It is highly likely that if you are a regular reader of this article you will be interested in animal welfare and as disappointed as we are that the proposed Animal Welfare Bill 2021 was ’kicked out’ by Tynwald recently.
It is also highly likely that you completed the public consultation on the Bill in March - in fact, 1,100 people did so, which is a remarkably high turnout for a public consultation (the consultation on climate change, for example, had just over 100 responses).
The public consultation response rate was, it seems, disregarded by the MHKs who voted out the proposed Bill.
But we are determined to keep the Bill on the legislative agenda and would ask any MHKs who read this article to take note of the following summary of the consultation responses.
Only 3% of respondents answered ’no’ to the following questions: ’Are you content with the short title of the Bill?’ and ’Are you content with the commencement provisions of the Bill?’, demonstrating overwhelming support for the proposed legislation.
The consultation has led to certain changes to the proposed Bill, as follows:
1, Custodial sentences
for breaches of regulations
The feedback indicated strong support for custodial sentences for breaches of animal welfare legislation. DEFA have amended the Bill based on existing EU animal welfare provisions that are applied to the island for the purposes of enabling trade.
These provide for the imposition of a custodial sentence of up to two years.
A higher level of custodial sentence could be introduced at a later date as an ’Order’.
2, Legal status
of mountain hares
Without wishing to mix metaphors, the inclusion of hares into legislation intended for companion animals was a ’red herring’, and a distraction from the main purpose of the Bill.
The consultation demonstrated that, whilst there was strong support for providing greater legal protections to mountain hares, this would be better achieved by listing them as a protected species under the Wildlife Act 1990.
The Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture is now considering the need for a survey of the island’s mountain hare population, which would then provide evidence for the mountain hare being listed as a protected species.
Meanwhile, it remains unprotected.
3, Amendments
to game legislation
Following the removal of provisions relating to mountain hares, the amendments to game legislation have been removed from the Bill.
4, Requirement to notify the police of road traffic collisions (RTCs) involving cats
A substantial number of respondents put forward the case that there should be a legal obligation to report an RTC of this sort.
DEFA’s response is that RTCs involving animals are covered in the Road Traffic Act 1985, which falls outside its jurisdiction.
However, it will highlight the matter to the Department of Infrastructure.
Our view on this is that all RTCs involving animals should be reported, so that hot spots can be identified.
The matter also serves as a timely reminder that cats need to be microchipped.
No other changes were included in the revised Bill, but the summary of responses to the consultation did highlight how secondary legislation (’Orders’) could be used to address more specific issues - for example, provision for improving the regulation of establishments such as animal day care centres and horse livery yards.
A full summary of the consultation can be found by following the links on https://consult.gov.im/
Please help us to keep the Animal Welfare Bill on the political agenda by making it an issue in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
We will be campaigning hard for DEFA to re-submit the 2021 proposed Bill this year.
It is highly likely that if you are a regular reader of this article you will be interested in animal welfare, and as disappointed as we are that the proposed Animal Welfare Bill 2021 was ’kicked out’ by Tynwald.
It is also highly likely that you completed the public consultation on the Bill in March - in fact, 1,100 people did so, which is a remarkably high turnout for a public consultation (the consultation on climate change, for example, had just over 100 responses).
The public consultation response rate was, it seems, disregarded by the MHKs who voted out the proposed Bill.
But we are determined to keep the Bill on the legislative agenda and would ask any MHKs who read this article to take note of the following summary of the consultation responses.
Only 3% of respondents answered ’no’ to the following questions: ’Are you content with the short title of the Bill?’ and ’Are you content with the commencement provisions of the Bill?’, demonstrating overwhelming support for the proposed legislation.
The consultation has led to certain changes to the proposed Bill, as follows:
1. Custodial sentences for breaches of regulations
The feedback indicated strong support for custodial sentences for breaches of animal welfare legislation. DEFA have amended the Bill based on existing EU animal welfare provisions that are applied to the island for the purposes of enabling trade.
These provide for the imposition of a custodial sentence of up to two years.
A higher level of custodial sentence could be introduced at a later date as an ’Order’.
2. Legal status of mountain hares
Without wishing to mix metaphors, the inclusion of hares into legislation intended for companion animals was a ’red herring’, and a distraction from the main purpose of the Bill.
The consultation demonstrated that, whilst there was strong support for providing greater legal protections to mountain hares, this would be better achieved by listing them as a protected species under the Wildlife Act 1990.
The Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture is now considering the need for a survey of the island’s mountain hare population, which would then provide evidence for the mountain hare being listed as a protected species. Meanwhile, it remains unprotected.
3. Amendments to game legislation
Following the removal of provisions relating to mountain hares, the amendments to game legislation have been removed from the Bill.
4. Requirement to notify the police of road traffic collisions (RTCs) involving cats
A substantial number of respondents put forward the case that there should be a legal obligation to report an RTC of this sort.
DEFA’s response is that RTCs involving animals are covered in the Road Traffic Act 1985, which falls outside its jurisdiction.
However, it will highlight the matter to the Department of Infrastructure.
Our view on this is that all RTCs involving animals should be reported, so that hot spots can be identified.
The matter also serves as a timely reminder that cats need to be microchipped.
No other changes were included in the revised Bill, but the summary of responses to the consultation did highlight how secondary legislation (’Orders’) could be used to address more specific issues - for example, provision for improving the regulation of establishments such as animal day care centres and horse livery yards.
A full summary of the consultation can be found by following the links on https://consult.gov.im/
Please help us to keep the Animal Welfare Bill on the political agenda by making it an issue in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
We will be campaigning hard for DEFA to re-submit the 2021 proposed Bill this year.