Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Countryside Alliance

1. The Countryside Alliance welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the EFRA Committee’s inquiry into dog control and welfare. The Alliance recognises that there is a problem with dangerous dogs and especially status dogs particularly, but not exclusively, in urban areas. There has also been a spate of attacks on horses causing serious harm to the animals and distress, and in some cases injury, to the riders. We also believe that dog welfare with respect to breeding is of the utmost importance.

Dog Control

2. The Alliance is supportive of action to address the menace of dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. However, it is far from clear whether many of the options under consideration would in fact improve the situation. Indeed, many of the changes which have been under discussion would seem to penalise responsible dog owners not the irresponsible owner.

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?

3. There is already both civil and criminal law which provides a broad variety of powers to police, courts and local authorities to address the problem of dangerous dogs. We remain to be convinced that the existing legislation, if properly enforced, is inadequate to deal with dangerous/status dogs and irresponsible owners. There may, however, be advantages in bringing together the various provisions and powers into a single piece of legislation. Any change in the law would, however, be equally dependent on adequate resources and enforcement in order to be effective.

4. This view was endorsed by the last Government and the police. On 16 April 2009 the previous Government issued guidance for enforcers of the law and in June 2009 a guide to the law for the public following a thorough review of the existing legislation carried out by Defra with the police. The then Minister, Jane Kennedy, referring to the review, stated in the press release of 16 April 2009 that: “…it was clear that, while the legislation was sound, more needed to be done to raise awareness of the law and improve enforcement…We believe that better enforcement of the current law, ideally through local partnerships, will be more effective at tackling the problem of dangerous dogs than amending it.”

5. The current Government has also recently re-issued guidance to owners and enforcers. It is also extending the scope of anti-social behaviour provisions with respect to dogs and the Sentencing Council has issued new guidance to improve consistency in the way the law is applied and increased the penalties for offences.

Is sufficient action being taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities?

6. The issue here is again one of enforcement. There is already law which covers certain breed types notably pit-bull types which are the most popular status dogs. The owning, breeding and sale of these dogs is already illegal, although the law does allow them to be exempted by inclusion on the Index of Exempted Dogs. The law already prohibits dog fighting, the use of a dog as a weapon or dogs being dangerously out of control. The welfare of dogs is covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and a statutory code of practice.

7. We believe that the breed specific legislation is worth keeping, existing as it does alongside other legislation which applies generally, because it is another tool which can be used by enforcers. However, there remains the problem that breed type does not necessarily mean that the dog poses a greater risk to the public than that of a non-prohibited breed. It is deed not breed which should be the principal focus of enforcement. The behaviour of most dogs is less a matter of breed as one of upbringing, nurture and training. Those dogs used as status dogs are often brutalised so as to encourage aggression and are selectively bred to increase natural aggression. The very fact that a “status dog” displays highly aggressive behaviour is indicative of the fact that it has in all probability not been cared for properly and that it has been bred for nefarious purposes.

Will compulsory microchipping of puppies improve dog welfare and help prevent dog attacks at an affordable cost to dog owners? Should a dog licensing scheme also be considered?

8. The problem with all these proposals is that the responsible dog owner will comply but compliance is likely to be less among those at whom the measures are principally aimed, namely irresponsible owners. Microchipping may encourage more responsible ownership and will undoubtedly enable stray, lost or stolen dogs to be returned to their owners more quickly. However, microchipping will only be as effective as the database(s) on which the associated information is stored. We are not convinced that sufficient thought has been given as to how to ensure the databases are accurate and up-to-date. The responsible owner will provide accurate information and keep the record updated. This is less likely amongst those who wish to have a status dog, often of a type which the law already prohibits.

9. The Alliance has particular concern over the level of access to databases, beyond the police, which will be available to local authorities, veterinarians, and re-homing centres as well as, we assume, the RSPCA and others. Access should be strictly limited to enable the identification of an individual dog. It cannot be open to being searched in general. Pedigree dogs are of considerable value and being able to search addresses of owners of certain dog breeds or who owns a dog in a given area etc. should not be possible.

10. With respect to hunts we would note that the Council of Hunting Associations has already decided to introduce microchipping and that the data relating to each dog, together with its pedigree etc. is already held by the Council of Hunting Associations which manages the stud books. We would ask that if compulsory microchipping is introduced that the database which will be maintained by the Council of Hunting Associations (CHA) be formally recognised as the official database for hounds equivalent to any of the commercial databases which currently exist, or which may be set up with the introduction of compulsory microchipping. This would mean that were a stray hound to be found it could be as easily returned as if it were on any other recognised database.

11. We can see no benefit to a licensing scheme which would not be fulfilled by microchipping. It is perhaps worth noting that the Control of Dogs Order 1992 requires dogs in a public place to wear a collar with the name and address of the owner engraved or written on it, or engraved on a tag, although this requirement is frequently ignored and does not seem to be enforced.

Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property?

12. It should be noted that the existing offence already applies where a dog is dangerously out of control in a private place where that dog is not permitted to be. Moreover, under the 1871 Act action against any dog in a private place can already be taken but under civil and not criminal law.

