Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by BirdsFirst

  1.  We would like to thank the EFRA Committee for giving us the opportunity to make a further submission on this matter. We will be as brief as we can.

  2.  We understand that you wish to have comments concerning the differences between the first draft of the Bill and the later Bill as introduced in the Commons on 13 October 2005. Our main concern with the Animal Welfare Bill relates to itinerant sales of pet birds (pet markets and auctions etc) and we actually see few significant changes have been made between the draft Bill and the Bill as published on October 13. Since we last submitted information to you a number of events have occurred which we feel support our view that itinerant sales of birds should remain a criminal offence, as per the Pet Animals Act 1951-83 (PAA).

  3.  Firstly, and with regard to how the PAA is interpreted, the matter of whether a pet shop licence can be given to allow pets to be sold in a market will be the examined in the High Court early in the New Year. Secondly, the first case of avian flu has been reported in the UK in a wild-caught Amazon parrot which had been imported from Surinam for the pet trade.

  4.  Despite these events and the implications for human health and animal health and welfare, Defra remain as intransigent as ever and seem determined to reintroduce itinerant pet markets through a Bill which is supposed to be concerned with the welfare of animals. Defra are well aware that they have absolutely no support from any animal welfare organisations for their intentions to de-criminalise itinerant sales of pets. Indeed, many bodies including the British Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and the RSPCA have already voiced their opposition to the notion of itinerant trading in pets.

  5.  With regard to the "legitimacy" and public acceptance of having "licensed" pet markets, we note that Defra have persisted in failing to address points that BirdsFirst and your Committee and other animal welfare groups have raised. Defra have still not asked the public the simple open question "Should pets be sold at temporary pet markets?" When Defra did ask the public a clear open question "Should the sale of animals in pet shops be banned?" 58% of respondents stated that even these "ordinary" licensed (regulated) pet shops should not be selling pets (The Consultation on an Animal Welfare Bill; Defra, August 2002).

  6.  Despite our opposition to itinerant pet sales we wish to re-state that BirdsFirst (and almost all other animal welfare groups) have no opposition to any exhibitions of animals: it is only sales at temporary events that we find incompatible with the birds' welfare requirements.

  7.  With any new legislation, there are always going to be unforeseen consequences and we wish to raise a possible consequence of permitting pets to be sold by itinerants. If pet markets are decriminalised and an outbreak of a contagious or zoonotic disease occurs at these events, we envisage that Defra, and/or the State Veterinary Service will require special powers to try to eradicate such an outbreak as rapidly as possible. In cases of Newcastle disease or avian flu etc we consider that the relevant authorities would need powers to enter private premises to examine, remove or destroy any pet birds recently purchased at a pet fair where the disease would have been traced to. Failure to take such action would permit a route for the disease to continue to spread.

  8.  Defra, and the Minister himself have said on many occasions that the AW Bill is intended to "clarify" the situation with regard to pet fairs. In order for this to occur, significant changes would have to be incorporated in the AW Bill to this end. This has not happened, despite the Minister having had plenty of opportunities to do so.

  9.  We note, with some relief, that although the AW Bill would repeal sections 1 and 3 of the PAA, it does not repeal section 2 which states "If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence." When, on 7 November 2005 the Animal Protection Agency asked Defra why section 2 of the PAA was not to be repealed in the primary legislation, Defra were unable to supply an answer and stated they would try to reply within a few days. We suspect that those writing the Bill for its introduction to the Commons overlooked the retention of section 2, and had in fact intended to repeal it as well. Despite the fact that the AW Bill is intended to "clarify" matters on this point, it plainly fails to do so.

  10.  Before introducing the Bill into the Commons, we feel Defra should have acknowledged their error in previously having asked a leading question with regard to whether pet fairs should be better "regulated" rather than whether they should be permitted at all. We feel Defra should have accepted your advice and, through public consultation, asked the question, "Should animals be sold as pets at pet fairs and auctions?"

  11.  Defra seem committed to remaining intransigent on the point of pet fairs and we assume the Minister will now ask for section 2 of the PAA to be repealed as soon as possible. Sadly, we have seen nothing done by Defra over the past few months to indicate that they intend to accept either our hopes for ending the itinerant trade, or your advice that they re-examine this issue from first principles. Such stubbornness on the simple matter of how pet animals are to be traded under the proposed legislation (which is supposed to enhance animal welfare) would seem worthy of further investigation.

  12.  Of the few changes between the draft Bill and the Bill published in the Commons is a further retrograde measure: that of retaining the act of giving animals as prizes. The earlier draft Bill had excluded the use of animals as gambler's prizes but the published version permits them. Again, and as with the issue over pet fairs, the Bill has failed to grasp the issues and address them from the point of view of animal welfare needs. We do not feel it is the function of sentient creatures to be used as prizes where the animals' fate is being determined by the vagaries of chance and gambling. Had the Bill been an "Animal Trading Bill" this might have been understandable (though still unacceptable). The fact that the Bill, being promoted as a major piece of "welfare" legislation fails to take on board some basic recommendations from animal welfare and veterinary groups gives those involved in animal welfare issues, cause for much concern over these aspects of this "welfare" Bill.

  13.  We have been told by the Minister and Defra officials that the reason for Defra not wanting to stop itinerant pet sales is that they do not want to be seen to be "banning" anything via the proposed new Bill. Section 8(2) of the Bill requires that animals' needs include "a suitable environment" the ability to "exhibit normal behaviours" and its need to be "protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease." The very makeshift nature of the itinerant trade where birds are routinely transferred between travelling cages, display cages and subjected to repeated transportation between venues renders these needs incompatible with the nature of itinerants' trading practices. In the light of this, we feel such treatment of birds would be incompatible with their welfare needs (as intended by the Bill itself) and therefore such treatment should be illegal.

Greg Glendell, BSc (Hons)

November 2005



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 14 December 2005