Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Chris Laurence MBE QVRM TD BVSC MRCVS

Introduction

I am a veterinary surgeon who spent almost 30 years in practice followed by five years as Chief Veterinary Officer for the RSPCA and then by eight years as Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust. I retired in August last year. During my time with the RSPCA and Dogs Trust I was instrumental in the establishment of, and for a period chaired, the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG). The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act is largely based on concepts set out by DDASG. I was also the spokesman on dog control (amongst other issues) for both welfare charities.

I was very involved in preparatory work on the Animal Welfare Act and in subsequent work on the statutory Codes of Practice for dogs and cats and on the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds (England) Regulations. I was awarded the MBE (nominated by DEFRA) for my efforts on the Act.

I am currently a member on the Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding established after Professor Bateson’s enquiry to which the Committee’s consultation document refers. I serve as veterinary surgeon to a Kennel Club dog show and am a member of the Kennel Club. I am an elected national Trustee of the RSPCA.

The views expressed in my response are entirely my own and do not represent any organisation.

Dog Control

1. All dogs can bite. Some bite because they are out of control, some because they feel threatened or in pain, and some because they have been encouraged to bite. The dog’s actions are almost invariably the consequence of a person acting, or failing to act, in a responsible manner. I consider legislation should be aimed primarily at prevention by ensuring dog owners and keepers are responsible, but also at sanctioning those who fail to act responsibly. Current legislation fails to protect the public and their animals. Consequently I consider a root and branch review of all legislation and its enforcement is required.

2. The preventive element of the current legislation is the banning of some types of dog and is founded on the principle that the manner in which a dog behaves is directly related to the type of dog. Such a premise is untrue, as behaviour is a complex mix of breed propensities and rearing and training.

3. Few dog bites occur without warning; many dogs that bite are known by the community to have a tendency to aggression. New legislation should include the ability of the authorities to take action against those dogs before they cause injury using a system of Control Orders similar to that used in Scotland under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. Control Orders should also be applicable to dogs that repeatedly attack other animals. The enforcement of such Orders should primarily be by the use of Fixed Penalty Notices with the potential to refer repeat incidents of non-compliance to the Courts.

4. The term “status dog” is overused; I have a Golden Retriever and she is a status symbol of me as a dog owner who is responsible and family friendly; Paris Hilton’s Chihuahua is her status symbol; a Staffie cross-bred owned by a youth from a deprived area is his. The welfare of the dog is not necessarily related to its perceived status; indeed many of the latter category are much loved pets whose welfare is protected as much as the youth can perceive, even though those perceptions may be inaccurate. However those misconceptions may impact adversely on the local community.

5. I strongly support compulsory microchipping of dogs as a means of improving dogs’ welfare. That improvement would be brought about by the rapid return of strays, the ability to trace a dog to the breeder, and the ability to identify the owner who fails to comply with either S 4 (unnecessary suffering) or S 9 (duty to protect welfare) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA). I consider that microchipping could be introduced as a Statutory Instrument under S12 of the Act. However I do not consider that it will have any effect on the prevention of dog attacks because the ability to identify a dog will not make the owner more responsible. Indeed it is not unreasonable to argue that only the responsible owner would comply with any such legislation and that the less law abiding will fail to do so as well as, for example, taxing and insuring their car.

6. The average life expectancy of a dog is around ten years. Consequently if compulsory microchipping was introduced only for puppies and for dogs changing hands the maximum benefit would not be achieved for ten years. The consultation document further suggests that the proposal should not be introduced before 2014 as a result of a government moratorium on regulation for small business, leading to no full implementation before 2024. Such delay is totally unacceptable. I therefore consider that compulsory microchipping should be introduced for all puppies immediately and for all dogs over six months of age six months later. I have chosen six months as this is an age at which dogs can easily be identified by the presence of their permanent teeth.

7. Microchipping is only as effective as the quality of the owners’ details held on the database. I therefore consider that any legislation must include a requirement to inform the database of any changes in contact details. I also consider it important that the legislation makes it clear that the person to whom the dog is registered is the legal owner and therefore responsible under the AWA for the dog’s welfare and under any dog control legislation for its behaviour.

8. The same argument about the efficacy of compulsory microchipping applies to a licensing scheme. It would be viewed by many as simply a tax on dog ownership, as was the original dog licence. However if the licence fee were set at a significant sum, and the income generated used to enforce new legislation, the argument for a licence becomes stronger. If such a proposal were to be accepted, I consider the hypothecation of the income must be written into the legislation to prevent a future government from diverting the resources.

