Memorandum submitted by the Captive Animals'
Protection Society (CAPS)
In response to the request by the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we submit the following comments
regarding the differences between the draft version of the Animal
Welfare Bill and the Bill as now presented.
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 There have been some changes to the
text of the Animal Welfare Bill that could have a negative impact
on the welfare of animals and could hinder action in the future
despite new evidence about welfare problems.
1.2 We are concerned at the change that
now scraps the giving of animals as prizes altogether and instead
allows it under certain circumstances. No reason has been given
for this change.
1.3 Evidence about the cruelties of animal
use in circuses, and pet fairs—the latter currently illegal—has
been ignored.
1.4 We are concerned at the suggestion of
what appears to be self-regulation of the performing animals industry.
2. CLAUSE 8: DUTY
OF PERSON
RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANIMAL WELFARE
2.1 A significant change has been made to
what an animal's needs shall be taken to include: Clause 8(2)(d)
concerns the need for an animal to be housed with, or apart from,
other animals. The Bill now excludes reference to other members
of the animal's own species. Animals who would normally live with
other members of their own species need to be housed in that way.
The Draft Bill—Clause 3(4)(d)—did include that measure
and there appears to be no good reason for removing it.
3. CLAUSE 9: TRANSFER
OF ANIMALS
BY WAY
OF SALE
OR PRIZE
TO PERSONS
UNDER 16
3.1 The Draft Bill (Clause 5—giving
as prizes) was clear in it's intent: "A person commits an
offence if he gives an animal to another as a prize."
Presumably the reason behind this clause was
to end the suffering of animals who are given away without the
opportunity for the winner to understand their full duty in responsibly
caring for the animal.
3.2 The new Clause 9 now allows for animals
to be given as prizes as long as the person giving the animals
believes the recipient is not under the age of 16 years.
3.3 While there may be more opportunity
for an adult to decline the prize of an animal, many people will
still be receiving animals as prizes without having sufficiently
understood their responsibilities or ensured they can provide
for the needs of that animal. Under the new clause, children under
the age of 16 would be able to win an animal as a prize as long
as they were accompanied by an adult.
3.4 There appears to be no good reason to
"water down" the original clause which provided a clear
and unambiguous protection for animals.
4. CLAUSE 10: REGULATIONS
TO PROMOTE
ANIMAL WELFARE
4.1 We are concerned that the updated version
of this section appears to have removed what were subsections
(2)(l) and (2)(m) of Clause 6 of the Draft Bill. This would remove:
— provision for prohibiting the keeping
of animals of a specified kind in specified circumstances;
— provision for prohibiting the use
of animals of a specified kind for a specified purpose.
4.2 Our concern is that this would limit
powers to act to end the use of animals in specific situations
even where sufficient evidence is provided that the use of animals
in such a way has serious negative impacts on their welfare.
REGULATORY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
5. ANNEX A: PROPOSAL
TO REGULATE
TRAINERS AND
SUPPLIERS OF
PERFORMING ANIMALS
5.1 Paragraph 2, commenting on the view
of Defra veterinarians that there is "a lack of scientific
evidence to support the view that any particular form of entertainment
involving animals is by its very nature cruel and therefore should
be prohibited" is astounding.
Defra have never been able to provide any evidence
to support their own view of continuing to allow the use of animals
in circuses.
5.2 While published scientific data on this
topic is not extensive as that on animal behavioural problems
in zoos—mostly because the animal circus industry would
be unwilling to allow such studies to be carried out—what
studies have been published have been damning.
5.3 The study by Dr Kiley-Worthington in
1989—"Animals in Circuses"—found severe
confinement to be common (big cats spent over 90% of time confined
to "beastwagons") and abnormal behaviours occurred in
all species of animals in circuses and in some cases occupied
25% or 30% of time. The RSPCA concluded that the data provided
"clear evidence of widespread stress and suffering experienced
by circus animals."
5.4 A more recent study—"The
Ugliest Show on Earth, the use of animals in circuses" (Creamer
and Phillips, 1998) revealed confinement, ill-treatment and violence
towards animals to be common-place in circuses.
5.5 Reference is made to current industry
Codes of Practice such as those produced by the Association of
Circus Proprietors (ACP) and the Performing Animal Welfare Standards
Initiative (PAWSI).
5.6 The ACP codes were widely criticised
when they were published, as being misleading, weak and loosely
worded.
In 2004 only 13 British circuses were members
of the ACP and only three of those use animals (out of seven circuses
currently using animals). It is clear that the ACP does not represent
the animal circus industry in Britain.
The ACP also appears to have no real resources
to enforce its own standards.
5.7 We are concerned that Defra are suggesting
that a regulatory system for those involved with training and
supplying performing animals would be run by PAWSI who are part
of the performing animal industry. We have further concerns in
the comment that "we would not expect individual trainers
and suppliers who are regulated by PAWSI to be normally subject
to local authority licensing inspections."
6. ANNEX C: PROPOSAL
TO LICENCE
PET FAIRS
6.1 As with the issue of animal use in circuses,
we are concerned at statements made by Defra that appear to be
not based on any firm evidence. For example, the comment: "There
is a lack of evidence to suggest that pet fairs by their very
nature cannot maintain acceptable welfare standards."
6.2 It is our view that sufficient evidence
has now been submitted to show that not only would it make a mockery
of an Animal Welfare Act to legalise pet fairs which were prohibited
under the 1983 amendment to the Pet Animals Act 1951, but that
pet fairs, by their temporary nature, cannot provide for the needs
of the animals on sale.
November 2005
| 
