Memorandum submitted by International
Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
would like to focus its submission to the Committee on the following
changes that have been made to the Animal Welfare Bill since its
publication in draft form:
— Clause 10, "Regulations to promote
welfare" (formerly Clause 6 in the draft Bill);
— The proposals in the Regulatory Impact
Assessment (RIA) for Internet sales (Annex B, formerly Annex D
in the draft Bill);
— The proposals in the RIA for animal
sanctuaries (Annex F, formerly Annex E).
IFAW appreciates that the RIA does not strictly
form part of the Bill, but it does outline the way in which the
Government intends to implement much of the proposed secondary
legislation. We therefore consider it is worthy of the Committee's
attention.
IFAW urges the Committee to seek clarification
from the Minister on the following issues:
— Whether the suggestions for uses
of the regulations to promote welfare, as outlined in the non-exhaustive
list in the draft Bill, would still be possible under Clause 10(2)(a)
of the final Bill, and in particular, whether it would still be
possible, at some point in the future, to prohibit the keeping
of animals, despite this not being the Government's intention
at present. (paras 9 and 10)
— Whether it is the Government's intention
to create a statutory code of practice for all Internet sales
of live animals, which will extend beyond sites whose deliberate
purpose is to sell animals to those sites such as auction sites
and chat rooms, that facilitate the sale of live animals over
the Internet. (para 15)
— Why the Government has now decided
licensing is not necessary for any animal sanctuaries and that
registration alone will be sufficient? (para 24)
— For animal sanctuaries not open to
the public and not subject to inspection through licensing, how
the Government expects welfare concerns to come to light given
that a sanctuary is unlikely to incriminate itself in its application
for registration? (para 24)
— What steps the Government is taking
now to establish capacity and standards in animal sanctuaries,
and the ability of sanctuaries to cope with any increase in animals
in need of re-homing following the introduction of the new welfare
offence? (para 24)
— If the Government only intends to
register animal sanctuaries, mostly without inspection, why is
it waiting until 2009 to put this in place rather than doing it
straight away, so as to be ready for any increase in the numbers
of animals needing sanctuary following the introduction of the
new welfare offence? (para 24)
1. The International Fund for Animal Welfare
(IFAW) would like to focus its submission to the Committee on
the following changes that have been made to the Animal Welfare
Bill since its publication in draft form:
— Clause 10, "Regulations to promote
welfare" (formerly Clause 6 in the draft Bill);
— The Regulatory Impact Assessment,
specifically with regard to the proposals for Internet sales (Annex
B) and animal sanctuaries (Annex F). (Formerly Annex D and Annex
E respectively in the draft Bill.)
2. While IFAW appreciates that the RIA does
not strictly form part of the Bill, it does outline the way in
which the Government intends to implement much of the secondary
legislation that will arise from the Bill. We therefore consider
it is worthy of the Committee's attention.
CLAUSE 10—REGULATIONS
TO PROMOTE
WELFARE
3. While IFAW is pleased to see Clause 10,
Regulations to promote welfare, in the Bill, significant changes
have been made to it since the Committee considered the Bill in
draft form. These changes have raised some concerns and there
is a need for the Government to clarify the points outlined below:
4. The clause relating to regulations to
promote welfare in the draft Bill (Clause 6) contained a wide-ranging
but non-exhaustive list of areas for which regulations could in
particular be made (Clause 6(2) draft Bill). This list no longer
remains in the final version of the Bill but has been replaced
with a far more general provision through regulations to impose
"specific requirements for the purpose of securing that the
needs of animals are met" (Clause 10(2)(a)).
5. The removal of the list is understandable
in certain cases, such as the former Clause 6(2)(h) relating to
licensing, which is now covered by Clause 11 in the final Bill.
However, this is not the case for many of the other suggested
uses for regulations in the draft Bill, particularly those which
related to prohibitions (for example, Clause 6(2) paragraphs (d)-(g),
(j)-(m)).
6. IFAW is particularly disappointed to
see the removal of the suggestion that regulations to promote
welfare could include making provision for prohibiting the keeping
of certain animals (formerly Clause 6(2)(l)). IFAW is campaigning
for the keeping of primates as pets to be phased out in the UK
on both conservation and welfare grounds. We are disappointed
that the Government has stated in the Regulatory Impact Assessment
(RIA) accompanying the final Bill that it does not intend to prohibit
the keeping of animals (including primates, in particular) on
welfare grounds (RIA, para 26). This would appear to be a change
of focus from the possible use of regulations under this Clause
in the draft Bill, where it was suggested that such regulations
could be used for prohibitions on keeping certain animals or for
prohibitions of certain activities.
