B1593 – Unethical Breeding Prevention Bill 2020

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
B1593 — Unethical Breeding Prevention Bill 2020, TSR Government

Image

Unethical Breeding Prevention Bill 2020

A BILL TO prevent the breeding of animals with traits that cause suffering


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—


1: Definitions
Breeding shall refer to causing an animal to produce offspring or being in possession of an animal who produces offspring, with that animal being either the mother or father of the offspring.

2: Breeding and selling
(1) The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 9, insert:—

xxx9A: Breeding and selling
xxx (1) A person commits an offence if he:—
xxx (a) breeds, or
xxx (b) sells
xxxxxx a type or breed of protected animal listed under Schedule A1
xxx (2) Where it is in question whether a type, breed or individual animal is of a type or breed specified in Schedule xxxxxx A1, the Secretary of State will consult relevant authorities and will ultimately decide whether or not a breed, xxx xxxxxx cross or individual animal should be considered of that type or breed, taking into account the overall health of xxxxxx that type, breed or individual animal.”

(3) In section 32(2), after "9" insert ", 9A".
(4) After section 59, insert:—

xxx59A: Power to vary Schedules
xxx (1) The Secretary of State may, by order, add or remove any type or breed of animal from Schedule A1.
xxx (2) In deciding whether or not a type or breed of animal should be added to Schedule A1, the Secretary of State xxxxxx should consider the overall health of that type or breed and any unique utility provided by that type or breed.
xxx (3) No order is to be made containing provision authorised by subsection (1) unless a draft of the order has xxx xxxxxx been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

(5) At the beginning of the Schedules, insert:—

Schedule A1: Animals not to be bred or sold
1. Brachycephalic animals
A brachycephalic animal is a dog or cat with a shortened muzzle. This includes, but is not limited to:
Cats:
Persian
Himalayan
Burmese

Dogs:
Pug
Chihuahua
Boxer
Bulldog
Bullmastiff
Shih Tzu
Japanese Spaniel
Pekingese

Examples of dogs not covered by this definition:
King Charles Spaniel
Staffordshire Bull Terrier

3: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
(1) This Bill extends to the United Kingdom
(2) The provisions of this Bill come into force on 1st January 2022
(3) This Bill may be cited as the Unethical Breeding Prevention Bill 2020

Notes and Sources
Notes
Some cat and dog breeds have been given traits that inherently cause them to suffer - this is a great injustice to these animals and should be prevented wherever possible. This bill bans the sale and breeding of Brachycephalic cats and dogs and provides provisions for other animals to be legislated upon similarly.

Sources


0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
A bill to ban the breeding and sale of pugs, chihuahuas, shih tzus and bulldogs amongst other things. The government wants to ban the sale and breeding of the dog associated with Winston Churchill's defiance of Nazi Germany.

Nay!
0
Moonbow
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
I understand the issue, I really do. But as an owner of two Shih tzus, this is not solving the problem. What about puppy farms? When a dog has no value, what do you think they’ll do? Kill them, and they won’t be bothered to buy expensive euthanasia drugs when they can just shoot them or slit their throats. Isn’t this an even bigger problem?
And what about centres? Will they be able to still rehome these breeds still if they are not being sold? Will rescue of these breeds from abroad still be allowed? The rest of the world is hardly going to implement these kind of laws, so it’s just dragging the UK’s industry into illegal market places. Furthermore, the conditions of these market places will be even worse for the dog’s welfare! How would it even be enforceable? The cost of doing so would be huge if done properly.

I am all for saving animals lives, but such a sudden change to the pet industry like this is hazardous at best. I will not support this motion. If a more reasonable proposition can be made, I will reconsider.

Nay!
Last edited by Moonbow; 4 weeks ago
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
I understand where the author of the bill is going with this and the intentions. However, what will happen to dogs and cats currently of those breeds in a (still unethical) farm? Will they just be killed? Brutally?
My opinion very much echoes my honourable friend. It will be a Nay for me.
2
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
A bill to ban the breeding and sale of pugs, chihuahuas, shih tzus and bulldogs amongst other things. The government wants to ban the sale and breeding of the dog associated with Winston Churchill's defiance of Nazi Germany.

Nay!
Oops, I forgot we aren't allowed to create rules about animals that are included in car insurance adverts.

