Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the Essex Animal Welfare Forum (EAWF)
1. Whether the Government’s proposed approaches will deliver the right legal framework, enforcement regime and educational support to reduce irresponsible dog ownership and tackle out of control dogs;
Proposal 1: Microchipping.
No; because chip identification of a dog does not prevent it being dangerous or out of control.
Microchipping will not prevent incidents with dangerous dogs occurring. Microchipping is an aid to assist with the reunification of dogs with their owners. It is ineffective if the information held is not updated when owners move or the dogs ownership is transferred. The updating should be made compulsory, with penalties for non-compliance, in any change to legislation. Eg similar system to car registration system.
For any new or amended legislation to be effective, the appropriate resources (financial and human), enforcement and penalties for non compliance must be made available.
Enforcement by local authority officers would not be possible unless ring fenced budgetary provision is made by DEFRA.
Unless all enforcement officers carry scanners and phones to read chips and check registration it will not be possible to enforce the requirement.
In order to be of any use the registration must be kept up to date when dogs change ownership and this would be extremely difficult to enforce without robust legislation along the lines of the car tax system.
Proposal 2: Inclusion of private property in S3 of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Yes, Provided those entering the premises are there for lawful reasons the legislation should be the same as for public places.
Proposal 3: retention by owners of suspected dangerous or prohibited dogs where there is considered to be no threat to public safety until cert of exemption issued:
Retention OK, providing dog and owner are assessed by DLO first and the latter judged to be responsible.
Kennelling should be for as short as possible, from animal welfare and a financial view. The time taken for cases to get to court should be limited, to limit time spent by dogs in kennels.
Direct application—can only be positive, provided dog and owner checked by DLO. Responsible owners will use this option if costs are reasonable.
Destruction orders must be decided on evidence from the police, supported by appropriate statements etc, by the courts, in an open process.
All the above require ring fenced investment in suitably trained Dog Liaison Officers in the police, and/or the same in local authorities.
Proposal 4: Increasing index fee:
This must be done on a cost related basis, but should not so high that owners of such dogs are unable to pay and will therefore not apply. However, the public should not have to subsidize the owners’ expenses.
2. Concerns about the welfare of dogs linked to breeding approaches
Breeding of dogs should be carried out with careful regard to their genetic characteristics. All suitable tests (eg hip and eye scoring) should be carried out on the parents and the results be available to purchasers. If poor scores are found the dogs should not be used for breeding.
Dog Control
Are the approaches proposed by Defra in its announcement on “Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership” on 23 April 2012 sufficient to ensure that there is a reduction in the number of attacks by dogs on people and animals?
In particular:
3. Is there a need for a more fundamental overhaul of dog legislation, and its enforcement, including that relating to dog attacks on people, livestock and pets?
Yes. This overhaul should include the ring—fenced provision of specialist, suitably trained, police or local authority officers, whichever is deemed to be responsible for enforcement of the legislation. The route for enforcement should be clear and concise.
4. Is sufficient action being taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities?
No. This needs to be tackled at source, with the breeders of such dogs being registered and policed.
5. Will compulsory microchipping of puppies improve dog welfare and help prevent dog attacks at an affordable cost to dog owners?
Microchipping will not prevent incidents with dangerous dogs occurring. Microchipping is an aid to assist with the reunification of dogs with their owners. It is ineffective if the information held is not updated when owners move or the dogs ownership is transferred.
6. Should a dog licensing scheme also be considered?
Yes, but not without the financial and staff infrastructure to implement and enforce the licence.
7. Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property?
Yes, provided the “visitor” is there lawfully.
8. Are Defra’s proposals for wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership sufficiently ambitious?
Without back up in the form of staff and ring fenced funding the proposals will not be implemented.
9. Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime?
The roles are often not followed under the present regime, with police often denying responsibility for dangerous dogs. A/W charities often perpetuate the problem with “no destruction” policies, therefore allowing unsuitable animals to be rehomed as pets. If the present regime was followed and unsuitable animals were destroyed it would be more effective.
Dog Welfare
In respect to concerns expressed in Professor Bateson’s report over poor welfare that has arisen in the course of breeding dogs:
10. Has the response by dog breeders and the veterinary profession been effective?
No noticeable effect.
11. What actions should Government take to address these issues?
Delete the current legislation and replace it with some which is easily interpreted, enforceable and relevant to the 21st Century. The provision is there in the Animal Welfare act to make secondary legislation. Use it!
12. Are further controls required on dog breeders, including puppy farms, and those selling or importing dogs to ensure the welfare of bitches and puppies?
The current legislation was originally drafted 50+ years ago. The breeding and sale of dogs, and other animals, has changed greatly in the intervening years. Legislation should be formulated to take account of the current ways of breeding and selling animals.
Additionally, in a civilised society is there a place for such premises as “puppy farms”?
June 2012