7. The non-exhaustive list included in Clause
6 of the draft Bill was particularly useful as a guide as to what
the regulations could be used for. IFAW would urge the Committee
to seek clarification from the Minister as to whether the suggestions
outlined in the non-exhaustive list in the draft Bill would still
be possible to regulate for under Clause 10(2)(a) of the final
Bill.
8. In particular, we would urge the Committee
to seek clarification from the Minister as to whether it will
still be possible, at some point in the future, to prohibit the
keeping of animals under Clause 10 of the final Bill, regardless
of whether this is the Government's intention at present.
9. IFAW would like to make one further point
regarding the prohibition of the keeping of animals on welfare
grounds. A specific section allowing for prohibition by regulation
has been included in the Animal Health and Welfare Bill (Scotland)
Bill. Should the Scottish Executive choose to prohibit the keeping
of any species, this raises the prospect of cross-border inconsistencies
on prohibitions if the Bill relating to England and Wales no longer
allows this to take place.
REGULATORY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT (RIA)—ANNEX
B, PROPOSAL TO
CONTINUE TO
LICENCE PET
SHOPS (INCLUDING
INTERNET SELLING)
10. IFAW wishes to draw the attention of
the Committee to the changes in the RIA relating to how the Government
proposes to address the issue of Internet sales of live animals,
as outlined in Annex B (formerly Annex D in the draft Bill).
11. The RIA of the draft Bill stated, "Trading
in pet animals over the Internet is not subject to the same provisions
that regulate pet shops"[8].
In contrast, the RIA accompanying the final Bill states, "Anyone
in the business of selling pet animals over the internet, and
who is based in Great Britain, requires a licence under the Pet
Animals Act 1951. This is because they are no different from a
pet shop." (RIA, Annex B, p 20) This clarification in the
revised RIA is a welcome statement highlighting that traders of
live animals on the Internet cannot escape licensing.
12. The RIA draws a distinction between
the actual selling of animals over the Internet and pet shops
merely advertising their business on the Internet but without
the facility to sell animals on it. The RIA goes on to point out
that "there are very few Internet sites, based in England,
that offer the facility to purchase companion animals". While
this observation may be true of actual sites dedicated to the
sale of live animals, it does not appear to acknowledge the number
of sales of live animals by individuals over the Internet which
occur via auction sites, chat rooms and web adverts based in the
UK.
13. IFAW does not believe the Internet is
a suitable forum for the trade in live animals. Purchasers do
not see the condition of animals prior to purchase; it may be
difficult to determine whether an animal is actually of the species
claimed by the seller (some species look very similar but have
different legal status that may require certain paperwork to make
a sale legal); the seller may not be able to determine the age
of the purchaser; and the quick and easy nature of the Internet
encourages "casual" purchases without due regard to
the levels of care and husbandry that will be required for the
animal purchased.
14. For these reasons IFAW would rather
not see the sale of live animals over the Internet and encourage
website owners and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to prohibit
the advertising and sale of live animals and animal parts. However,
for those site owners and ISPs who do allow the advertising and
sale of live animals, there must be a statutory code of practice
in place to ensure both the highest possible standards of welfare,
and the legality of sales. Without such a code, the anonymous
nature of sales on the Internet will undermine other aspects of
the Government's proposed secondary legislation, such as raising
the age limit to 16 for the purchase of pet animals (Annex D of
the RIA for the final Bill), and the proposal that vendors of
all pet animals provide written details on husbandry and care
to prospective buyers (Annex E of the RIA).
15. Annex D in the RIA accompanying the
draft Bill suggested the possibility of a statutory code of conduct
to cover all Internet sales. However, the RIA accompanying the
final Bill (Annex B) no longer mentions such a statutory code
of practice for all Internet sales. IFAW urges the Committee to
inquire as to whether it is the Government's intention to create
a statutory code of practice for all Internet sales of live animals,
which will extend beyond sites whose deliberate purpose is to
sell animals, to those sites such as auction sites and chat rooms,
that facilitate the sale of live animals over the Internet.
REGULATORY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT (RIA)—ANNEX
F, PROPOSAL TO
REGISTER ANIMAL
SANCTUARIES AND
REHABILITATION CENTRES
16. IFAW wishes to draw the attention of
the Committee to the changes in the RIA relating to how the Government
proposes to address the issue of animal sanctuaries, as outlined
in Annex F (formerly Annex E in the draft Bill).
17. In the RIA accompanying the draft Bill,
the Government proposed to licence larger animal sanctuaries and
register smaller sanctuaries (Annex E, RIA of the draft Bill).
It envisaged this would result in about half of the estimated
700 sanctuaries in England and Wales being licensed (on 18 month
licenses) and the other half being registered.
18. Annex F of the RIA accompanying the
final Bill no longer proposes to licence any sanctuaries but rather
just to register them. Registration will be for a five-year period
and will be subject to an endorsement by a veterinary surgeon.
