…Opposition arguments prevail, Bill sent to select committee
The motion for the second reading of the Animal Welfare Bill 2016 quickly dissolved into a war of words, as the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) accused the Government of copying and pasting the Bill’s “draconian” provisions
Dharamkumar Seeraj
, without considering the needs of local farmers.
According to the PPP/C’s point man on agriculture, Dharamkumar Seeraj, the Bill is a “pie in the sky” initiative. He emphasised that as the Bill never made it to the Cabinet level during the previous Administration, it could not be termed a “PPP bill”.
This, Seeraj explained, was as a result of the consultation and feedback gathering phase not being completed. Decrying the additional bureaucratic nature and penalties of the Bill, he called for it to be sent to a parliamentary special subcommittee.
“We intend to move for this bill to go to a select committee so as to benefit fully from the participation of the target groups. The consultations were not completed. And that is why it did not come before this House and that is why it did not reach the Cabinet level.”
Seeraj encouraged Agriculture Minister Noel Holder to concentrate on addressing issues related to infrastructure. According to the Member of Parliament, transportation is not the central issue with farmers, but rather issues of production
Noel Holder
incentives. He stated that the Bill was just addressing legal requirements, while the physical infrastructure was not in place to give effect to these measures.
“The Minister recently gave approval for increases in pasture rentals from $200 to $1400. And now we’re being asked to approve a bill that is piling on the agony on livestock farmers, who are not better off because conditions are not better for them and the Government seems not inclined to address the concerns on the ground.”
Seeraj denounced the Bill as draconian, observing that instead of leniency, the Bill was proposing a draconian fine and even imprisonment, for first-time offenders. Part VIII, Penalties, of the Animal Welfare Bill 2016 reads;
“Where no penalty is provided for an offense committed under this Act, such offense shall upon summary conviction be punishable by a fine of $60,000 and imprisonment for four months.”
Some provisions of the Bill guard against animal owners giving animals food or substances of an unnatural nature, except scientifically justified; and restrict the movement of animals in any way that causes it pain, suffering or injury.
The Bill also provides for penalties against anyone who neglects an animal in terms of health, housing, nutrition and care; and use of unauthorised stimulants or substances to enhance growth and weight gain.
“Drunken drivers are afforded leniency in a first offence. And we are seeking to impose, on livestock producers, draconian fines and penalties like imprisonment. On producers who are seeking to make an honest living to provide food security for our country,” Seeraj observed.
The parliamentarian stated that the Bill’s provisions demonstrated the Administration’s aloofness to the plight of the farmers, noting that the Bill talks about the animals and consumers and little was said about the welfare of the farmers. He was critical of the Government’s “detachment from reality” and their justification that the measures were to support requirements from First World countries.
“It seems to be to satisfy conditions in First World countries that we, here, in a Third World reality, will be hard pressed to realise. And it will be burdensome for farmers and livestock producers.”
Minister Holder, who moved the motion for the Animal Welfare Bill’s second reading, had stated that the Guyana Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (GSPCA) had the Bill expertly reviewed. He had also argued that the Bill was a prerequisite before Guyana could export animals and would improve trade.
But eventually Seeraj’s arguments and the arguments of his fellow PPP/C parliamentarian Collin Croal prevailed, with the Government side agreeing to have the Bill sent to a special select committee.
Under Section Two ‘Protection of Animals’, the Bill includes provisions for prohibited acts and protection of animals while kept or raised; obligations to render assistance; protection of animals during health care provision and zoo technical interventions; interventions to protect animals; protection of animals at the time of humane killing; humane killing without delay; protection of animals during transport; humane transportation of animals and protection of wild animals.
The Bill is considered a follow-up to the Cruelty to Animals Bill passed under the previous Administration. While there is legislation catering for the treatment and handling of animals, enforcement of these Acts has always been a matter of contention.
The GSPCA has been outspoken about the need for implementation and enforcement of legislation to specifically ensure that owners of dangerous dogs manage them responsibly. But according to the Opposition, the Bill’s focus is too limited to central locations and does not address concerns in outlying areas among farmers.
