Memorandum submitted by the Country Land
and Business Association (CLA)
INTRODUCTION
1. In its submission to the Committee regarding
the Bill when it was in draft form, the CLA stated that, overall,
the Bill was a welcome codification and consolidation of the existing
laws. Such concerns as the CLA had then were largely to do with
the structure of the draft Bill, which we found rather cumbersome,
and with various matters of detail.
2. The CLA is very pleased to note that
the Bill has improved since the Committee's last examination.
3. However, we are still concerned with
the extension of the time limits for prosecutions and the use
of powers of disqualification or deprivation as an alternative
to a conventional punishment. We hope that both the Committee
and DEFRA will think about this again.
4. In any event, the CLA looks forward to
working with DEFRA on the various pieces of secondary legislation
and codes of practice.
5. We outline our comments on the Bill as
follows:
A. PROTECTED
ANIMAL AND
ANIMALS FOR
WHICH A
PERSON IS
RESPONSIBLE
6. This definition is an improvement of
that which appeared in the draft Bill, in that the wording is
much more certain.
7. In so far as there is any uncertainty,
such as regards the status of animals that have been released
into the wild or wild animals that have been caught in traps etc,
the CLA considers that the wording of the relevant offences is
such that the scope for unforeseen or vexatious prosecutions is
unlikely. Nevertheless, we suggest that a statement from the Minister
as to how it is intended these powers should be used would be
welcome and avoid any future uncertainty.
B. MUTILATION
8. We are pleased to see that the definition
of this now excludes medical treatment. This should save the need
to produce regulations covering matters that most people would
find uncontroversial.
C. DUTY TO
ENSURE WELFARE
9. The new wording to the effect that the
welfare needs of an animal are to be met to the "extent required
by good practice" is to be welcomed, as are the references
to the purpose and activity for which the animal is kept. We believe
that this achieves the correct balance between ensuring that the
welfare needs are catered for, whilst not imposing disproportionate
burdens on the owner or person responsible.
D. ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS—POWERS
OF ENTRY
10. Limiting the use of reasonable force
to those occasions where entry is required before a magistrate's
warrant can be obtained, incorporates a welcome element of proportionality
into what might otherwise be considered excessive powers.
E. ORDERS IN
RELATION IN
RELATION TO
ANIMALS TAKEN
11. Clause 18 is far less cumbersome than
the equivalent provisions in the draft Bill as is therefore welcomed.
F. TIME LIMITS
FOR PROSECUTIONS
12. The CLA remains concerned about this.
Limitation periods exist for good reasons. With the passage of
time recollection fade and evidence goes astray. In cases concerning
animal welfare animals recover and wounds heal, possibly the animal
will have been destroyed. All of these factors go against the
possibility of a fair trial. As such, we remain of the view that
the interests of justice require that the present position be
retained.
G. DEPRIVATION/DISQUALIFICATION
13. We remain of the view that to deprive
someone convicted of a welfare offence of the ownership of the
animal can never be an appropriate alternative to a conventional
punishment as is apparently envisaged by clause 29 and 30 and
the wording "instead or in addition to dealing with him in
any other way". Of course, it is right that a person should
be deprived of an animal if the welfare needs of the animal require
it, but that is not the same as it being a punishment.
14. To say otherwise is just vindictive
and creates uncertainty. Is the intention that, with deprivation,
there should be a reduction in, say, the length of a custodial
sentence that would otherwise be imposed? If not there will be
inconsistency in the sentencing of two people convicted of the
same offence. If so, how will it work? Will so many weeks be deducted
from a term of imprisonment in respect of each animal taken? Should
the number of weeks be the same for a cow as for a sheep? This
strikes us as, in practice, being very arbitrary.
15. Punishment should take the conventional
forms of a fine or imprisonment. Deprivation or disqualification
should only be available when required by animal welfare considerations
and be in addition to the punishment.
H. INSPECTORS
16. The introduction of a list of persons
considered suitable to be local authority inspectors and guidance
on how they may be appointed is welcomed and should reduce the
possibility of an inappropriate person being given authority under
the Bill.
I. PROTECTION
OF ANIMALS
(AMENDMENT) ACT
2000
17. We welcome the repeal of the Protection
of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000 and the removal of the proposal
in the draft Bill to introduce any equivalent powers. As we noted
previously, it is wholly inappropriate to give statutory powers
to a pressure group, particularly ones that have adopted an overt
campaigning role.
November 2005
| 