Furthermore, Defra expects that in most cases registration will
be granted without the need for an inspection. Inspection would
only take place "where the evidence submitted in support
of an application for registration indicated that an inspection
was needed" (RIA, para 49). Even if licensing were to take
place, Schedule 1 of the final Bill extends the maximum licence
period to three years rather than the 18 months originally suggested
by Defra in the draft Bill.
19. This change of policy seems to run directly
against the recommendations of the Committee in its consideration
of the draft Bill (that all sanctuaries should be licensed with
annual inspections), and even against some of the comments made
by Defra in its response to the Committee's recommendations. For
example, in its response to Committee's report, Defra agreed with
the recommendation regarding the need for consultation on the
definition of a sanctuary (recommendation 90), stating "consultation
will also clarify in what circumstances either registration or
licensing is most appropriate".[9]
However, the RIA accompanying the final Bill seems to suggest
Defra has made the decision that registration is most appropriate
without any further consultation.
20. It is imperative that there is a clear
definition of what constitutes an animal sanctuary in order for
the Government or local authorities to ascertain the number of
sanctuaries that presently exist. It is likely that following
the introduction of the new welfare offence in the Bill, there
will be an increase in the number of animals in need of re-homing.
Many premises currently offering sanctuary do so with the best
of intentions but feel unable to refuse to take animals they do
not have the facilities or capacity to care for properly. It is
vital, therefore, that the Government or local authorities are
aware of what capacity exists (and to what standard) so that any
new amount of animals in need of re-homing can be directed to
those sanctuaries with the capacity to house them. Otherwise some
sanctuaries will try and take in more animals without the capacity
to care for them, which will create further welfare problems.
21. A definition of a sanctuary and a code
of practice that stipulates controls with regard to capacity are
therefore urgently needed following the introduction of the new
welfare offence. However, the RIA does not propose to introduce
even a registration scheme until 2009. Work must begin immediately
to establish what capacity exists, and to what standard, if the
benefits of the welfare offence are not to be lost or problems
not transferred from people's homes to inappropriate sanctuaries.
Furthermore, any definition must specify that the primary purpose
and objective is to ensure the welfare of the animals in the sanctuary's
care. This would prevent the current practice of some sanctuaries
that breed and trade animals to generate funds. This practice
exacerbates welfare problems if newly bred animals then go into
inappropriate ownership and eventually need re-homing. A clear
definition of a sanctuary would also prevent breeders and traders
defining themselves as sanctuaries to circumvent controls that
may be in place for breeding and trading of certain species.
22. IFAW believes that ensuring adequate
welfare standards in sanctuaries can only be achieved through
licensing and therefore regular inspection. Furthermore, we believe
licensing schemes should be determined with regards the kinds
of species held as well as the number of animals, due to the varying
welfare needs of different animals. For example, the extremely
complex needs of primates in sanctuaries deserve special attention,
which could only be consistently provided for by licensing and
regular inspection. While this may result in a few very poorly
run sanctuaries closing, it would ensure that sanctuary placements
for animals removed from private dwellings as a result of the
new welfare offence provide adequate welfare standards or are
working towards this.
23. In the RIA, Defra uses the opposition
of the National Animal Sanctuaries Alliance and some independent
sanctuaries as part of its justification not to recommend the
licensing of sanctuaries (RIA, Annex F, p 26). This implies that
there is not support for licensing from animal sanctuaries, which
is in fact not the case. For example, well-established, independent
sanctuaries such as Redwings Horse Sanctuary and the Monkey Sanctuary
Trust both support the licensing of all sanctuaries.
24. Given the concerns outlined above, IFAW
urges the Committee to seek clarification from the Minister on
the following issues:
— Why the Government has now decided
licensing is not necessary for any sanctuaries and that registration
alone will be sufficient?
— For sanctuaries not open to the public
and not subject to inspections through licensing, how the Government
expects welfare concerns to come to light given that a sanctuary
is unlikely to incriminate itself in its application for registration?
— What steps the Government is taking
now to establish the capacity and standards in sanctuaries at
present, and the ability of sanctuaries to cope with any increase
in animals in need of re-homing following the introduction of
the new welfare offence?
— If the Government only intend to
register sanctuaries and mostly without inspection, why is it
waiting until 2009 to put this in place rather than doing it straight
away, so as to be ready for any increase in the numbers of animals
needing sanctuary following the introduction of the new welfare
offence?
November 2005
8 Launch of the draft Animal Welfare Bill,
London: Defra, Cm 6252, p 87. Back
9
House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee, The Draft Animal Welfare Bill: Government Reply to
the Committee's Report, Fourth Special Report of Session 2004-05,
February 2005, London: The Stationery Office, HC 385, p 34. Back
| 
