Memorandum submitted by Dogs Trust
Dogs Trust is the UK's largest canine welfare
charity whose slogan "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas"
is probably the best known in the animal welfare world. The Charity's
aim is to reach a state where all dogs can live a happy life free
from the threat of unnecessary destruction. Because we deal only
with dogs, the comments in this evidence relate only to dogs except
where otherwise indicated.
Dogs Trust deals with 11,500 dogs a year through
15 re-homing centres and provides subsidised neutering for 34,000
dogs annually for those on state benefits. Smaller projects include
providing healthcare for the dogs of people in housing crisis,
providing temporary care for the dogs of women fleeing domestic
violence and a trap-neuter-release project for street dogs in
Romania. The charity spends £25 million a year.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Dogs Trust strongly supports the concepts
behind the Animal Welfare Bill, particularly the imposition of
a duty of care on those keeping animals and the broadening and
strengthening of offences related to fighting. The ability to
regulate activities relating to animals is welcomed, and particularly
the concept of enabling legislation to allow regulations to be
adequately updated. The concept of a dual regulation system allowing
licensing of larger operations and registration of smaller ones
is welcomed.
2. However Dogs Trust expresses concern
at the enforcement process envisaged which we also consider to
be a major failing of current legislation. The quality assurance
of the process, competence of some inspectors and funding are
criticised.
3. Dogs Trust also criticises the proposed
programme of introduction of regulations under the Bill which
it considers to be inordinately slow.
INTRODUCTION
4. Dogs Trust welcomes the Bill, is grateful
for the opportunity to comment on it and hopes that we will be
invited to give oral evidence. For simplicity this evidence follows
the clauses of the Bill together with a number of comments on
the proposed secondary legislation. Where we have no comments,
all reference has been omitted.
5. Clause 1: Dogs Trust welcomes the retention
of the cruelty offence. The attempt to more precisely define cruelty
and responsibility in subsections (1) to (3) are broadly welcomed,
although we do have concerns that this may give additional scope
for lawyers to argue that suffering was not unnecessary. The existing
offence of causing unnecessary suffering enshrined in the Protection
of Animals Act 1911 has served well, as courts have been able
to interpret it in the light of current circumstances and ethical
attitudes.
6. Subsection (4) creates the offence of
"mutilation" but there is no attempt in the Bill or
accompanying notes to define the term. While most people would
accept the docking of tails as mutilation, others would argue
that routine neutering is too. The consequent effects of an inadvertent
ban on neutering could be significant and Dogs Trust therefore
considers that the term requires definition. This could be achieved
by requiring the Secretary of State to specify a list.
7. Clause 2: Dogs Trust welcomes the extension
of offences related to fighting.
8. Clause 3: Dogs Trust considers this clause
to provide the major step change in animal welfare legislation.
The requirement on any keeper to have a duty of care to the animal
will go further than any other measure to prevent cruelty and
the inclusion of a definition in subsection (4) is helpful. We
were surprised not to see a Schedule to mirror the similar Schedule
in the Agriculture Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1968 as we are
aware that a considerable amount of work was done in writing a
draft. We consider that the inclusion of such a Schedule would
strengthen and improve this clause.
9. Clauses 4 and 5: Dogs Trust welcomes
both clauses.
10. Clause 6: Dogs Trust considers the ability
to enact secondary legislation to be a vital part of the Bill.
Part of the reason that existing legislation has become so outdated
is that primary legislation is required to amend it and, inevitably,
the political priority tends to favour other legislation. As a
result what amendment there has been is a result of Private Members'
Bills and is therefore, at best, haphazard. The ability of the
Secretary of State to regulate on any matter relating to animal
welfare will therefore allow timely updating, and Dogs Trust welcomes
this.
