Replies to LegCo questions
LCQ14: Enhancing animal welfare and animal management
Following is a question by the Hon Chan Hak-kan and a written reply by the
Secretary for Food and Health, Dr Ko Wing-man, in the Legislative Council today
(June 1):
Question:
Regarding the promotion of animal welfare and prevention of acts of cruelty to
animals, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, in
conjunction with the Police, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department as
well as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong), set up
a special working group in 2011 to enhance cooperation in handling cases of
cruelty to animals, of the number of meetings held by the working group so far;
(2) as I have learnt that at present only five police districts have set up
designated Crime Investigation Teams to investigate suspected cases of cruelty
to animals, whether the Government will consider setting up such kind of teams
in all police districts; if it will not, of the difficulties encountered by the
Police;
(3) given that this Council passed the amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) in 2006 to increase the penalty level of
offences concerning cruelty to animals, but cases of animal abuse were still
often heard of in recent years, whether the Government will reconsider
introducing further amendments to Cap. 169 to increase the penalty level of such
offences; if it will, of the legislative timetable;
(4) whether it will consider establishing a system under which law enforcement
departments may issue, to persons who are negligent in taking care of animals
but the circumstances of their cases are not serious, "Care Enhancement Notices"
ordering them to treat animals kindly;
(5) whether it will reconsider enacting legislation to make it compulsory for
persons convicted of animal cruelty offences to receive psychological
counselling and attend courses on caring for animals;
(6) whether it will consider amending existing legislation or enacting new
legislation to permit specific eateries to allow customers to patronise the
eateries together with their pet cats or dogs, and to subject such eateries to
appropriate regulation, so as to improve animal welfare;
(7) given that section 56 of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) stipulates
that when an accident occurs whereby damage is caused to an animal, the driver
of that vehicle shall stop and report the accident to the Police as soon as
possible, but the animal referred to in that provision does not include dogs and
cats, whether the Government will amend Cap. 374 or Cap. 169, in the hope that
drivers will drive with more caution to avoid hitting and injuring cats or dogs,
and cats and dogs injured after being hit by vehicles will be able to receive
treatment as soon as possible; and
(8) whether it will allocate more resources to animal welfare organisations with
a view to stepping up the promotion of animal rights and interests in the
territory?
Reply:
President,
Over the years, the Government has been adopting a multi-pronged approach to
enhancing animal welfare and animal management. In order to enhance
collaboration among Government departments and organisations concerned in
combating acts of cruelty to animals, the Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department (AFCD), in conjunction with the Hong Kong Police Force
(Police), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and the Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) (SPCA), set up in 2011 an
inter-departmental special working group (WG) for forging closer co-operation
and mutual support in handling animal cruelty cases. In the same year, the
Police, together with AFCD, SPCA and veterinary associations, introduced the
Animal Watch Scheme to strengthen efforts in tackling animal cruelty cases.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) Since the establishment of the WG, relevant departments and organisations
have maintained close liaison to discuss the handling of individual cases,
formulate guidelines for improving efficiency in the detection and prevention of
animal cruelty cases, and review the guidelines from time to time. In addition,
the WG also organises various training courses for relevant government officers
to facilitate continuous enhancement of their understanding of animal welfare
issues and skills in handling animal cruelty cases. It also keeps in view the
level of penalty handed down by the court for the purpose of considering whether
a review of the relevant regulations is necessary. AFCD has not kept figures on
the number of meetings and discussions held by members of the WG.
(2) On the enforcement front, reports of animal cruelty cases received by the
Police will be taken up by the crime investigation teams in various districts
which have sufficient experience and professional investigation skills to follow
up cases of cruelty to animals. Depending on the manpower of police districts,
the nature and the prevailing trend of cases, the Police may consider assigning
cases to dedicated teams in the interest of ensuring comprehensive and focused
investigation. This arrangement will allow the Police to flexibly deploy its
limited resources, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of its efforts in
combating acts of cruelty to animals.
(3) Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169), any person
who cruelly beats, kicks, ill-treats, over-rides, over-drives, overloads,
tortures, infuriates or terrifies any animal, or by wantonly or unreasonably
doing or omitting to do any act, causes any unnecessary suffering to any animal
commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $200,000 and
imprisonment for three years. The Government updated and substantially increased
the penalty levels in 2006 to strengthen deterrence. Since then, the heaviest
sentence handed down by the court for cases convicted under the Ordinance is
imprisonment for 16 months. The Government believes that the current penalty
level provides sufficient deterrence against acts of animal cruelty and has no
plan to propose any amendments to further increase the penalty level.
