Fenris
Well-Known Member
The written evidence I being published on the EFRA website at
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...5/animal-welfare-domestic-15-16/publications/
The SHG submission can be found at
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...imal-welfare-domestic-pets/written/31316.html
The first oral evidence can be viewed at
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-2015/animal-welfare-domestic-evidence-15-16/
Some excerpts from the SHG submission
> 9. When legislation as intrusive and powerful as the AWA is abused or fails to protect the people being investigated it not only destroys the lives of the people involved, driving suicides and breakdowns, leaving people unable to function or work, and costing the NHS and industry a fortune, it wrecks the lives of the animals it was designed to protect.
>
>
>
> 10. If animals are removed from good homes and die of old age before they are returned or spend their puppy or kitten-hood in kennels they suffer unnecessarily. If animals have to be returned to bad situation because the case against their owners has collapsed due to a prosecutor having breached the law then those animals were failed.
[ . . . ]
>
>
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> 42. Animal welfare must be seen to be enforced Professionally and equally across the country. The current situation where there are RSPCA 'hot spots' and inspectors are given awards for having taken the most prosecutions is intolerable. [13]
>
>
>
> 43. There is a great difference between overt cruelty and an occasional failure to get everything right. We propose that the police and CPS should always be the ones to prosecute deliberate cruelty underlining the seriousness of the case
>
>
>
> 44. We are aware of the difficulties associated with the AWA being a common informers Act and the fact that the RSPCA choose to prosecute as a private prosecutor.
>
>
>
> 45. It seems to us that there are several ways in which the RSPCA's prosecutions could be controlled:
>
> a) Amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (and other acts that the RSPCA use to prosecute) so that they are no longer common informers acts. The downside to this is that it limits the rights of other organisations as well.
>
> b) Amend the 1932 RSPCA Act so that the RSPCA can no longer prosecute. (The Act is both the RSPCA's strength and weakness they lost £100,000 some years ago for failing to adhere to it, when it turned out that their rule changes had been unlawful for many years.) The benefit of this course of action is that it will only affect the RSPCA, The SHG has suggested this a number of times over the years.
>
> c) Limit the right to bring private prosecutions so that any individual or organisation instituting more than say 10 or 20 prosecutions in any year must register, pay a licence fee, and be subject to proper inspection. It would be a shame to see our historical rights limited because of the misbehaviour of the RSPCA , but at least a limit on the number of prosecutions would protect an individuals rights while instituting controls on prolific prosecutors whose wealth induced power tips the scales firmly in their favour.
>
> d) Introduce a Charities Ombudsman as a means of creating an independent complaints system for those issues which fall outside the remit of the Charity Commission. This could be paid for by a levy or registration fee on charities. The ombudsman would have the power to refer issues to other authorities, including the Police, for action and to order compensation payments. Had there been a proper independent complaints procedure it is unlikely that the problems with the RSPCA would have reached the proportions they have.
>
>
> 46. The introduction of an animal NHS initially for the animals of pensioner and people on means tested benefits would improve animal welfare more than any other legislation.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...5/animal-welfare-domestic-15-16/publications/
The SHG submission can be found at
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...imal-welfare-domestic-pets/written/31316.html
The first oral evidence can be viewed at
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-2015/animal-welfare-domestic-evidence-15-16/
Some excerpts from the SHG submission
> 9. When legislation as intrusive and powerful as the AWA is abused or fails to protect the people being investigated it not only destroys the lives of the people involved, driving suicides and breakdowns, leaving people unable to function or work, and costing the NHS and industry a fortune, it wrecks the lives of the animals it was designed to protect.
>
>
>
> 10. If animals are removed from good homes and die of old age before they are returned or spend their puppy or kitten-hood in kennels they suffer unnecessarily. If animals have to be returned to bad situation because the case against their owners has collapsed due to a prosecutor having breached the law then those animals were failed.
[ . . . ]
>
>
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> 42. Animal welfare must be seen to be enforced Professionally and equally across the country. The current situation where there are RSPCA 'hot spots' and inspectors are given awards for having taken the most prosecutions is intolerable. [13]
>
>
>
> 43. There is a great difference between overt cruelty and an occasional failure to get everything right. We propose that the police and CPS should always be the ones to prosecute deliberate cruelty underlining the seriousness of the case
>
>
>
> 44. We are aware of the difficulties associated with the AWA being a common informers Act and the fact that the RSPCA choose to prosecute as a private prosecutor.
>
>
>
> 45. It seems to us that there are several ways in which the RSPCA's prosecutions could be controlled:
>
> a) Amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (and other acts that the RSPCA use to prosecute) so that they are no longer common informers acts. The downside to this is that it limits the rights of other organisations as well.
>
> b) Amend the 1932 RSPCA Act so that the RSPCA can no longer prosecute. (The Act is both the RSPCA's strength and weakness they lost £100,000 some years ago for failing to adhere to it, when it turned out that their rule changes had been unlawful for many years.) The benefit of this course of action is that it will only affect the RSPCA, The SHG has suggested this a number of times over the years.
>
> c) Limit the right to bring private prosecutions so that any individual or organisation instituting more than say 10 or 20 prosecutions in any year must register, pay a licence fee, and be subject to proper inspection. It would be a shame to see our historical rights limited because of the misbehaviour of the RSPCA , but at least a limit on the number of prosecutions would protect an individuals rights while instituting controls on prolific prosecutors whose wealth induced power tips the scales firmly in their favour.
>
> d) Introduce a Charities Ombudsman as a means of creating an independent complaints system for those issues which fall outside the remit of the Charity Commission. This could be paid for by a levy or registration fee on charities. The ombudsman would have the power to refer issues to other authorities, including the Police, for action and to order compensation payments. Had there been a proper independent complaints procedure it is unlikely that the problems with the RSPCA would have reached the proportions they have.
>
>
> 46. The introduction of an animal NHS initially for the animals of pensioner and people on means tested benefits would improve animal welfare more than any other legislation.