Memorandum submitted by the League Against
Cruel Sports
1. The League Against Cruel Sports campaigns
to protect the welfare of animals used in, or affected by, "sporting"
practices.
2. This submission focuses on the differences
between the draft Bill and the published Bill, but also addresses
some areas where Defra do not seem to have taken on board the
report of the EFRA Select Committee (first report of 2004-05)
3. There is a new definition of mutilation.
4. Our concern is that the definition is
still unclear. While the phrase used, namely "interference
with" sensitive tissues or bone structure, seems to prohibit
the fitting of "masks" to game birds where these pierce
the nasal septum, it is not clear whether it covers the fitting
of bits, or the fitting of masks that rest against or cause constant
pressure on sensitive tissues.
5. We note that the RCVS have not considered
the issue of such treatment of game birds in 20 years.
6. We note that the policy memorandum issued
alongside the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill states
that Scottish Ministers will issue a draft Order "specifying
which mutilations will continue to be permitted, and the circumstances
in which they will be permitted" "at the time the Bill
progresses through its Parliamentary stages." We would welcome
such a statement in England and Wales.
7. The Bill has dropped the clarity that
abandonment does not cause a loss of responsibility. The Animal
Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, published at about the same
time as this Bill, retains the language which Defra has dropped.
8. We are particularly concerned about this
downgrading given that the Select Committee concluded (para 138)
the abandonment should be upgraded to a cruelty offence.
9. We sense in the Bill a distinct switch
in emphasis from regulations to codes. This is concerning because
there are some activities with respect to animals that are clearly
incompatible with good welfare. Regulations are a more effective
means of addressing such issues than codes of conduct. If an activity
is clearly unacceptable, is can hardly be desirable that the prosecution
should have to prove its detrimental effect each time the issue
goes to court.
10. The language of the clause on regulations
is much less specific; there is, in the context of the previous
paragraph of this submission, no explicit power to outlaw various
procedures, as was the case in the draft Bill. We are concerned
at the loss of this explicit power.
11. The Bill contains a new definition of
"part of a premises used as a private dwelling" which
cannot be entered without a warrant. Such premises now include
outhouses. We believe that this is unduly restrictive given that
outhouses are often used for agricultural or industrial purposes.
We would prefer a definition that reflects the difference between
dwelling accommodation and adjacent non-domestic accommodation.
12. We are concerned, in relation to game
rearing, that the Regulatory Impact Assessment still suggests
that the cost of compliance with a code of conduct will be negligible.
Both animal welfare groups like the League and industry groups
like BASC have roundly criticised the use of unenriched battery
cages for egg producing game birds.
13. It is particularly disappointing that
Defra persist in this view after the EFRA select committee said
(para 352) that it was "disturbed" by Defra's lack of
knowledge of the concerns about game rearing. The fact that industry
sources are expressing such concerns when Defra are not is profoundly
disturbing.
November 2005
| 