13. However, we agree that extending the 1991 Act to cover private property where the dog is allowed to be would represent a strengthening of the law and available sanctions in this area. An extension of the criminal law as proposed should extend to areas inside as well as outside the home. However, it should not be open to a person to use the law against an owner in circumstances where a person was on land or in a building without any implied licence or permission.

14. We also wonder whether the 1871 Dogs Act offence should be retained, even if amended, so that there remains an option for dangerous dogs to be dealt with under the civil as well as the criminal law in respect of private places. While there are disadvantages to proceeding under the 1871 Act a civil offence may be preferable where a successful criminal prosecution may not succeed given the higher evidential standard which must be met in criminal cases.

Are Defra’s proposals for wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership sufficiently ambitious?

15. We welcome Defra’s initiatives in this area but given the very limited resources available we do not think they will have widespread impact. We do think, given the limited additional resources being provided, that resources should be targeted at problem hotspots.

Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime?

16. Currently it is only local authorities who have responsibility for stray dogs. The statutory involvement of the police was removed by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act which transferred the responsibility for strays from the police to the local authorities. Dog Wardens are obliged to seize stray dogs. A person who finds a stray dog must return it to its owner, if known, or take it to the local authority. There remains a problem with the existing system in that local authorities are not required to provide a 24 hour seven day service or provide a place for the public to take stray dogs unless this is practical. While they can recover costs when a dog is claimed by its owner, they are generally forced to make arrangements with private kennels for keeping these dogs for seven days after which animal charities are usually approached to help with rehoming and a proportion of dogs will ultimately be destroyed.

Dog Welfare

In respect to concerns expressed in Professor Bateson’s report over poor welfare that has arisen in the course of breeding dogs:

Has the response by dog breeders and the veterinary profession been effective?

17. We are unable to comment in detail but we believe that there has been progress especially due to the work of the Dog’s Trust and Kennel Club.

What actions should Government take to address these issues?

18. Professor Bateson makes a number of recommendations some of which are not welcome and some of which would seem sensible and reasonably straight forward to deliver.

19. It is imperative that a proper distinction is made between dogs bred commercially and those who while they sell puppies do not do so as a business such as those who may have the odd litter or breed a small number of working dogs. The current legislation takes account of this distinction and also breeding which takes place where no puppies are sold. We believe this should remain. In particular this takes account of the breeding of most working dogs where high welfare and the eradication of genetic defects is clearly desirable as otherwise you do not get good working animals. It would be against the interests of the breeder not to ensure the highest standards. Working dogs tend not to have the problems associated with other breed types because they do not have exaggerated characteristics which would not make for good working animals.

Are further controls required on dog breeders, including puppy farms, and those selling or importing dogs to ensure the welfare of bitches and puppies?

20. The use of the term “puppy farm” seems rather emotive. It is associated with poor practice and poor welfare by commercial breeders. It is perfectly possible to breed puppies commercially to extremely high welfare standards and we would be concerned if there was an impression given that those who breed dogs, commercially or otherwise, are all guilty of poor welfare and irresponsible behaviour.

21. We do not think further legislation is required and that the existing legislative framework, which was tightened up by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Act 1999 coupled with the Animal Welfare Act and associated codes, is a good framework of regulation. We do not agree that the legislation should be replaced by regulations under the Animal Welfare Act.

22. There may however be grounds for further codes and/or regulations setting out in greater detail issues relating to both welfare and breeding practices under the Animal Welfare Act. This should, as now, relate to the business of breeding puppies as a commercial enterprise and should not burden those who do not sell puppies.

23. At present we believe that proper and consistent enforcement of the existing law would go a long way to addressing issues surrounding the commercial breeding welfare issues in terms of “puppy farms”.

24. However, we accept that for both large scale operators and small scale hobby breeders that further advice and guidance would be beneficial especially with regard to genetic problems associated with inbreeding.

25. Professor Bateson notes in his report at paragraph 7.52 that measures to encourage behavioural changes are to be preferred to legislation which he says “cannot, alone, create the conditions for behavioural change”. We would agree that legislation should be regarded as being a “back-stop”. Change is clearly needed among both breeders and the public and as Professor Bateson notes “..the most powerful pressure for change is that exercised by the consumer”.

26. On the specific recommendations relating to puppies bred for sale which seek to address inbreeding, inherited disease and extreme morphologies we would be supportive of the recommendations.

27. We would support a code of practice on the breeding of dogs under the Animal Welfare Act. This would sit alongside the existing dog code. We would however stress that this must focus on the breeding of dogs for sale.

28. We do not favour the replacement of the existing legislation which seems to us proportionate and clear. It is focussed on those who are breeding for sale, especially on a commercial scale.

29. Concerns with regard to those who breed smaller numbers and who do not therefore require a licence would be covered by the Animal Welfare Act and associated codes. If the Kennel club rules were amended for judges and the veterinary profession took a more active role then this would assist with compliance and welfare offences would apply where the code was breached.

30. However, any such regulations must not be too widely drawn or be overly prescriptive. Prof Bateson refers to staffing levels and ratio of staff to dogs. While this may be appropriate in a commercial setting it would not in other situations. It also fails to account for the fact that welfare is not simply a matter of numbers but about proper husbandry.

31. Lastly, we do support the recommendation that there needs to be a concerted effort to inform and educate breeders and public.

June 2012