Memorandum submitted by Bryan E Reed
On behalf of myself and the persons and organisations
named below, I would like to submit the following comments on
the Draft Animal Welfare Bill for consideration by the Committee.
Although we contributed directly and indirectly
to the initial Defra consultation period which ran from January
until April 2002, we still feel that there are certain aspects
of the Bill which need clarification and further work.
We feel strongly that Defra should have organised
and publicised separate public meetings both with animal keepers
and protectionist groups to form balanced view of the proposed
Bill and the practicality of its workings.
Unlike protectionist groups with their publicity
machines and lobbying facilities, most animal keepers are either
individuals, or belong to several different clubs or societies
with no governing body. Publicity material recently released on
Television and in the press by the RSPCA to coincide with the
launch of the Draft Animal Welfare Bill showed horrific pictures
of animals in distress which was obviously intended to shock.
These cases could in our opinion have been dealt with under existing
legislation—and yet the point was being made that new legislation
was needed to combat the suffering.
While we appreciate much of the work that Officers
of the RSPCA do on the ground, it is no secret that MOST animal
keepers do not trust the RSPCA or the RSPB and believe they have
an hidden agenda to ban all keeping of exotic animals—and
the strength of these feelings should not be underestimated. In
view of this we would respectfully draw your attention to the
UK signature to Agenda 21 (1992 Earth Summit) which states among
its objectives "a framework for sustainable development covering
the international economy, — conservation and management
of natural resources".
At a public meeting I and others attended on
17 July 2004 organised by the Parrot Society, we found that they
(the Parrot Society) had elected themselves to speak on our behalf
and that they now have a seat on one of the working groups. We
further understand that at a meeting organised by Defra individuals
those who spoke the loudest were invited to join the working group.
Although not wishing to denigrate their findings we would respectfully
point out that it is not always the people who shout the loudest
who have the best ideas—there is an old saying that empty
vessels often make the most noise!
Since the meeting held on 17 July 2004 it has
come to our notice that the Society for the Protection of Aviculture
(SPA) which only came into being in 2002 asked Defra if they could
be allowed to write a Code of Conduct. It should be noted that
societies who are members of this organisation were told Defra
had requested SPA to write this code. Items 7:8:9:10 listed below
explains more details of our feelings on this matter.
Although it is probably too late—we intend
sending under separate cover to Chris Newman who we understand
is Chair of the Working Group on Animal Fairs our comments on
a copy of the proposed SPA Code of Conduct which we have in our
possession from October 2003. We understand this has since been
updated without approval from member societies of SPA and a copy
given to Defra.
While voicing these opinions as individuals
and organisations we are at a loss to understand how you can contact
the vast number of animal keepers who do not belong to any organisation
and who will to a greater or lesser extent be affected by this
proposed legislation.
NOTES ON
THE DRAFT
ANIMAL WELFARE
BILL
Clause 6: Regulations to promote welfare
2b—Items (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) and 2(c)
(f) (h) (i) (n) (o) (p) (q)—No regulation or provision should
be made with regard to hobby animals without prolonged and careful
consultation with keepers and/or governing bodies of keepers of
those animals—bearing in mind that many keepers do not belong
to any organisation at all. The reasoning behind this is that
in general keepers of all animals (especially exotics) often have
a greater understanding of the needs of animals and their breeding
than the protectionist organisations and many Zoo's.
We do not consider it necessary for any local
authority to know the existence or location of any individuals
who keep specific animals except those covered under the "Dangerous
Wild Animals Act 1976".
Most competitive bird shows have a small sales
section—some of which incorporate a SMALL number of dealers—(Annex
B). Sales sections are necessary due to the high cost of venues
throughout the UK. Most of these events are non-profit making.
Licensing is totally unnecessary and would signal the end for
many small annual events. At present not only are different fees
being applied in different areas, but some local authorities consider
them necessary while others do not.
3b—No fees should be set without prolonged
and careful consultation with keepers of those animals. Any fees
should be the same Nation-wide and should be levied by Defra.
Where no fees are payable for a similar activity in the EU then
this should also apply in the UK.
Clause 7:8:9:10: Codes of practice and their approval
We cannot speak for other animals, but wish
to point out that in our opinion the Code of Practice for birds
as presented by The Society for the Protection of Aviculture is
severely flawed due to:
— The small proportion of specialist
clubs they represent—and an even smaller number of Cage
Bird Clubs.
— Not representing the majority of
Cage Bird Clubs in the UK—of which there are a considerable
number; or keepers of other birds such as Waterfowl, Pheasants
or Birds of Prey. Lastly and perhaps more importantly they do
not represent the considerable number of individuals who do not
belong to any organisation.
— Their inability to publicise through
the fancy press, pet shops or by other means the proposals they
are submitting—or to obtain prior approval from their member
societies before submitting them to a third party.
— We understand that Defra recommended
that the "Code of Practice" should follow that already
in use for farm animals. However, in the form "we have had
sight of" it is much too restrictive and out of the spirit
of keeping animals in a hobby environment. Indeed we feel that
if followed to the letter, it would severely restrict many of
our activities—the majority of which are non-profit making
and much of what is contained in it could be seized upon by the
"anti-keeping" element. Therefore, we feel that in our
opinion this would infringe upon Article 1 of the First Protocol
to the Convention on Human Rights, that is: "the right to
the peaceful enjoyment of possessions".
