Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Simon JR Adams BSc, BVMS, MRCVS, Veterinarian and Welfare Adviser
Simon J R Adams, originator of the BVA-AWF/RSPCA Standard Puppy Sales Contract, whilst Trustee of the BVA-AWF (until November 2011). Chairman of the Association of Greyhound Track Vets (AGTV). Founder member of Dogs First/Pedigree Dogs Exposed, dog welfare reform lobby group.
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
I believe the Governments current approach will not deliver a workable solution. My concern is that they are listening only to vested money interests in dog control ie Police on one side and dog charities on the other, who are all jockeying for position to have financial control of a new Dog Licence.
I believe there is a much simpler alternative that will allow the public via the courts to effectively “police” dog control rather than the authorities, at no cost to state, merely to dog owners, as would seem appropriate. The original Standard Puppy Sales Contract I produced was designed to enable the public to seek legal compensation for both irresponsible; Dog Breeders; and Dog owners (ie includes dangerous dogs, stock worrying, barking, dog fouling, causes of RTA’s etc, etc).
To effect this control mechanism, all that Government need to do is to make Microchip identification of all dogs, and a minimal pet insurance policy compulsory for all UK Dog Owners from a specific Date. The minimal Pet Insurance should be specified and negotiated with the UK Pet Insurance Industry to include three essential components: No win-no fee, legal cover (so that anyone who buys an unhealthy puppy can sue the breeder); plus third Party liability cover (so that anyone injured by the owners dog can sue them for damages); plus an emergency welfare veterinary cover, to ensure that any injured dog can at least get emergency veterinary treatment, (at least humane euthanasia available at the nearest vet).
This “catch all” simple package should reform all forms of irresponsible dog ownership and dangerous dog problems very quickly, using existing consumer protection legislation. See Appendix I attached at the end of this document for a more detailed explanation.
Concerns about the Welfare of Dogs linked to Breeding Approaches
There has been little real change since Pedigree Dogs Exposed was first televised four years ago. The solution outlined above would quickly and effectively close all Puppy farms and remove irresponsible Pedigree Dog breeders equally, as they would be sued out of existence.
The major problem is the Governments continued support of the Kennel Club as the current Regulatory Body. The Kennel Club cannot ever fulfill this regulatory role in dog breeding as it is utterly compromised by its members ie Pedigree Dog Breeders. This is therefore merely Self-regulation which never works.
We need a new Regulatory Body for Pedigree dogs, entirely independent of the the current pedigree dog breeders club, ie the Kennel Club.
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?
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, unless the proposed Puppy contract linked with compulsory Microchipping and Minimal Pet Insurance package, proposed above, is developed by Government.
Is sufficient action being taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities?
No, the proposed package will enable the public to effectively use the courts to sue owners of aggressive dogs.
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?
No, better to make microchipping compulsory for all dogs from a specific date, so that improvements are instant as opposed to taking 15 years to become effective.
Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property?
Yes.
Are Defra’s proposals for wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership sufficiently ambitious?
Unlikely to be effective. Using the Standard Dog Sales contract, owners sign to prove that they have all relevant dog knowledge and so can be held accountable by law.
Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime?
No, very confused. RSPCA should have statutory powers to seize dogs, as in many other countries.
Dog Welfare
In respect to concerns expressed in Professor Bateson’s report over poor welfare that has arisen in the course of breeding dogs:
1. Has the response by dog breeders and the veterinary profession been effective?
No, the Kennel Club (KC) has used it’s influence to minimise the veterinary professions ability to respond effectively (ex member of the BVA Dog Breeding Reform Stakeholder group). KC cannot fulfill a regulatory body role due to conflict of interest with their Pedigree Breeder membership.
2. What actions should Government take to address these issues?
Appoint a new Dog Breeding Regulatory Body independent of the Kennel Club. Use the proposed Package of Dog Sales Contract and compulsory microchipping and insurance cover to enable the public (consumers) to “police” and the courts to enforce via litigation.
3. Are further controls required on dog breeders, including puppy farms, and those selling or importing dogs to ensure the welfare of bitches and puppies?
Not if the proposed package is developed, otherwise yes a huge and complicated mass of legislation changes.
