventing cases of neglect and suffering at a much earlier
stage, as a welfare organisation we welcome this Bill in principle.
Having read through the draft, we have a number
of concerns and queries which I have documented below, the general
feeling we had was that consistency of terminology is required
throughout.
SECTION 1CRUELTY
1.9.a. Our concern is related to the word "operation"
no unqualified person should in any instances be carrying out
an operation. Further clarification of the use of the word "operation"
in this context is required.
SECTION 6REGULATIONS
TO PROMOTE
WELFARE
6.5 We would like consideration to be made
as to whether this section is required, and if so it does not
really fit in here.
SECTION 7CODES
OF PRACTICE
We are pleased that Codes of Practices are being
included in the Bill and that The British Horse Society has been
involved in the Streamline Committees, we hope that the information
gathered from the streamline meetings will be used effectively.
SECTION 11POWERS
TO TAKE
POSSESSION OF
AND RETAIN
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS
Throughout this section the term "inspector
or a constable is used" we are extremely concerned about
this and strongly recommend that this should state throughout
"inspector accompanied by a constable".
Whilst we appreciate the definition given for
"an inspector" we would like further clarification of
the appointment procedure of "an inspector" by the local
authority, and also what qualifications and knowledge these inspectors
will be required to have.
11.3.a. We would like to question why an
8 day period has been stated, at present 14 days is the standard
and we would recommend that this remain at 14 days.
SECTION 13OTHER
POWERS IN
RELATION TO
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS
We are extremely concerned about the content
of this section. Firstly, we would recommend that where "killing"
or "slaughter" is used these are changed to "Humane
Destruction" throughout.
Secondly, under no circumstances should a constable
or inspector be given the authority to humanely destroy any animal
nor should a constable be able to make the decision without a
veterinary surgeons advice that an animal should be destroyed.
SECTION 14ENTRY
TO SEARCH
FOR AND
DEAL WITH
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS
We feel that there should be some consistency
in the use of terminology "reasonably believe" and "suspicion
of"; please could you clarify whether these mean the same
or if they are in fact different.
14.2 Clarification is required to determine
what is classified as a "private dwelling".
SECTION 25DEPRIVATION
Where the term "a person appointed"
is used in this section we would recommend that this be changed
throughout to "a competent person appointed".
SECTION 26DISQUALIFICATION
We strongly recommend that this section be revised,
as a welfare organisation we have found that with any owner disqualification
there are always loop holes where before the owner goes to court,
they transfer their animals into a relation or friends name so
they technically do not own the animals and they then continue
to care for the animals (or not in the majority of cases) until
they once again get convicted. This must be stopped and provisions
to prevent this from happening must be made in this Bill.
SECTION 48OBTAINING
OF DOCUMENTS
IN CONNECTION
WITH CARRYING
OUT ORDERS
48.1.b. A 10 day period is given in this
section, we strongly recommend that 14 days is used throughout.
25 August 2004
|