Silly government! :slap:
0
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
Will write a proper post about this later since I know an exceptionally large amount about this topic
2
Moonbow
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by CoolCavy)
Will write a proper post about this later since I know an exceptionally large amount about this topic
It’d be great to see Cavy! I’ll definitely keep an eye out for it
1
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
Also now off the list of permitted MHoC topics:
- The battle of Hastings
- Admiral Nelson
- Flags that are Green
- AA Batteries / Alcoholics Anonymous / Automobile Association
- Red Telephones

0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
I don't have strong feelings about animal rights. Can someone explain what the downsides of this would be? Do the breeds this would effectively outlaw have substantial benefits relative to other breeds?

One comment: I feel quite strongly that s9A(2) as amended should be removed. Whether an animal is a particular breed is a question of fact which should be left to the courts, with the benefit of the parties to a prosecution having the ability of being able to present evidence as to this question, in a process which has been refined over hundreds of years. A quick reference to the Secretary of State with no defined procedure offers no advantage as far as I can see, especially the political power to amend the position using the proposed s59A.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Moonbow)
I understand the issue, I really do. But as an owner of two Shih tzus, this is not solving the problem. What about puppy farms? When a dog has no value, what do you think they’ll do? Kill them, and they won’t be bothered to buy expensive euthanasia drugs when they can just shoot them or slit their throats. Isn’t this an even bigger problem?
And what about centres? Will they be able to still rehome these breeds still if they are not being sold? Will rescue of these breeds from abroad still be allowed? The rest of the world is hardly going to implement these kind of laws, so it’s just dragging the UK’s industry into illegal market places. Furthermore, the conditions of these market places will be even worse for the dog’s welfare! How would it even be enforceable? The cost of doing so would be huge if done properly.

I am all for saving animals lives, but such a sudden change to the pet industry like this is hazardous at best. I will not support this motion. If a more reasonable proposition can be made, I will reconsider.

Nay!
The bill comes into force next year so that commercial breeding operations can sell their existing dogs to avoid that situation. I admittedly do not know exactly how long it generally takes to sell a dog, so if you think that should be longer I can change it.

You can't just slit a dog's throat in Britain or shoot them (that would be illegal). If an animal is put down it has to be by a registered vet.

Rehoming animals is still legal under this, provided they are not being sold. As is rescuing.

Illegal markets are an obvious issue, but I'm not entirely sure how illegal markets would be worse than what we currently have.
Last edited by Theloniouss; 4 weeks ago
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by SnowMiku)
I understand where the author of the bill is going with this and the intentions. However, what will happen to dogs and cats currently of those breeds in a (still unethical) farm? Will they just be killed? Brutally?
My opinion very much echoes my honourable friend. It will be a Nay for me.
They will presumably be sold before this bill comes into effect.
0
Moonbow
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I don't have strong feelings about animal rights. Can someone explain what the downsides of this would be? Do the breeds this would effectively outlaw have substantial benefits relative to other breeds?

One comment: I feel quite strongly that s9A(2) as amended should be removed. Whether an animal is a particular breed is a question of fact which should be left to the courts, with the benefit of the parties to a prosecution having the ability of being able to present evidence as to this question, in a process which has been refined over hundreds of years. A quick reference to the Secretary of State with no defined procedure offers no advantage as far as I can see, especially the political power to amend the position using the proposed s59A.
The downsides is the brutal slaughtering of hundreds if not thousands of innocent animals in puppy farms due to their lack of worth. It truly would be horrendous.
This bill has good intentions but fatal consequences.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
I echo maddies comments. Nay!

Also this bill is flawed it fails to mentions what happens to existing owners of these breeds and what benefit does this have anyway?
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I don't have strong feelings about animal rights. Can someone explain what the downsides of this would be? Do the breeds this would effectively outlaw have substantial benefits relative to other breeds?

One comment: I feel quite strongly that s9A(2) as amended should be removed. Whether an animal is a particular breed is a question of fact which should be left to the courts, with the benefit of the parties to a prosecution having the ability of being able to present evidence as to this question, in a process which has been refined over hundreds of years. A quick reference to the Secretary of State with no defined procedure offers no advantage as far as I can see, especially the political power to amend the position using the proposed s59A.
I wasn't sure about s9A(2) either. Leaving it to the courts may well be a better idea.

