…Opposition says little change made despite Special Committee review
By Jarryl Bryan
Government on Monday used their parliamentary majority to push through the Animal Welfare Bill in the face of criticisms from the Opposition that no changes were made to the bill even after a sojourn at a special select committee.
As a precursor to the bill, a motion was moved by Parliamentarian Dr. George Norton, chairman of the very committee that reviewed the bill. The Social Cohesion Minister explained that the committee had already examined the Bill clause by clause.
According to Norton, technical support was also sought for the submissions made by members of the public. He acknowledged the stated concerns of the Opposition party in a report from the special select committee that reviewed the bill.
“The bill refers to facilities that have not yet been built,” Norton read. “These
Parliamentarians at Monday’s sitting of the National Assembly
facilities should be constructed before the implementation of the Act. Persons should not be made to incur additional costs as a result of the new legislation. The bill was premature, according to them (Opposition), and could lead to subjectivity from instances when citizens could be targeted by persons who would have been identified to perform specific duties,” Norton read.
“The other concern was (that) those persons qualified to operate certain animal facilities, as soon as the Act is assented to, could be penalised for non-compliance,” he continued.
“The sixth concern was there should be a systematic ad campaign with the farmers whom this legislation would affect, since persons would be ignorant of the law.
“Another concern was members of the public should be educated on specific clauses of the bill before it becomes law,” Norton continued reading.
Committee
When the bill was brought to the house early last year by Agriculture Minister Noel Holder, he had stated that the Guyana Society for the 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 Opposition arguments, particularly those from Parliamentarians Dharamkumar Seeraj and Collin Croal, had eventually prevailed when the Government side agreed to have the bill sent to a special select committee.
On Monday, PPP Parliamentarian Zulficar Mustapha emphasised the Opposition’s sentiments towards the bill. Telling all, Mustapha said that despite the concerns the PPP had raised before, and the bill being sent to the committee, nothing was changed in the bill itself.
“At the first meeting of this select committee, I made a recommendation that we should have oral submissions from these farmers, we should visit locations in various parts of the country; but they said no, they want submissions from these organisations only. These are the things that when we go to special select committees we’re not going to make changes… We go there for formality sakes, and then we’re coming back here and say the bill went to a special select committee. We raised all our concerns and issues and all those problems and points raised in the debates by all the members on the Opposition side; none of those points were changed in the bill. Those amendments made in the bill are minimal and will not affect anything.”
In spite of these and subsequent observations from other members, however, the bill was passed by the Government side.
The bill
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 even then, the Opposition had contended that the Bill’s focus is too limited to central locations, and does not address concerns in outlying areas among farmers.
Under Section Two, ‘Protection of Animals’, the bill had included 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.
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 an animal 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.
Guyana has long been flagged by different groups for the disregard shown by many to animals. There are several instances when dead animals are left on the roadside for prolonged periods. Some were the victims of a hit & run, while others were unceremoniously dumped there. The dumping of animal carcasses in rural trenches is also not unheard of.
