17 August 2000

Too Late Was The Cry

A media stir up began last night led by the columnist for 'Our Dogs' weekly newspaper, Nick Mays over the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill which passed without amendment to the House of Lords on the 21st of July. The Bill, which was successfully promoted by Mrs Claire Curtis Thomas, MP for Crosby, grants new powers to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) to appoint prosecutors to carry out interim care orders on animals kept within commercial premises whilst the owners or keepers (although 'keepers' are yet to be included in the wording) await prosecution under the Protection of Animals Bill 1911. Mrs Curtis-Thomas said: "My Bill will fill a loophole in the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It will allow those prosecuting cases of cruelty under the Act to apply to a court for a 'care order' to protect the animals concerned. That is vitally important. At the moment, animals that are the subject of cruelty or neglect proceedings can be left to suffer while the law takes its course. I recognise that there are limited powers in the 1911 Act to allow police constables to intervene in such cases, but [..] such an arrangement is hardly suitable for the 21st century. So my Bill will put right that anomaly and ensure that where necessary, it is possible to act much more quickly in the interests of animals." The Bill allows suitably 'qualified' prosecutors appointed by MAFF, the ability to obtain written court orders to access animals held within commercial property. When asked what suitably 'qualified' meant, Mr. Elliot Morley, (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) said: "They include whether the person or body has adequate resources to provide care for the animals concerned, including facilities for care, the ability to provide adequate food, water and veterinary treatment, the financial resources available to the applicant and, when appropriate, whether the person or body has a proven track record in securing convictions under the 1911 Act." The emphasis of the Bill is upon enabling the RSPCA with the new powers. Effectively the bill will allow the RSPCA to apply for an order to access premises to mark (tag) animals which are subject to the order and to either: (a) Take charge of the animals and care for them on or off the the premises (b) Sell the animals 'at a fair price'; (c) Dispose of the animals 'otherwise than by way of sale'; (d) Slaughtering the animals This will be able to take place immediately upon a court granting a care order in advance of any successful prosecution When the Bill was debated at Standing Committee on 21st June this year a letter from the Pet Care Trust, the professional association which claims to represent the interests of the pet industry with some 1,500 member companies, was given consideration. This letter raised some legitimate concerns about the extension of powers and whether the thrust of the Bill was towards the pet industry or agriculture. There has been little if any coverage of this matter in the Pet Trade media, yet suddenly, in an open letter to an e-mail group, Mr Nick Mays ('Our Dogs') is up in arms.. Why weren't we told! Well, it seems that 'too late is the cry'. Summing up on the Bill before it was passed Mr. David Maclean, MP for Penrith and The Border, said: "My appeal to organisations such as the RSPCA and other single-issue pressure groups is, for goodness' sake, consult the other organisations. I am not sure whether the RSPCA consulted the Pet Care Trust or the International League for the Protection of Horses, which wrote to me, but it is my experience that it has tended not to do so. It takes the view, 'We're the RSPCA, we'll do what we like and draft the whole Bill, and tough luck on all the small fry.' I appeal to those who may be involved in private Members' Bills in future: please, please consult all the other organisations and try to get them on board. It makes life easier and avoids the position whereby we cannot take a valid point on board because, by the nature of our procedures, we would end up destroying the Bill." So just who's interests were represented by the Pet Care Trust in their letter and why didn't such a well established newspaper as Our Dogs (estd. 1895) see this coming? We have seen in recent articles on this site, the huge effectiveness of communication, especially over the internet, in the lobby against legislation banning specific breeds. So what happened in the case of this bill? A quick look at the lack of communication going on at the Pet Care Trust web-site which has been in this condition for many, many months now might give us some insight. Here, so that you have everything you need to get to grips with this quite complicated topic, are all the necessary related links: The Bill Standing Committee Minutes Final Debate The Pet Care Trust