Memorandum submitted by Dr D E Webster
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I wish to submit some comments on the recently
published draft Animal Welfare Bill. In doing so I would like
to emphasise that in general terms I agree that such a Bill is
necessary to bring under one cloak various existing pieces of
legislation, some of which are very old, and also to take the
opportunity of bringing the legislation into line with modern
knowledge and practices.
Nevertheless, there are several aspects of the
Bill that need clarification. In particular I am concerned about
the powers and duties of the "inspectors", how they
will be chosen, and the dangers of relying entirely or substantially
on present animal welfare organisations.
I am a hobbyist bird breeder and exhibitor,
and so my comments are related to this area.
Clause 3.4 (b)—"any need to be housed
with, or apart from, others of its own or other species"
For centuries, many people—especially
the elderly—have benefited from having a single companion
animal (for example, a single budgerigar or canary in a cage).
This clause seems to preclude the keeping of single birds, and
so presumably it will no longer be allowed as a result of this
act.
Clause 6.1—"The appropriate national
authority . . ."
This clause gives very considerable powers to
an (as yet) unspecified national authority. This "national
authority" needs to be a governmental authority eg Defra.
The national authority needs to consult with a number of interested
parties before framing any new regulations—in particular
those organisations which might be directly affected by the regulation,
not just existing animal welfare organisations, some of which
have a specific (and sometimes political) agenda. Furthermore,
it needs to be born in mind that a regulation that might be appropriate
for one type of animal, may be totally or substantially inappropriate
for another.
Clauses 7 and 8—Codes of Practice
A key consideration here concerns how such codes
of practice are to be formulated. Again, it is essential for wide
consultation with those groups most likely to be affected—particularly
in light of the fact that it is precisely these groups that currently
have the expertise and experience in animal keeping to help frame
such a document. Equally, it is difficult to conceive how a single
document could be applied to a wide range of animals and birds
without resulting in the generalities that are already a feature
of the draft Bill. Thus I cannot see a code of practice that can
cover birds, reptiles and mammals in one document; even covering
all species of birds in one document could be difficult—and
the same is clearly true for mammals. Relying on one or two existing
animal welfare organisation will not do; it has often been shown
that these organisations have little expertise outside of the
mainline domestic animals (dogs, cats, rabbits, etc).
Clauses 11-14—"Powers to take possession
of animals . . ."
Several of these clauses refer to an "inspector".
It is important that the term inspector be more closely defined,
since it appears that he/she would have powers at least comparable
with the police. Who could act as an inspector? What qualifications
would he/she need to have in order to be called an inspector?
In my view it is essential that such people should be properly
(and formally) trained, and have some verifiable expertise and
understanding in at least the broad class of animal that is the
subject of the case (for example, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc).
They should not be allowed to cause the animal any distress at
any time during the taking possession or retention. Every death
of an individual animal during this process must be properly and
thoroughly explained, together with a report from a veterinary
surgeon.
Clauses 44 and 45—Appointment of inspectors
by local authorities
I am also concerned that the inspectors will
be appointed by local authorities when (Clause 44.2) the Secretary
of State only may draw up a list of suitable persons. This paragraph
should be strengthened to say that the Secretary of State will
draw up such a list. It is critically important that the inspectorate
is a balanced group, not just drawn from one or two existing animal
welfare organisations, and contains practical expertise in the
care of a very wide range of animal species.
24 August 2004
| 
