Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Written evidence submitted by Save Wildlife (IB 33)

Regarding: Errors in Infrastructure Bill, part 3, point 20., Schedule 9A being added to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

We are writing to you asking to please familiarise yourself with errors listed below contained in the above mentioned Infrastructure Bill and raise these issues at the Committee proceedings. We believe you will find that these are valid concerns and we hope that accordingly amendments to the Bill can be raised to alleviate the outlined risks.

From our side, we will make all possible effort to update the public about which Member of Parliament (and to what degree) has been engaged in removing the errors listed below (errors which can pose a serious threat to animal welfare).

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

Supporting organisations:
Fox in Parliament: http://www.foxinparliament.com/
Harper Asprey Wildlife Rescue: http://harperaspreywildliferescue.co.uk/
A Wild Life with Animals: http://www.awlwa.org/
Grey Squirrel: http://www.grey-squirrel.org.uk/
Save Wildlife: http://www.squirrelinuk.com

Content:

"Threat to animal welfare" – points 1, 2, 3, 5

"Risk of frauds in spending tax payers money" – points 4, 6

References:

[1] Infrastructure Bill, Part 3, point 20. - in added Schedule 9A Part 3 Point 19 (3)-(4) (page 18)

[2] Infrastructure Bill, Part 3, point 20. - in added Schedule 9A Part 3 (pages 14-18)

[3] Infrastructure Bill, Part 3, point 20. - in added Schedule 9A Part 2 paragraph 9 (page 14), Part 3 paragraph 20 (page 18) and Part 5 paragraph 28 (page 22)

Point 1.

Infrastructure Bill, Part 3, point 20. - in added Schedule 9A Part 3 (pages 14-18)

This part of the Bill gives government institutions the possibility to make (even by order and under a threat of imprisonment [1]) people untrained in "humanitarian" killing of animals perform mass killing of animals [2]. It will most certainly lead to the increase of number of animals dying in agony because the person performing the above practices not only is not trained but also doesn't have enough veterinary knowledge to establish if the animal is in fact dead. Actions by people untrained in "humanitarian methods of animal control" will also be a serious threat to protected animals in the UK.

Point 2.

Infrastructure Bill, Part 3, point 20. - in added Schedule 9A Part 2 paragraph 9, Part 3 paragraph 20 (page 18) and Part 5 paragraph 28

These points of the Bill free the persons performing (as ordered by government institutions) the killing of animals from any control by animal welfare organisations.

If we consider the fact that the Bill in reference [1] allows for common practice of untrained people to perform "humanitarian animal control", then taking away any control of the process by animal welfare organisations will make it impossible to correct any mistakes made during "animal control". People untrained in "humanitarian methods of animal control" will most definitely (even by the lack of enough knowledge on the subject) make many such mistakes. It will increase the suffering of animals "subjected to the control" (but it will also be threatening to protected animals in the UK)

Point 3.

In addition to that, no paragraph of the above Bill makes provisions for "protective periods" (for animals that are to be subjected to the control) for nursing females. The Bill in its current form will in fact "make it legal" to make animals starve to death.

As an example: killing a nursing grey squirrel mother will cause horrible many days long starving to death of her kittens that are defenseless, often blind and injuring each other. This kind of "humanitarian control" cannot be called anything else than torture. Considering the fact that finding a drey/nest of a particular killed grey squirrel female is impossible in practice (people working with animals every day know that mothers drive predators "away" from the nest), introduction of above mentioned "protective periods" for nursing grey squirrel females is absolutely necessary.

Point 4.

Another point missing in the above Bill is the requirement of conducting a survey (by employees of the institution ordering "species control") on the property where "species control" is to be done. The Bill in this form not only will add to unnecessary suffering of many animals but can also lead to wasting tax payers money by performing "species control" operations on properties where the species does no harm. Already according to information in the press for example Forestry Commission (one of the institutions allowed to perform "species control") promises "millions of pounds" (from tax payers money) for landowners "without prior survey to determine if the species is actually causing any harm on the property" – the landowner's "statement" is enough (a statement which according to reference [3] no one would be able to verify).

Point 5.

To avoid situations leading to unnecessary suffering of animals and wasting tax payers money for performing species control operations on properties where they are not needed we suggest:

(all references below are to paragraphs in Schedule 9A being added to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 by Infrastructure Bill, part 3, point 20.)

- in paragraphs 7 (4) and 10 (4) – remove "relating to animals of a species
that is no longer normally present in Great Britain" - so that they are relevant to all species "subject to control"

- move paragraph 8 (3) (a) to paragraph 8 (1) so that each agreement must have a precise description of how the control operations are to be performed; and add "according to standards of animal welfare"

- move paragraph 13 (2) (a) to paragraphs 11 and 12 so that each order must have a precise description of how the control operations are to be performed; and add "according to standards of animal welfare"

- in paragraphs 8 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (c) – add "with the exception of protective periods" - nursing periods according to comments above; add similar points in paragraph 11

- in paragraphs 9 and 20 – add the possibility of animal welfare organisations to control the contents of species control agreements and orders and to control the way the species control operations are performed

- code of practice under paragraphs 26 and 27 in relation to the standards of animal welfare (26 (2) (f) and 27 (2) (f)) should be enforced so paragraph 28 should make exceptions for these two sub-paragraphs

It is also worth noticing here that the penalties and especially "enforcement measures" which the Bill proposes towards people who do not agree to kill animals are more suitable for people committing serious crimes rather than for those whose only crime is their love of animals.

Point 6.

To avoid unnecessary waste of tax payers money it should be made more precise on which terrain a given species may be controlled. The above mentioned Forestry Commission in a recent interview promised grants of up to £100 per hectare per year for landowners who will "control grey squirrels" without even detailing what percentage of the hectare (towards which tax payers money would be donated) should be covered by forests where these squirrels actually live. Therefore the Bill in its current form presents an opportunity for a landowner with tomato plantation and two trees (where as he claims he "saw a squirrel") to apply for a grant paid for with tax payers money. The Bill being not precise enough can lead to many financial frauds.

Once again we stress that regardless of anyone's views on the influence of some animals on the UK Nature, the care for their welfare and humanitarian treatment needs to be made more precise.

We appeal to your conscience and we hope for your support to the changes suggested above.

January 2015