APPENDIX I
The Potential Benefits of a Pet insurance link-up to enable and potentiate the effect of a Standard Puppy Sales Contract
With reference to the Standard Puppy Contract, the real benefit for Government may well be, that if we can persuade them to consider making, at least, 3rd party Liability Insurance a must by law, under the AWA for Dogs (at first)? Then this could be an effective alternative to the “Politically Courageous” and potentially highly unpopular, re-instigation of both the Dog license, and DDA, without the need for a costly and v unpopular Controlling Body to oversee and issue licensing. I believe that this is at the bottom of all the wrangling and posturing by KC and stakeholders, who all want to control this potentially lucrative new body and obtain absolute power by default.
The whole issue of Dangerous Dogs and Irresponsible Dog owners, and Breeders, is slowly but surely pushing Gov down this route to win this “goal” for the main political lobbyers, as I’m sure KC, DT and RSPCA see it?!
How the Standard Puppy Contract with Insurance link up could be a viable, cheap and effective alternative, which promotes Animal Welfare Standards too?
If the Gov can appreciate that all they have to do, is to extend to Dog Buyers a legal requirement to have their Dogs covered by third party (at least) Insurance (annual premium cover, just like buyers of cars under Consumer law). Then this effectively becomes a dog license controlled and run, at no cost to Government by the Insurance Industry. It protects the public from dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners at one stroke who can be held accountable and sued effectively, when appropriate. Obviously the Insurance Industry will benefit as all dog owners need to have cover. The Quid Pro quo from the insurance Industry, would be that with Gov backing and pressure, that they could also be persuaded to also provide a “basic” default health cover plan, to say cover RSPCA/PDSA vet cover contributions, plus a “bolt on”, “off the shelf” legal “No win No Fee Cover” to enable any litigation over inherited diseases when necessary. This Default base Insurance package, could be the minimum with their existing Premium Pet Health Cover packages as the top of the line, where any practice could be used. Obviously we would want the more expensive premium packages to all provide these three covers too (ie third party liability, no win no fee for inheritable diseases and more elaborate Pet cover).
How Does the Standard Puppy Contract Fit in?
The new owner, legally acknowledges and signs to agree to the standard owners conditions of the contract, which is that:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Thus most of the current difficulties of proving dog ownership in cases of liability prosecution are overcome via the Sales contract (effectively duplicated and recorded with microchip and held on a central database.) If a dog changes ownership they use the Standard puppy Contract and send a copy off to the microchip database to re-register the new owner of that dog. If they don’t then any liability defaults to them, just in the same way as selling a car, but you don’t need the DVLA, just the microchip database, which is already there.
If you like, the Puppy contract also acts to prove the owner understands their commitments and has legally signed to acknowledge this , like an “Anesthetic permission form” preventing them from claiming “I didn’t know”, or “the dog isn’t mine”, which is how currently owners avoid their responsibilities under the current law, leading to all the current problems.
In summary, the Standard puppy sales Contract, ties the dog to an existing identifiable owner for legally accountable purposes and allows the authorities or courts to hold them accountable
I realise that this still amounts to an annual “tax” on dog ownership, but it ensures that the fee protects the public and covers basic welfare costs for that dog if it needs treatment. The insurance companies and courts will regulate and oversee the system as opposed to a costly alternative DOG LICENSING body where the funds will be used to run the Licensing quango and the individual dogs and will not see a penny and get no benefit.
I see this as a viable win:win scenario for all, to facilitate responsible Dog Breeding, ownership and improved welfare cover for all UK Dogs at one stroke. All the Government has to do is make third party Insurance cover mandatory under the AWA, with no further costs to the public purse!
Why The KC’s ABS cannot achieve this?
It is “exclusive”, as opposed to “inclusive” ie only the “Top” small percentage of Pedigree dogs would be protected by a much less stringent ABS. Actually the ABS and Standard Puppy Contract can be rolled out “Hand in Hand” if you like, as long as they have the same Standard Base legal format. Obviously the ABS, would probably be more elaborate and probably less “balanced” and more of a Breeders Disclaimer! However, at least all dog buyers , as opposed to only some Pedigree buyers, would be protected and so by default their dogs!
Why not just do this via a Dog license?
You could, but then you lose the benefits to another nightmare Quango who will be ineffective and screw it all up again! And most importantly to the Gov, it will turn all dog owners against them!!!
I hope I have made this clear? Am I mad, or isn’t this a viable solution to all the current dog problems? At least I have had the opportunity to explain all this.
June 2012