11. Dogs Trust also welcomes the ability
in subsections (h) and (i) to establish a dual system with full
licensing and simple registration. There are very many small organisations
providing animal welfare services such as rescue and sanctuary,
and any legislation which increased their costs might mean some
would cease their operations. Any such move would be likely to
significantly reduce the overall capacity to provide welfare services
and result in the suffering or euthanasia of many animals. However
there are undoubtedly some such organisations with unacceptably
low standards and Dogs Trust considers that registration will
enable improved monitoring and thus help to raise standards generally.
While there will be some costs to Dogs Trust from this proposal,
we consider this to be a price worth paying for the overall welfare
benefit. Further comment on the enforcement and timing of such
regulation is provided in paragraphs 31, 32 and 44.
12. Clause 6(2)(j) proposes the ability
to regulate the use of equipment in relation to animals. Dogs
Trust welcomes the proposal and suggests regulation to ban the
use of electric shock devices should be introduced as soon as
possible.
13. Clauses 7 to 10: Dogs Trust welcomes
the introduction of Codes of Practice. While the appropriate manner
for keeping dogs may be well understood by most of the public
there is ample evidence that many dogs are not kept appropriately
with, for example, excessive periods of separation from owners
and inadequate exercise and socialisation. A Code on which there
has been broad consultation and which is generally accepted will
go some way towards alleviating some of the welfare problems while
being extremely useful in supporting the duty of care concept.
Dogs Trust is concerned that Codes should be introduced promptly
for species such as dogs where welfare conditions are well known
and sees no reason why such Codes should not be introduced within
a year of the enactment of the legislation.
14. Clauses 11 to 14: Dogs Trust welcomes
the ability to deal appropriately with animals which are in distress
or are likely to be caused distress. While we accept that there
may be some situations where animals are in extremis and
rapid euthanasia is necessary, we do have some concerns that constables
and inspectors are authorised to kill an animal without veterinary
advice and without any attempt at definition of such circumstances.
15. Clause 15: Subsection (2)(c) empowers
the appropriate national authority to stipulate persons other
than a person acting for a public authority as a prosecutor. The
guidance notes indicate that a similar process is to be used as
that under the Protection of Animals Act 2000 but does not give
any detail. It would be helpful for some guidance to be given
to provide assurance that such powers are not to be given away
lightly, not generally to any organisation, and without adequate
training and control of authorised staff.
16. Clauses 16 to 20: Dogs Trust welcomes
these clauses allowing the proper disposal of animals which have
been seized. In particular we are concerned that such animals
have previously been retained for long periods of time prior to
determination by courts and, where dogs are concerned particularly
young puppies, this may have long-term detrimental effects on
the dogs' mental welfare.
17. Clauses 21 to 23: Dogs Trust considers
this to be an essential part of legislation to control dog fighting.
The power to retain an animal under clause 21 subsection (2)(a)
for a period of eight days seems remarkably short and Dogs Trust
would support a reasonable extension of this period up to 28 days
if considered appropriate by prosecuting authorities.
18. Clause 24: Dogs Trust welcomes the proposed
increases in penalty for conviction under section 1 or 2 especially
where there is significant profit or where the offence is fighting.
19. Clause 25: Dogs Trust welcomes the ability
of courts to deprive an owner of an animal for the most serious
offences. Conviction has proven such persons to have shown their
inability to have an appropriate regard for animals' welfare and
deprivation is appropriate to protect the animal.
20. Clause 26: Dogs Trust also welcomes
the wider definition of disqualification as we are aware of instances
where disqualification has proved ineffective under current legislation.
Convicted persons have, in effect, continued to care for their
animals in a manner which has not been appropriate and the appropriate
authorities have been unable to act.
21. Clause 27: Dogs Trust considers the
penalties of deprivation and disqualification to be vital elements
of sentencing and has therefore been dismayed in the past when
they have not been imposed. While mandatory disqualification may
be too draconian, the requirement imposed by this clause seems
entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. Dogs Trust considers
it important to maintain public confidence in the ability of courts
to properly deal with offenders.
22. Clauses 28 and 29: Dogs Trust considers
these to be reasonable in ensuring proper enforcement of court
penalties.
