Animal Welfare Bill

In spite of the exemplary source of this amendment, we have certain misgivings about it. As it stands, the Bill will tend to push magistrates into making disqualification orders. These will follow prosecution for mutilation or failing to care for an animal in a way or to a degree that breaches Clause 9. A number of family problems may result from such orders. This amendment increases the disqualification penalty and could result in young people having no opportunity to mend their ways by getting involved in, for example, a pony club. It would also increase the burden on the low-paid if the current trend for telling vets what to do continues. An edict from the Veterinary Medicine Directive at present means that where previously a vet stipulated the frequency of visits for animals on constant medication, there is now a maximum period of three months between examinations. That could well cost an extra £60 to £90 per animal per year, and there may be people who will not be able to afford it. The edict will eventually be challenged in the courts, but until then it will be possible for a low-paid person to be charged to failing to ensure an animal’s welfare simply because they do not have the money both for the medicine and for the examination. There is also the possibility that orders will change the rules so that some people, in order to comply, will have to face the need to euthanize a beloved pet and will choose not to do so.