Memorandum to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Post-Legislative Assessment of the Animal Welfare Act 2006
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEF-AH-com7982-Nov10.qxp 20/12/10 12:03 Page 1 C M Y K PMS ??? PMS ??? PMS ??? PMS ??? Non-printing Colours Non-print 1 Non-print 2 JOB LOCATION: PRINERGY 3 Memorandum to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Post-Legislative Assessment of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 December 2010 Cm 7982 £5.75 DEF-AH-com7982-Nov10.qxp 20/12/10 12:17 Page 3 Memorandum to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Post-Legislative Assessment of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Command of Her Majesty December 2010 Cm 7982 £5.75 DEF-AH-com7982-Nov10.qxp 16/12/10 09:56 Page 4 Con Fore Intro • Th •O • De • Im • Le • Pr • Vi Conc Anne Anne © Crown copyright 2010 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU. or e-mail: [email protected] Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: Animal Welfare Team, Defra, Area 8B, 9 Millbank, c/o 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR. Telephone: 08459 33 55 77 e-mail: [email protected] This publication is also available on http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/ ISBN: 9780101798228 Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2406132 12/10 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. PB13454 DEF-AH-com7982-Nov10.qxp 16/12/10 09:56 Page 5 Contents Number of page Foreword by Secretary of State 5 Introduction 7 • The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (“the Act”) 7 • Objectives of the Act 7 • Devolution 8 • Implementation, amendments and secondary legislation 8 • Legal issues 10 • Preliminary assessment of the Act 11 • Views of specific sections of the Act 12 Conclusion 17 Annex 1 – Prosecutions and Convictions 18 Annex 2 – List of consultees 19 3 DEF-AH-com7982-Nov10.qxp 16/12/10 09:56 Page 7 Foreword by Secretary of State This country has long prided itself in caring for its animals and since Martin’s Act was passed in 1822, Parliament has recognised that there is a need for laws to be in place to prevent cruelty. Far-reaching statutory protection for animals came along in the form of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 which made it an offence for anyone to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. Although further legislation was passed, it was the 1911 Act which shaped the way we protected our animals from unnecessary suffering. By the 2000s some 800 people were successfully prosecuted under the Act each year, mostly by the RSPCA for offences against captive animals. Pressure to replace the 1911 Act with more up-to-date legislation began in earnest in the mid 1990s. Laws protecting farmed animals had outstripped those protecting companion and other non-farmed animals. In addition to the offence of causing unnecessary suffering, owners and keepers of farme d animals had to provide for the welfare needs of their animals – more commonly known as the “five freedoms”. This meant that the animals must be provided with suitable environment, suitable diet, be able to exhibit natural behaviour, possibly be housed with or apart from other animals and be kept free from injury and disease. Such requirements allowed inspectors to take action before an animal actually began to suffer. It was therefore inconsistent not to apply the same req uirements to all kept animals and this is exactly what the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does. This allows early intervention where any vertebrate animal kept by man is being treated in a way that will inevitably cause unnecessary suffering. I am particularly heartened by the fact that the RSPCA has used this power to work constructively with animal keepers who through ignorance are failing to provide appropriate care. The 2006 Act has also got rid of some of the loopholes that existed in the earlier law. Definitions have been more finely drawn and it is no longer possible to circumvent court orders that courts make to disqualify the worst offenders from keeping animals. Powers of seizure have also been improved so that we can now act quickly where, for example, a bad farmer who has been charged with animal cruelty decides to acquire new stock. The Act also provided new powers to tackle dog fighting and prohibited a number of mutilations. It also introduc ed a partial ban on the docking of dogs’ tails. The power to make secondary legislation and codes of practice has been utilised but I am pleased that this has progressed at a sensible pace and has not been used arbitrarily. The measure of the Act’s success must, however, lie in how it is working. From that point of view, we can see that it continues to allow enforcers to prosecute offenders brought before the courts. In 2009, under the Act, 896 persons were found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to animals. This is similar to the numbers found guilty of the same offence under the previous legislation in 2007 (851), 2006 (758) and 2005 (843). The RSPCA prosecution success rate continues to be high and has increased marginally under the Act from 97% in 2007 to over 98% in 2009, when 103 people were found guilty of failing to provide for the welfare needs of their animals. 5 DEF-AH-com7982-Nov10.qxp 16/12/10 09:56 Page 8 But it is not all about prosecution rates. The purpose of the new requirement that all owners should provide for the welfare needs of their animals, was to enable early intervention without Intro the need to prosecute in every case. In 2009 the RSPCA “cautioned” 612 people for not providing for the welfare needs of their animals. These people co-operated with the RSPCA to improve the welfare of their animals and thereby avoided the need to be prosecuted. The Act has lifted the law on a nimal welfare in England and Wales into the 21st century and with so many 1. Th affected parties lending their support to the Act, it has the ability to last as long as its predecessor Ch – nearly 100 years. for as There was cross-party support for the Act as it passed through Parliament, and I like to think that Ap all political persuasions will continue to make it work well now and in the future. The 2. Th tog An we of Caroline Spelman Secretary of State for Environment, 3. Th Food and Rural Affairs leg Defra an for co tog Obje 4. Th tha Th i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii viii ix. 6 DEF-AH-com7982-Nov10.qxp 16/12/10 09:56 Page 9 wners ithout Introduction or not CA to ct has many 1. This memorandum provides a preliminary assessment of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (2006 essor Ch. 45) and has been prepared by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for submission to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. It is published as part of the process set out in the document Post-Legislative Scrutiny – The Government’s k that Approach (Cm 7320). The paragraphs below follow the order of the provisions in the Act. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (“the Act”) 2. The Act received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006. The Act updates legislation and brings together the effects of 22 separate Acts of Parliament, going back to the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It was felt that earlier legislation had ceased to meet modern day animal welfare needs; there had also been judicial criticism of the ambiguities and archaic language of the 1911 Act. 3. The purpose of the Act was to reduce animal suffering by consolidatin g and updating legislation that exists to promote and improve the welfare of farmed, domestic and captive animals. The creation of Defra in 2001 brought together under one department responsibility for the legislation relating to farmed animals and animals used for entertainment, recreation, companionship, sport, work and captive wild animals; this provided an opportunity to bring together and revise these laws. Objectives of the Act 4. The Act harmonises animal welfare standards amongst farmed species and aims to ensure that the welfare of non-farmed/companion animal species are protected to similar levels. The objectives of the Act were to: i. Simplify the legislation for enforcers and animal keepers by consolidating 22 pieces of legislation into one. ii. Introduce a “duty of care” for owners to ensure the needs of any animal for which they are responsible are met. iii. Create a new offence of failing to provide for the needs of animals in a person’s care. iv. Allow preventative action to be to be taken to protect animals, rather than have to wait for an animal to show signs of suffering before intervening. v. Place more emphasis on owners and keepers who must understand their responsibilities and take all reasonable steps to provide for the needs of their animals. vi. Make provision for secondary legislation to promote the welfare of farmed animals and non-farmed animals in the form of regulations and codes of practice, bringing legislation for non-farmed animals in line with that for farmed animals. vii. Strengthen and amend current offences related to animal fighting.