Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the National Dog Warden Association
The Government’s Proposed Approaches
1. The Government needs to address the lack of any current joined up approach relating to the enforcement of dog and animal welfare related legislation as a matter of urgency. There is no clear leadership from Government or DEFRA in respect of whom deals with what, when and why? Across Local Government there is a trend due to the current economic climate to reduce the effectiveness of Dog Warden Services that provide a balanced approach to promoting responsible dog ownership through a combination of education and enforcement. If a Local Authority officer responsible for dog control has other non dog related tasks to carry out such as their primary role being Pest Control work or being a Community Warden, they may not have time to concentrate on the promotion of responsible dog ownership in their relevant local authority area. The amount of funding proposed by the government to be shared between Local Authorities and others would be truly laughable if the subject was not so serious in respect to public safety and animal welfare.
Dog Control
2. The announcement of another “consultation on dog legislation and dangerous dogs” came as something of a shock and major disappointment to those groups that have lobbied Government to carry out a long overdue overhaul of dog and animal related legislation for the benefit of the public and animals. Many groups and organisations actually worked in partnership to present a unified approach to this very important subject.
3. The impact of status dogs and their effects on communities could be tackled by Safer Neighbourhood Teams from the local Police, Dog Wardens and Animal Charities working together to reduce the “macho image” that youths seem to believe they have by having such a dog. There are several excellent schemes currently working on these very subjects around the country, although there is often a lack of partnership working amongst some Local Authorities and Police Forces for a variety of local reasons.
4. Although it will improve enforcers’ ability to identify owners of problem or dangerous dogs, compulsory microchipping will not stop one dog attack; as the saying goes amongst Dog Wardens, “it isn’t a particular dog that is the problem, it is the owner”. There is around a 40% failure rate amongst microchips that have indeed been implanted but the details have not been submitted by either the implanter or the dog owner to the relevant database. Dog owners move house or may even give their dog away and the microchip details are subsequently not updated. Stray dogs with the incorrect details are just as unidentifiable as a dog without the legally required collar and tag with the name and address of the owner upon it. Organisations lobbying for microchipping as the “be all end all” solution to the plethora of problems caused by stray dogs neglect to mention in their argument that even when a dog has been seized by a Local Authority, there is a requirement to pay statutory fees and charges before the dog is returned. There is a misleading suggestion that a dog will be found, scanned and returned quickly to its owner, this is not the case with the majority of Local Authorities who require payment of statutory fees and charges before the dog is released.
5. NDWA believes that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be extended to include offences committed on private property if the victim is at the location by agreement with the occupier or they are delivering an item or they are there as a requirement of their work. Any trespassers or burglars or those intent on nefarious activity should be exempted under the legislation. If a person is murdered or seriously assaulted at a property, the police do not advise that it happened on private property, the same should apply to dog related incidents on private property even if it is a member of the dog owner’s family, such as the tragic incidents in Liverpool that resulted in the deaths of children. Adding private property to the current legislation would close the loop hole where dog owners cannot be held to task for their irresponsible actions in not preventing a dog attacking a person.
6. The proposals ignore Local Authority Dog Warden Services; an adequately resourced and funded Dog Warden Service promotes responsible dog ownership on a daily basis, even advising one person about a minor dog related infringement is a proactive approach to educating irresponsible dog owners. Partnership working between Animal Charities and Dog Warden Services already exists and it should remain so for the promotion of responsible dog ownership and animal welfare. A Big Society approach to anybody becoming involved with promoting responsible dog ownership is fine, but the irresponsible dog owners targeted by Dog Warden Services come from within the very community that DEFRA is asking to help out. An irresponsible dog owner is not from one defined class or socio-economic group (although many people believe this to be so). The majority of responsible dog owners come from all of these groups as do irresponsible dog owners.