— Any licence required for any purposes
whatsoever, should be obtained from and issued by Defra and no
other authority for a holistic approach.
— Licensing of Pet Fairs for small
Cage Bird Events would be a major expense. The provision of a
Veterinary Surgeon at such events would be prohibitive at small
events.
Clause 11:12:13:14: Animals in distress
— The term "Inspector" needs
clarification.
— While we have the greatest respect
for the work of the RSPCA and other NGO's—under no circumstances
should entry to any premises be allowed by NGO's without a warrant
or without one or more of the following accompanying them: a Constable,
Customs and Excise official, Veterinary Surgeon or a Defra Inspector.
We appreciate that under RARE circumstances in may be necessary
to enter premises or vehicles without a warrant but anyone doing
this should be able to substantiate their actions.
— There can be no justification in
creating an offence of "likely to cause suffering".
Charges cannot be bought on the basis of what might happen instead
of what has. While we have every sympathy with the reasoning behind
this—a logical progression is that we would charge all possible
offenders before they committed an offence—a novel idea
for crime rate reduction!
— Only in exceptional circumstances
should an animal be killed without a veterinary surgeon being
present and the reasons for so doing should be recorded and notified
to a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible after the event.
Clause 16:17: Orders in relation to animals owned
or kept by defendant
May need to take into account if the species
is covered under CITES or any other regulation.
Clause 24: Powers following conviction—Imprisonment
or fine
Bearing in mind imprisonment terms and fines
for other offences which are given publicity every day, we feel
that:
— Maximum imprisonment terms are too
long.
— Maximum fine is too large.
— Fines and/or imprisonment levied
in the UK for any infringements under this bill should be the
same as, or similar to, those set in other parts of the EU for
similar offences.
— While we appreciate your sentiments
that "the option of a high fine is to cater for those cases
which involve significant profit to the offender" we cannot
agree that fines or imprisonment terms should be levied purely
on a cost basis.
Clause 6:37: Inspection of records required to
be kept by licence and Entry and inspection in connection with
licensed activities
— The term Inspector needs clarification.
In general, these should not be NGO Inspectors or Local Government
Environmental Health Officers as many of these are "anti-animal
keeping".
— All licences should be issued and
maintained by DEFRA for a totally holistic approach.
Clause 38:41 Entry/Inspection of farm premises
+ Entry/search
Clause 42: Prosecutions—Power of Local Authority
— No prosecutions by NGO's should be
permitted. We would prefer ALL prosecutions be carried out by
Defra or by Local Authorities with the full involvement of Defra.
It is noted that "the creation of Defra has bought under
one roof legislation". However, we feel that in allowing
others to continue bringing prosecutions it would appear Defra
has lost a holistic opportunity. Indeed they do not appear to
want to lead from the front purely on the basis of cost involvement.
However, can we now expect a change of direction in view of the
comments that: "one of the benefits of the bill is an expected
reduction in prosecutions" and "initially there would
be a possibility of more litigation, but in the long term there
will be significant savings on enforcement and judicial costs"?
Clause 44: Appointment of Inspectors by local
authorities
— We do not altogether object to NGO
Inspectors being included on the list issued by the Secretary
of State—providing they have expertise in a particular field.
However, we are against them being used for each and every case.
We would prefer the list to include specialised Defra Inspectors
and Veterinary Surgeons. Care should be taken to exclude any of
the "anti-animal keeping element" which could by definition
include some NGO Inspectors and Environmental Health Officers.
Clause 54: General interpretation
— Inspectors and how they are appointed
need to clarified and the selection process should be open. They
should not automatically be elected from NGO's; Local Environment
Health Officers; Dog Wardens etc.
SCHEDULE 1
3. Power to take persons and equipment onto
premises:
"may take with him onto the premises such
other persons (ADD: as mentioned in the warrant) as he thinks
appropriate" etc.
7(c): Powers related to search and inspection:
ADD: "in an appropriate and humane manner".
12:— Duty to leave premises secured:
ADD: "and shall leave a notice informing
the occupant of the reason(s) for entering the premises and who
to contact regarding the entry and any actions taken as a result
of that entry".
ANNEX K
We would favour Option 2. If Defra operated
a holistic approach then the setting up of a Centralised Animal
Welfare Enforcement National Database and its implementation would
be second nature. This would not only lead to major improvements
in animal welfare enforcement, but also in time and by implication
to better standards and care in animal welfare.
ANNEX L
We do not believe that the costs to local authorities
through the implementation of these regulations would be negligible,
or that these costs would not be passed on either in excess charges
to those affected and/or by the Council Tax to everyone.
Bryan E Reed and on behalf of: Mr J B Cope,
Chair—Black Country Foreign Bird Club & The Lovebird
Society (1990), Mr E Gallimore, Chair—Foreign Bird League
and Manchester and Northern Foreign Bird Society, Mr Clive Cotton
and Mr D Wooldridge.
23 August 2004
| 