(4) AFCD has been working closely with the Police and SPCA in handling animal
cruelty cases. Depending on the investigation findings of individual cases,
suggestions will be given to the carers concerned to rectify some of their minor
acts of negligence in taking care of animals. Follow-up actions and inspections
will also be carried out as appropriate.
The Government considers that public education on responsible pet ownership is
most important for safeguarding and promoting animal welfare. To this end, AFCD
has established a dedicated team to devise, implement and fortify public
education and publicity programmes for disseminating messages of caring for
animals and responsible pet ownership.
In the past year, AFCD launched a series of educational and publicity
activities, including producing and broadcasting Announcements in the Public
Interest on TV and radio; placing advertisements at cinemas, public transport,
bus stops, magazines and websites; organising promotional events in shopping
arcades; regularly conducting village and community campaigns; holding talks in
schools and housing estates; as well as conducting surveys on pet care. Our
efforts on this front will continue.
(5) The Government has no plan to amend the legislation to make it compulsory
for persons convicted of animal cruelty offences to receive psychological
counselling or attend courses on caring for animals. As the motives and
underlying reasons for committing the offences vary in different cases, it may
not be appropriate to require every person convicted of animal cruelty offences
to receive mandatory psychological counselling.
(6) To ensure food safety and public hygiene of food premises, the Food Business
Regulation (Cap. 132X) stipulates that no person shall bring any dog onto any
food premises (including kitchens, food rooms and indoor or outside seating
accommodation of a restaurant) and no person engaged in any food business shall
knowingly permit the presence of dogs in his/her food premises unless the dogs
are guide dogs for visually impaired persons (except for food rooms) or
performing statutory duties (e.g. police dogs).
Animals can be a source of contamination of food and equipment as their hair,
body and excreta may carry pathogens and parasites. Co-existence of humans and
animals at the same premises will increase the risk of transmission of
communicable diseases. Allowing dogs to enter food premises will pose higher
health risk to customers therein, especially those who are physically weaker or
more susceptible to infection. As such, the prohibition of dogs from entering
food premises is needed from the perspective of food safety and public hygiene.
Hong Kong is a metropolitan city. There are diverse views among members of the
public on whether pets should be allowed in public places (including food
premises). The Government has to strike an appropriate balance between overall
public interest and protection of animal welfare. We have no plan to amend the
above requirements for the time being.
(7) At present, section 56 of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) provides
that the driver of a vehicle shall stop the vehicle when an accident involving
that vehicle occurs whereby damage is caused to, among others, an animal. The
driver is required to report the accident to the Police as soon as practicable.
For the purpose of this provision, "animal" is defined as any horse, cattle,
ass, mule, sheep, pig or goat.
The Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Animal Welfare and Cruelty to Animals
under the Legislative Council Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene
discussed the above issue at its previous meetings. In response to Members'
comments, the Government has studied the practices adopted in various overseas
places, including the United Kingdom (UK), Singapore and New York. The relevant
legislative provisions in Singapore and the UK are similar to section 56 of Cap.
374 in Hong Kong, except that their scope covers dogs as well. On the other
hand, animals covered by the relevant legislation in New York include both dogs
and cats.
In recent years, we have from time to time seen reports from the press and on
the social media regarding incidents where dogs and cats are knocked down by
vehicles, causing injuries to the animals or even deaths. In those cases where
the vehicle drivers left without causing the animals to receive immediate
treatment, this has given rise to public concern from the animal welfare angle.
Taking into account the occurrence of such incidents, the public sentiment, and
the practices adopted in other places, the Government is prepared to review the
relevant legislation, with a view to bringing dogs and cats within the scope of
section 56 of Cap. 374.
(8) AFCD has been working in close collaboration with a number of animal welfare
organisations (AWOs) to promote animal welfare and better animal management,
including providing funding for these organisations as long as resources permit.
Currently, AFCD provides funding support to nine AWOs. In this regard, AFCD has
set aside $1.5 million in 2016-17. Interested AWOs may submit their applications
together with details of their animal welfare initiatives, and associated
performance indicators as well as the estimated budget to AFCD for
consideration. Successful applicants are required to submit to AFCD regular
progress reports on their approved projects and audited accounts upon project
completion for scrutiny so as to ensure the proper use of public money.
Ends/Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Issued at HKT 16:16
NNNN