7. What role do the police have with stray dogs since the amendment of the Dogs Act 1906 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which removed police responsibility for dealing with stray dogs? Local Authority Dog Warden Services on behalf of the relevant Local Authority enforce the statutory function of dealing with stray dogs. As that is interpreted by some Local Authorities to mean solely that, a lot of educational and enforcement work that ultimately benefits responsible dog ownership in an area has been lost. The short sightedness of some Local Authorities fails to see the benefit of having a full Dog Warden Service. Not all Animal Charities who have no legislative or enforcement role will help out Dog Warden Services for a variety of reasons. Some of these charities use statistics on the number of dogs destroyed to beat Dog Warden Services for political reasons. Rather than constantly blaming local authorities, there should be a working group set up that will address how local government and the animal charity sector can work in partnership to address the problem of stray dogs. Some Animal Charities stopped working with local authorities and denied them kennelling facilities to force the issue with the Government and make Local Authorities address the issue of stray dogs. In regard to who will enforce low level dog related issues such as straying, dog fouling, enforcement of dog by-law infringements etc, it is the Dog Warden or other Local Authority Authorised officer. Certain organisations have barely mentioned the role of the Dog Warden in the enforcement regime yet simplify the enforcement route in relation to who would deal with non-compliance with the requirement to have a dog implanted, just who do they believe will enforce non-compliance, the police who lobbied for years to relinquish their role with stray dogs?
8. There is a totally understandable lack of willingness on the part of Local Authorities to not deal with something if they do not need to and therefore save resources and funding. Where the Government introduces legislation that gives powers rather than duties to Local Authorities, the Local Authority will be inclined not to use it, especially when they are experiencing fierce spending cuts. Examples are the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which very few Councils enforce, and the DEFRA guidance pertaining to section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 that expects a Council to provide an out of hours stray dog service only “where practicable”.
9. Without adequate resources, funding and direction of Dog Warden Services, many Local Authorities will be able to provide little more than a collection service of stray dogs and the important ancillary functions of education and enforcement will not be carried out for a plethora of reasons. A fundamental review of Local Authority Dog Warden Services needs to be carried out to investigate just what level of education and enforcement is available to Local Authorities. A statutory requirement that Local Authorities are the primary lead on the enforcement of all aspects of dog control should be given consideration as a method of standardising dog control. All Local Authorities should also have the statutory responsibility to appoint Inspectors authorised to enforce the Animal Welfare Act 2006 who would be able to issue legally binding Improvement Notices to deal with animal welfare related matters immediately. These Local Authority Inspectors could then offer a partnership approach with the RSPCA Inspectorate and jointly improve animal welfare within a specific Local Authority jurisdiction.
Dog Welfare
10. There has been a noticeable response by dog breeders through their various organisations and groups as there has been by the Veterinary profession, although there is room for improvement and robust enforcement by Local Authorities.
11. DEFRA should investigate the setting up of a government organisation that will carry out direct enforcement or at least the raising of a local government department that can have the relevant authority but remain independent of but work in partnership with, those Local Authorities that it is carrying out enforcement action and educational work with. The aim of the department should be to raise animal welfare and good practice amongst dog breeders and work with Local Authorities to crack down on puppy breeders who barely meet the minimum required standards for the breeding and care of dogs.
12. Improved training of Animal Health and Animal Welfare Inspectors is required, in some Local Authorities these may be persons appointed who do not necessarily have any affinity with animals or in the most extreme case are afraid of a particular species that they are expected to protect via their licensing procedures. Regardless of a person’s actual level of knowledge, they are appointed to the role through their job title or appointment. All Local Authorities should be required by statute to adopt the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as mentioned above. A lot of Local Authorities did not adopt the Animal Welfare Act 2006 because there was “nothing in it for them” as well as they did not “have to” adopt it. Many Local Authorities also interpreted the “where practical” wording in the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 regarding the requirement to have a twenty four hour stray dog collection service as literally a get out clause that allowed them to NOT have such a service as it was deemed “not practical” by Local Authorities. Any DEFRA advice or instruction regarding any legislative changes needs to offer no ambiguity in what is required of a Local Authority’s responsibilities and duties in respect of dog control and animal welfare.
June 2012