23. Clauses 30 to 32: Dogs Trust considers
the destruction of a dog to be a serious matter which should only
be undertaken as a last resort. While we would accept that a terminally
ill dog should be euthanased for humane reasons which may be clear,
we would be reluctant to accept that behavioural reasons should
be cited. Dogs which display behavioural traits which make them
unacceptable to live in a private dwelling may live perfectly
happily in alternative arrangements and Dogs Trust has considerable
experience in this field. It seems likely that, by not including
appropriate expert advice from a suitably qualified behaviourist
at the decision stage, the number of appeals may be significant
and that mandatory inclusion would be more efficacious.
24. Clause 33: Dogs Trust considers the
ability to revoke a licence and disqualify an offender from holding
one a reasonable penalty. We would like to see the requirement
on the court under clause 27 to state its reasons extended to
this clause.
25. Clauses 36 to 38: Dogs Trust considers
these clauses entirely consistent with proper enforcement. However,
as drafted, the clauses apply only to those premises required
to be licensed and farm premises, and not to those other activities
required to register under clause 6 subsection (2)(i). If such
an enforcement power is not also applied to them Dogs Trust considers
that registration will be ineffective and largely ignored.
26. Clauses 42 and 43: Dogs Trust notes
the comments in the Explanatory Notes that any person may bring
a prosecution. However clause 15 gives the Secretary of State
the ability to empower persons other than local authorities with
enforcement under some clauses. It seems illogical that such a
power should not be extended to this clause with similar powers
granted to appropriately trained and authorised persons.
27. Clause 44: Dogs Trust considers proper
enforcement to be a key issue. Much current animal welfare legislation
is adequate but is unevenly enforced by local authorities because
of a lack of resources and variable levels of skill of inspectors.
We would like to see the requirement on local authorities to have
regard to the list of appropriate inspectors drawn up by the Secretary
of State strengthened so that they must use them.
28. When formulating the list there should
be some generally recognised means of assessing the competence
of potential inspectors by evaluating specialist skills, such
as the possession of a veterinary degree or an appropriate degree
in a biological science and appropriate post-graduate experience.
In addition such persons should have a basic knowledge of the
relevant legislation. Dogs Trust is concerned that a significant
number of environmental health officers and dog wardens who currently
undertake licensing inspections do not have adequate skills in
all these areas and that some veterinary surgeons may be asked
to inspect premises which are outside their normal field of interest
such as equine veterinary surgeons inspecting pet shops and boarding
establishments.
29. Clause 45: This is reasonable.
30. Clause 54: Dogs Trust is content that the
definition of a "protected animal" would include dogs
in all circumstances, including stray dogs.
GENERAL COMMENTS
31. Enforcement: Dogs Trust is very concerned
that provision is made for proper enforcement and considers that,
without it, the Bill will do little to improve animal welfare.
There are two significant issues: the competence and modus
operandi of inspectors; and the provision of resources. The
competence of inspectors has already been mentioned in paragraphs
27 and 28 above. Even if inspectors were shown to be competent,
unless there is some quality assurance of the inspection process
there will remain variability between local authorities. Dogs
Trust considers that the inspection format for a given activity
should be common across the country and that this can only be
achieved if the principle is enshrined within the Bill or, as
a less effective alternative, within the secondary legislation.
32. Currently the resources for inspection
of animal establishments are provided by local authorities with
a very significant part of the cost being recouped through the
licence fee. Dogs Trust believes that much of the overhead costs
are not covered and this is a cost to local authorities, many
of whom do not regard animal welfare as a high priority. While
this could be remedied by the provision of additional resources
from central government or an increase in local taxation it seems
unlikely that either will happen. Dogs Trust therefore requests
the Committee to examine alternative models. These should be concentrated
on establishing centres of excellence either in local government
or in DEFRA. One particular model is provided in London where
Boroughs collaborate to provide an inspectorate.
33. Regulatory Impact Assessment: The Regulatory
Impact Assessment provided by DEFRA contains a number of Annexes
with detail about specific areas of interest. Dogs Trust has a
number of comments on these which, while not part of the Bill,
are very relevant to its efficacy. Licence interval is mentioned
at several points and we see no animal welfare reason for extending
them from 12 to 18 months and are concerned that there may be
an adverse effect.
34. Annex A: Dogs Trust supports the contention
that there should be better regulation of all animals used in
entertainment and that this should include circuses as well as
other performing animals. The proposal does not include any assessment
of staff training and competence and Dogs Trust considers this
to be vital.
35. Annex B: Dogs Trust views the proposal
to licence one-day pet fairs with considerable alarm. While such
events may currently only sell birds, fish and reptiles, we are
concerned that licensing such events at all might encourage their
extension to include dogs. We consider that any such move would
have significant adverse effects on welfare as we remain unconvinced
that any such event can properly protect any animal's welfare.
If such events are to be licensed, the licence should apply to
a single event only.
36. Annex C: We have previously commented
at paragraph 9 on the proposal to raise the age at which a minor
may purchase a pet. The suggestion that vendors of companion animals
should provide written information on their care is supported,
although it does not feature in the Bill; presumably it will result
from the secondary legislation on pet sales. While the provision
of information is important for dogs it is of greater importance
to other less common species.
37. Annex D: The sale of dogs over the Internet
is of considerable concern to Dogs Trust. There is ample evidence
that using mobile telephones as a contact point has a significant
detrimental effect on welfare as such vendors tend to be less
concerned about the welfare of their dogs both before sale and
in their eventual home. Dogs Trust chairs the Pet Advertising
Advisory Group which has introduced a Code of Practice for print
publications in collaboration with the larger magazines. The Code
discourages any deal where the purchaser is unable to relate to
both puppies and parent(s) before purchase and this would inevitably
be the case with Internet purchase. Dogs Trust would wish to see
such activity banned from any site based in the UK.
38. Annex E: We have already commented positively
in paragraph 11 on the proposal to regulate sanctuaries in the
manner described.
39. Annex F: While it may be appropriate
to ban the tethering of equines, Dogs Trust considers that an
equivalent ban on tethering dogs in all but exceptional circumstances
should also be included.
40. Annex G: Dogs Trust supports a ban on
all docking of dogs' tails with the exception of therapeutic amputation.
There is no scientific evidence that un-docked dogs suffer an
increased injury rate to their tails. Any proposal to exempt some
working dogs would be totally unworkable and unenforceable.
41. Many breeds of dog have inherited characteristics
which cause them to suffer and many individual dogs require corrective
surgery. Dogs Trust considers this unacceptable and, given that
such features have been known for decades, considers that legislation
to control the breeding of affected dogs should be introduced
now.
42. Annex H: Dogs Trust has chaired the
Greyhound Forum for over a decade and, together with other welfare
charities, has introduced the Charter and Code of Practice for
the Racing Greyhound. The NGRC-regulated element of the industry
has recently been supportive and is slowly working towards implementing
the Charter. However independent tracks lag significantly behind.
While they argue that the cost of veterinary attendance is financially
not viable, they have failed to provide evidence to support this.
Legislation is required for all tracks now.
43. Annex K: Dogs Trust supports the proposal
for a national database of offenders. The restriction of access
to enforcement agencies would preclude Dogs Trust from ensuring
that potential adopters are not disqualified from doing so. Consequently
we consider that re-homing organisations should also be given
confidential access to the database.
44. Annex L: Dogs Trust is extremely disappointed
by the proposed timetable for the introduction of regulations.
Many replace existing legislation which badly needs updating and
others supplement existing voluntary Codes of Practice. Many in
the animal welfare industry would be willing to draft appropriate
Codes and many are not particularly controversial, resulting in
minimal work for government officials. We see no justification
for the tardy timetable.
30 July 2004
| 