9. Research has shown that 70% of children who are bitten by a dog are bitten by a relative’s or friend’s dog. It is likely that most of those incidents occur on private property. There have been a number of high profile incidents where children have been seriously injured or killed on private property—Ellie Lawrenson on New Year’s Day 2007 is an example. The Communication Workers Union has repeatedly highlighted the high injury rate to their members by attacks on private property. I therefore consider that the extension of legislation to private property is essential.

10. However there are circumstances where neither the dog nor owner should be liable if a person is injured or threatened by a dog. The most likely of these are: the person who is in the process of breaking into a property with intent to steal; the person injured by a dog being used for law enforcement by a police officer; and the person who is in the process of attacking the person in who is in charge of the dog at the time. I consider that in those cases would it be unreasonable for the owner to be culpable. I suggest that the legislation should provide a specific exemption in such circumstances and the most appropriate might be when the person bitten is in the commission of a crime for which a custodial sentence is a possible punishment.

11. Education of dog owners is critical to the success of instilling responsible ownership in the general public. All animal welfare organisations expend very considerable resource on education and have done for decades. The government could support their work by including animal welfare as a specific element in the National Curriculum.

12. The exclusion of the police from the management of stray dogs by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA) was an entirely logical step. The police should only become involved where there is the potential for an offence to have been committed such as theft or a dog attack. However the failure to adequately transfer resources to local authorities has significantly degraded the public effort in dealing with stray dogs to a point where in many areas there is no service out of hours. That is not acceptable as the welfare of strays may be very adversely affected. I consider that the guidance on the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and on the CNEA should be re-written to make it a duty for local authorities to provide a service of some sort 24/7. I recognise that there are resource implications in doing so, but I suggest that some resource could be found by increasing the charge to owners of returning their dog.

13. Welfare charities already expend very considerable resource in dealing with stray dogs, mostly after local authorities have retained them for the statutory seven days, and in public education about straying and identification. It would be unreasonable to expect them to do more, especially in the current economic conditions.

Dog Welfare

14. I have no doubt that many dog breeders care deeply about the welfare of their dogs. However many seem incapable of recognising the welfare implications of the manner in which dogs are bred, and particularly in the manner that breed standards are implemented. Dogs with exaggerated characteristics such as sort noses, short legs, and grossly abnormal eyelids are still common at dog shows and that must reflect the manner in which dogs are bred for showing. There have been changes in breed standards implemented by the Kennel Club, but I consider that those changes are inadequate to effect real change in the show ring. Inevitably there appears to be no change in the general population.

15. The implementation of veterinary checks of Best of Breed winners of fifteen breeds at Kennel Club licensed shows is welcome but does not go far enough. I consider that all breeds should be included and that veterinary surgeons should be required to report any abnormality, whether it is currently inducing a welfare issue or not. As a consequence any dog with abnormal characteristics would be identified, although it may be impractical to ban any other than the worst affected.

16. Veterinary surgeons are in a difficult position as they are bound by their professional obligations to treat any dog presented to them and are also small businesses. Consequently as individuals they are unlikely to take any action that may jeopardise their professional obligations or affect their business. The profession, as represented by our professional bodies, has been vocal in condemning the most exaggerated morphology.

17. A veterinary surgeon is able to report a change in conformation or caesarean section of a dog to the Kennel Club as breeders enable the breach of confidentiality. It is clear that not all incidents are reported. I consider that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should make it a specific duty in their Code of Professional Conduct to report such incidents and at least that would highlight the welfare consequences of some breed standards.

18. It is easy to blame all inherited problems in dogs on the show community but the Kennel Club only registers about a third of dogs born each year. Given that few dogs are sold by pet shops, it is difficult to determine the source of the remaining two thirds. It is likely that a significant number are bred by commercial enterprises including puppy farms.

19. All those breeders should be licensed by their local authority under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 as subsequently amended by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999. If they are being licensed, it would seem clear that the standards set are far too low as welfare organisations continually receive reports of puppies from such sources having inherited defects or being seriously ill or dying. If they are not licensed then it is clear that the system is failing. I therefore consider that the government should take action to address the sale of puppies.

20. I consider that any person breeding dogs should be registered or licensed as enabled by S13 of the AWA. The standard should be that which has been set following widespread consultation by the Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding. It should then be illegal to advertise any puppy by any means unless the registration or licence number is quoted in the advert. In particular this should apply to advertising over the internet on sites such as Gumtree. The cost of the registration or licence should be sufficient to cover any inspections and re-inspections required and run on a risk-based system.

21. I consider the use of different standards by local authorities unacceptable. It is also clear that different authorities provide differing levels of resource and many are not proactive in detecting breeders. Consequently I consider that enforcement would be far more efficacious if undertaken by a national body and that AHVLA should be tasked to do so. If enforcement was self-financing, as suggested above, there would be no cost to the public purse.

June 2012