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
|