What's your issue exactly with s59(A)? Any breed added to schedule A1 would have to go through parliament.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Mr T 999)
I echo maddies comments. Nay!

Also this bill is flawed it fails to mentions what happens to existing owners of these breeds and what benefit does this have anyway?
I do not see why it would have any effect on the existing owners.

If you think animals deserve to suffer because you associate them with a political figure, that seems like a patently ridiculous idea.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Moonbow)
The downsides is the brutal slaughtering of hundreds if not thousands of innocent animals in puppy farms due to their lack of worth. It truly would be horrendous.
This bill has good intentions but fatal consequences.
It's interesting that the govt support killing innocent puppies and I'm not sure why the cp agreed to support it they are supposed to be liberal after all.
0
LPK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
I'm on the fence with this bill, but one immediate thought comes to mind as a potential loophole. How would the bill differentiate between intentional breeding for the purpose of selling the litter vs a litter born due to the female not being spayed? If I owned a female and male pug, I technically would not be doing anything wrong if I stated that I just didn't want to get either castrated or spayed. However, when the inevitable happens because of that, I would then be caught in this legal grey area where I haven't 'intentionally' bred the dogs, but also can't sell a litter which I wouldn't have the money to raise.

I wonder then whether this could become like a similar market to surrogacy, where it isn't legal to give money for the baby, but you can give money as part of ongoing health and social costs associated with pregnancy and child birth. It wouldn't be illegal for me to charge somebody money for a member of the litter which I say recuperates the cost of me raising them for the first few months and taking them the vet etc, which just happens to be a similar price to what I would have sold them for anyway if allowed.

In other words, wouldn't this legislation only work if there was a legal requirement for these breeds to be spayed or castrated? Or have I missed something which would address this loophole in the legislation?
Last edited by LPK; 4 weeks ago
1
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Moonbow)
The downsides is the brutal slaughtering of hundreds if not thousands of innocent animals in puppy farms due to their lack of worth. It truly would be horrendous.
This bill has good intentions but fatal consequences.
Sorry, to clarify, what I'm asking is what the economic costs of this change would be. What are these dogs currently used for?
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I wasn't sure about s9A(2) either. Leaving it to the courts may well be a better idea.

What's your issue exactly with s59(A)? Any breed added to schedule A1 would have to go through parliament.
To clarify, I don't have an issue with s59A, I'm saying it obviates the need for a reference to the SS at a determinative stage.
0
Moonbow
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Theloniouss)
The bill comes into force next year so that commercial breeding operations can sell their existing dogs to avoid that situation. I admittedly do not know exactly how long it generally takes to sell a dog, so if you think that should be longer I can change it.

You can't just slit a dog's throat in Britain or shoot them (that would be illegal). If an animal is put down it has to be by a registered vet.

Rehoming animals is still legal under this, provided they are not being sold.

Illegal markets are an obvious issue, but I'm not entirely sure how illegal markets would be worse than what we currently have.
Puppy farms are an illegal business anyway! They wouldn’t care about breaking the law again, it’s just business as usual for them.

I think you’d need to understand how long it takes for puppy farm investigations to be taken. It takes months if not several years to be able to shutdown even one! It would take decades to be able to track and shut down every single one!
The black market would be worse as people wouldn’t be able to get one legally, and I’m sure even more of them would jump at the chance to sell them from abroad. Animal smuggling is bad enough as it is but with this law it’ll get considerably worse. If people need to sell them, it usually takes a lot of time considering studs and such and allowing current pregnancies to end, which is all year, so abortions would have to occur for this is work exactly how you are suggesting. The government would have to fund it somehow as well.

I do understand the intention is there, it’s just slightly misplaced.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I do not see why it would have any effect on the existing owners.

If you think animals deserve to suffer because you associate them with a political figure, that seems like a patently ridiculous idea.
That's what you got from maddies comment? This bill bans breeding and sale of pugs, chihuahuas, shih tzus and bulldogs which I don't agree with.

Also what problem is this solving and how are these animals suffering? You're notes are very vague.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (177)
38.06%
Take autumn exams (143)
30.75%
Look for a job (16)
3.44%
Consider an apprenticeship (21)
4.52%
Take a year out (80)
17.2%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (28)
6.02%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise