Memorandum submitted by Frank Widdowson
INTRODUCTION
1. For five years until 2002, I was the
Director of Legal Services of the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals. Before that, I was for some years the Legal
Adviser (Legislation, Safety and the Environment) to the British
Coal Corporation. This submission is based on the experience I
gained in my time with the Society but the views expressed here
are entirely my own. As, no doubt, other submissions will address
the fine detail of the Bill this submission will be short and
address only some key issues the Committee might find helpful
by way of background to their consideration of the Bill.
SUMMARY
2. The present legislation is antique. It
relies on cruelty offences that can only be used in prosecutions
after an event of cruelty. It lacks provisions that provide a
proper and modern basis on which action can be taken before the
event to prevent the mistreatment of animals leading on to cruelty.
New provisions that set out an administrative framework for action
before the event are essential. The proposed duty of care lies
at the heart of these provisions. The present criminal sanctions
for cruelty offences also need to be brought up to date. The unique
ability of charities such as the RSPCA to provide integrated animal
welfare services should be recognised. The provisions for the
delivery of animal welfare services in the Bill need to be sufficiently
flexible to allow the continued and full provision of integrated
services by charities such as the RSPCA.
NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
TO APPLY
BEFORE CRUELTY
TAKES PLACE
3. Consideration by parliament of comprehensive
legislation on the prevention of cruelty to domestic animals—those
that are non-farmed and are not laboratory animals—is long
overdue. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 around which so much
of the current animal protection legislation revolves is like
a carefully repaired and polished antique. It may be cherished
for its age but it is rather frail and was designed in the context
and circumstances of earlier times. Successive legislation on
animal welfare can be traced back at least as far as "An
Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle"
of 1822 (see Annex 1) [Not printed]. The Protection of Animals
Act 1911 was a consolidation with amendments of legislation from
the 19th century. The principal cruelty offences had by then been
developed and extended but even amendments made as late as 1988
remain within the spirit and drafting of the 1822 Act (see the
extracts from section 1 of the 1911 Act at Annex 2) [Not printed].
The offences only arise when the animal has suffered cruelty.
The present legislation has had an honourable history but subsequent
developments in the law, such as those on health and safety at
work and the environment, have shown that effective preventive
mechanisms are available particularly through the imposition of
general duties and the making of codes of practice.
4. The overall priority in the legislation
should be to secure the prevention of cruelty by introducing new
substantive provisions to allow (and also to underpin) the taking
of preventive action before the cruelty occurs and then to amend
the wording of the present criminal offences in respect of cruelty
that has already taken place.
5. The new general duty and the powers and
other administrative provisions in the Bill seem to provide an
appropriate means of requiring owners to care for their pets reasonably.
They should also provide a means by which a body of authoritative
advice on the keeping of pets can be formalised and made available
to the owners. Responsible owners will welcome both the duty and
the advice. In my view, there is great merit in keeping the general
duty simple and not over-elaborating the provisions to the point
that the ordinary pet owner cannot grasp their meaning easily.
It might be remembered that, for instance, at the heart of the
wide ranging health and safety legislation lies a simple duty
on every employer to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable,
the health, safety and welfare at work of all of their employees.
6. Criminal sanctions are necessary to underpin
the new general duty and the advice given to the owner. In the
past, there has been concern that new criminal offence could lead
to vexatious prosecutions. Historically, it is of interest that
it was not considered necessary to carry forward the vexatious
prosecution provision of the 1822 Act (section V) into the subsequent
legislation consolidated in the 1911 Act. There is no evidence
that the present ability of private individuals to prosecute animal
cruelty offences has been abused. The ability of private individuals
to bring prosecutions for cruelty offences should not be curtailed.
If there is concern about the ability of private individuals to
bring prosecutions for a welfare offence under clause 3 the practical
answer would seem to be that, in most circumstances, a responsible
prosecutor would only bring a prosecution if (a) the owners had
been given advice as to how to look after their pet but had declined
to follow it and (b) a veterinarian had confirmed that the animal's
welfare needs were not being adequately met. In any case, the
Director of Public Prosecutions has powers to deal with inappropriate
prosecutions under the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985.
DELIVERY
7. The means by which any new welfare provisions
are to be delivered is also a key issue. In principle, the local
authority would seem to be an appropriate choice to have at the
centre of the delivery mechanisms in respect of welfare. In practice,
some of the difficulties for local authorities are clear, not
least those concerning finance and resources but, in addition,
the services need to be a coherent and integrated whole.
8. Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of welfare
services is the rescue of animals that are in some immediate physical
peril such as a cat trapped in a tree. More frequently, rescues
involve animals that are subject to physical abuse or neglect.
It is a sad fact that the outlook for an animal in this second
category is bleak unless it can be found a new home. Other animals
need to be re-homed if cruelty is to be prevented. So re-homing
is an integral part of the welfare process. This brings with it
the need to care for rescued animals that are sick and for also
for animals that are waiting re-homing. Providing specialist facilities
for the treatment of animals and ensuring that owners who cannot
afford veterinary treatment receive help to get their animals
treated also prevent suffering. In a small proportion of cases,
prosecution is necessary in an attempt to prevent cruelty happening
again or as a pre-requisite to the obtaining of an order banning
the offender from keeping an animal or animals. In many instances,
these animal welfare services may be integrated better in a charity
than in a local authority.
9. The RSPCA and its local Branches have
a long tradition of providing integrated welfare services for
animals. This has the advantage of combining the strengths of
the RSPCA's field force of 323 inspectors supported by 146 animal
collection officers and its specialist veterinary and scientific
staff with the dedication of its 178 Branches of local volunteers.
10. The inspectors in the RSPCA's field
force are drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds. They are well
trained spending their initial six months with the Training School
before they take their first posts in the field. A set of Standing
Instructions has been evolved over many years to form the basis
on which the inspectors undertake their work. Experienced inspectors
manage the inspectors in the field on a regional basis. It is
the individual inspectors who prepare the initial evidence and
material for a prosecution. Decisions on prosecutions are made
by the Society's Prosecutions Department and local solicitors
in private practice conduct the prosecutions. In the best tradition
of justice in England and Wales, the cases are heard in the local
magistrates court by local justices with a local prosecutor conducting
the case.
11. The RSPCA's Annual Report for 2003 indicates
that in that year the inspectorate investigated 105,932 complaints
of animal cruelty and made 11,806 rescues and 182,570 animal collections.
Some 928 defendants were prosecuted and 1,829 convictions secured
as well as and 698 banning orders. In addition, in 2003, the RSPCA
Branches and their volunteers were at the forefront in securing
new homes for animals. Of the 69,956 animals that were found new
homes by the RSPCA in that year, the Branches found them for 52,097.
The RSPCA's hospitals, establishments and Branches carried out
263,155 treatments and the Branches gave financial assistance
for a further 20,268 treatments.
12. During my time at the RSPCA, I was impressed
time and again by the skill and dedication of the Society's volunteers,
its field force of inspectors and animal collection officers,
its veterinary and scientific experts, the Prosecutions Department
staff and the local solicitors who conducted the prosecutions
in court. In recent years, the RSPCA seems to have been in the
headlines for its campaigning work. Campaigning for new legislation
has always been an essential part of its work to improve the standards
of animal welfare. It is, however a relatively compact part of
its activities. The main thrust of its day-to-day work is the
hands-on care and protection of animals.
CONCLUSION
13. I believe that the provisions of the
Bill should take full account of the unique ability of charities
such as the RSPCA to provide integrated welfare services for animals.
In my view, it is essential that the new duty of care and the
other new provisions in the Bill assist this integrated day-to-day
care of animals and do not make it more difficult. The provisions
should be sufficiently flexible to make it possible for charities
to deploy their resources to the best advantage depending on the
circumstances applying from time to time.
25 August 2004
| 
