San Anton Gardens cats

I refer to previous correspondence and feel constrained to make the following observations, particularly in respect of San Anton Gardens.

One can imagine the shock of cat carers when only a few cats appeared at feeding time. It must be appreciated that these volunteers have for many years paid out of their own pockets for the neutering of the cats and for veterinary care plus medicines whenever any were injured or ill. They also took them into their homes during the period of treatment. In addition they have every day, rain or shine, fed these cats at their expense.

Here I must mention that various administrations have not only failed to carry out a national neutering programme but also have given in to pressure from interested parties to prohibit foreign vets who were willing to undertake such a programme free of charge.

After many attempts to establish what happened, these volunteers were told that the cats had been removed to Wied Incita Nursery by the consortium contracted by the government to maintain the gardens. The volunteers are not satisfied with this explanation. It is still a mystery what happened to these cats.

Following a challenge in The Times by the managing director of the Environmental Landscape Consortium, two of the principal carers arranged an appointment to see the cats at the new site at feeding time. Cats invariably turn up at feeding time. Only four cats appeared, of which only one was formerly at San Anton Gardens. Where are the other 16 to 19 cats?

It has been claimed that the cats were removed because they were causing a lot of damage. They have been there for years and when the gardens were the responsibility of head gardeners of the Department of Agriculture no cats were removed on the grounds that they caused damage.

It is a shame that the group of kind-hearted volunteers have been treated so shabbily. This is the thanks they have received for the time and expense they have dedicated to the well-being of these animals and for financing the cost of a continuous neutering programme which should have been the responsibility of the authorities.

I consider that the ministry responsible should investigate and answer the following queries:

1. Why was the transfer of the cats (if so it was) not done under the supervision of a responsible animal welfare organisation?

2. Why were the volunteers not informed of the "transfer" once it was well known that they were catering for the needs of the cats?

3. Who authorised the removal and who is now responsible for the wel-being of the cats?

4. Will the removal of the cats result in the proliferation of rats and mice in the gardens?

5. Should not the consortium produce the missing cats for inspection by the carers group?

I consider that in this case there has been "ill-treatment" as defined in article 2 of the Animal Welfare Act. It is pointless to have an Animal Welfare Act if "ill-treatment" is permitted in a prominent public place under government control.

I appeal to the minister responsible, to all members of Parliament elected from the district, to all members who care about the welfare of animals and to Attard local council to take up this matter and ensure that an equitable solution is found and also that such actions do not recur.