Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


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 1—CRUELTY

  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 6—REGULATIONS 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 7—CODES 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 11—POWERS 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 13—OTHER 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 14—ENTRY 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 25—DEPRIVATION

  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 26—DISQUALIFICATION

  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 48—OBTAINING 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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 9 December 2004