25 August 2000

Who Really Benefits from this Bill?

In an article on this site - 'Too Late Was The Cry' published on 17th August, UKPets expressed its dismay at the inability of the pet industry to put up any decent objection to some of the provisions proposed in the Protection of Animals (Amendments) Bill prior to its passing to the House of Lords on the 21st July. The Bill, which came to parliament in December 1999 passed through all three readings and Standing Committee stage without amendment, provides nominated prosecutors powers of entry and seizure of animals kept or bred for commercial purposes. It is widely accepted that such 'nominated' prosecutors, entering into 'written agreement' with the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) are going to be the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA). Undoubtedly the RSPCA, who will be able to apply to the court for a warrant without needing the intervention of the police will be the major beneficiaries of this Bill should it be enacted. But who else will benefit? Well, despite the outcry from Our Dogs about the rights of breeders which has come much too late in the day, it is very unlikely that this Bill will now be amended. This means that the points currently being raised such as: What constitutes 'commercial' and does this apply to anyone selling a litter? And so on, are little more than hot air designed to raise fears in the minds of breeder enthusiasts. The paper will be able to add it to its list of 'campaigns' but it will not change the situation - it has come six months too late. The people who did know something about this at an early stage and who are able to claim that they tried to get changes made are the Pet Care Trust who obtained the sponsorship of two MP's, Eric Forth and David MacLean to present a letter of objection to the Standing Committee when they met in June. However it was made very clear that the amendments proposed in the letter were tabled for the purposes of receiving reassurance from the Ministry as to the spirit and intentions of the Bill. As a result the Pet Care Trust's CEO, Mr Nick Grierson CEO , has been quoted in a recent letter as saying: "As two MP's had agreed to move amendments the Pet Care Trust had drafted we thought they would do so. Unfortunately at the last minute they went back on their word and so, whilst they asked for clarification in debate, they did not move the amendments and the Bill went through to the Lords unopposed." This is not quite true - the amendments were moved at the Standing Committee stage. It was also pointed out during readings of the Bill that there was very little evidence of cooperation within the pet industry in the raising of workable objections to it. It appears that although they were in a position to do so, the Pet Care Trust did not rise to the challenge nor raise the alarm at a sufficiently early stage and the question remains, why not? If the unammended Bill goes through and the media is correct in its belief that it presents an imposition on the rights of breeders, then the industry will need to provide itself with some sort of coordinated effort which can effectively protect those rights and deliver some redress. We might expect the Governing Council of the Cat Fancy to represent cat breeders, the Kennel Club to represent dog breeders and the many and various other societies to do their bit but what about pet shops and boarding establishment. Who is going to represent these diverse interests and coordinate it all? The answer seems to be that the job is going to go to the Pet Care Trust. Copyright 2000 Steve O'Malley (UKPets). This article may be reproduced with permission of the author and correct attribution to the source.