animal rights


Photo by Paul Blandford

Better rights for animals in the pipeline

In the last of our series looking at animal welfare, RAMONA DEPARES spoke to chief government vet, Lino Vella, about the scope of the newly-proposed legislation and how we can ensure it will work

The long-awaited Animal Welfare Act is finally in its last stages, awaiting its second reading in the House after the publication of the legal notice on 29 May.

And yet complaints, particularly by non-governmental animal welfare organisations, have been levelled against the Department for Veterinary Services about non-consultation where the proposed law is concerned.

MaltaToday asked Dr Lino Vella, the Chief Government Vet, how the department is reacting to these claims as well as what the scope of this new legislation is.

"The bill is at present awaiting its second reading in Parliament. This essentially means that anyone, whether the general public or an NGO, has the right to come forward with his own suggestions. The bill remains open to discussion right until the second reading. This is why I can’t understand why these claims are being made," Dr Vella said.

When asked why the department did not hold talks with specific animal welfare organisations, Dr Vella replied that they had attempted to get animal organisations to assemble themselves into one federation but with no success.

"As a department, it is more sensible to have a discussion with one federation than with a whole lot of small groups or with someone who claims to represent an NGO but who is really a one-man-show. There have been instances where someone who claimed to work with animals in reality spent all day working behind a computer and did not really work with animals at all," Dr Vella reported.

The bill addresses various aspects of animal welfare, including breeding, transport, identification, competitions and even biotechnology and experiments. It also provides for the establishment of a Council for Animal Welfare, whose duties will include advising the minister when it comes to issuing regulations related to animal welfare. The bill can in fact be described as a ‘skeleton law’, containing the mere basis for a working law and leaving most of the details to the Minister. The new legislation in fact gives the Minister practically unlimited discretion in the issuing or rules and regulations.

Dr Vella explained that the Act is only an enabling law, with no details mentioned.

"If you want to know about the cropping of ears or the docking of tails, then you have to read the regulations issued by the minister," he commented.

Some have questioned the conciseness of the bill, claiming that it violates the citizens’ democratic right to have the laws of the land passed through the House, as well as that of discussing these same laws.

"I can understand why the legislators preferred a concise bill," the chief government vet admitted. "When a particular act contains too many details it makes it especially difficult for these to be changed later on. The act has to be amended from scratch, another vote has to be taken… Let’s say that we forbid all cropping of dogs’ ears in the bill: how would this affect cases where the ears indeed have to be cropped to prevent ticks? Regulations sometimes work a lot better because they are more flexible and can be applied to the individual case more easily," he said.

I turned the talk to the micro-chip identification system which was recently introduced by the department: this, too, had attracted flak from animal organisations on the basis that unless made compulsory not many dog owners, except very responsible ones or those with pedigrees, were likely to pay out the Lm10 charge.

"As it turns out, we’ve already had many dog owners who have willingly asked for their dog to be part of the identification scheme. And we haven’t even publicised it properly yet," was Dr Vella’s reply. "Responsible owners will definitely agree with the system and there is the added bonus that it serves as a dog passport. Dogs who are on the database and who have had been treated successfully with the rabies vaccine will soon be able to travel with their owners to European countries and to other countries that are also on the rabies-free list."

I reminded him of the animal organisations’ claims that the owners most likely to abandon their dogs to roam the streets would certainly not apply for the micro-chipping system, unless it was made compulsory.

"Maybe, but then again some people have five or six dogs whom they love," he answered. "How can we force these people to fork out Lm50 or Lm60 so that they can keep their beloved pets? This is especially true on farms: the dogs are well-fed, they have free run of the fields, it’s certainly a better life than being locked up in a cage in a sanctuary. Would their owners be able to afford Lm60 and would the dogs be better off if they were taken away from the farmers and locked up? I don’t think so."

Neutering is one aspect that is not featured at all in the bill. Why is this when Malta is blighted by a huge ‘strays’ problem, I asked Dr Vella.

"Neutering is not an aspect that should be regulated by legislation: rather, it is more of a programme that may be launched by the government. It’s a social project, not a subject for laws and regulations," he replied.

The new legislation also provides for harsher penalties: offenders are liable to fines ranging from Lm100 right up to Lm2,000. They can also be imprisoned for up to six months or given both a fine and a prison sentence.

"This is definitely a step forward from the old sanctions which were ridiculously low," Dr Vella said the vet said.

I reminded him that without proper enforcement the law would be useless. He agreed, adding that the soon-to-be-set-up council would remove the problem of enforcement by having people specially appointed by the minister, together with a core of local wardens (specially trained) and the police responsible for this area.

"But a lot will obviously depend on the proper education of the public," he said. "And this is where the animal welfare organisations should do their job. Our department cannot regulate and educate at the same time: that would imply a conflict of interest. As to funding NGOs for this purpose, I believe in it only if there is a specific project involved. Otherwise, you cannot just hand over a lump sum and give them carte blanche.

"After all," he concluded, "it is the tax payers’ money."