Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the National Dog Warden Association
The National Dog Warden Association has the following comments in relation to the EFRA Committee Sixth Report.
Dangerous Dogs
The issue of protecting the public from dog attacks is not as straight forward as simply blaming current Dangerous Dog legislation. What is to blame is a lack of will on the part of the prosecuting authorities whether Police or Local Government to carry out enforcement. There is also a lack of financial will to adequately resource Dog Warden Services although funding was found for more Police Dog Legislation Officer training. There is a culture of passing responsibility whether it be a Local Authority advising a dog owner that the Police are the correct authority to deal with an incident and vice versa down to the almost standardised Police response to a dog that is out of control in a public place that may have attacked another dog as being a “dog on dog” incident. The dog whether or not it has bitten a human being is still out of control in a public place. What needs to be addressed is who deals with what in regard to prosecuting dog related offences. Many Police and Local Authorities have Memoranda of Understanding in place to deal with dog related issues, unfortunately not everyone who is involved on both Local Authority and Police sides will necessarily know what to do. This may simply down to a lack of information dissemination both internally and between both parties.
There needs to be clearer instruction on which authority deals with what legislation, low level incidents by Local Authorities and more serious incidents by the Police is the accepted norm. ACPO guidance was followed by many Local Authorities and Police forces but this guidance has apparently been rescinded?
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Again a further lack of will by prosecuting authorities to enforce legislation relating to (all) dogs acting dangerously is the main issue and not just prohibited breeds. Local Authorities cannot enforce the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 without the written authorisation of the local Chief Police Officer. How many Local Authorities will willingly take on something that will result in a cost to their own budgets, namely prosecuting in court the owners of dogs that have attacked livestock? Another area of concern to NDWA is the low adoption figure by Local Authorities of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. An estimate of under 10% of Local Authorities adopting this legislation is in the right area. The legislation is indeed an excellent tool to promote responsible animal ownership and stewardship but because there was nothing in it financially (funding) for Local Authorities, many did not adopt it. Whilst all Police Constables are authorised under this Act, very few Local Government Officers are. This means a charity such as the RSPCA has to work with the police to seize animals. If every Local Authority had a statutory duty to appoint an officer to be an Animal Welfare Act 2006 Inspector, Local Authorities and the RSPCA could work in closer cooperation for the benefit of animal welfare. This approach would save on police resources as the Local Authority Animal Welfare Act 2006 Inspector would be able to issue statutory notices on an animal owner rather than the RSPCA serving their advisory only ones and escalating non compliance upwards. A cost-neutral solution would be for all Local Authorities to have a statutory duty to adopt the Animal Welfare Act 2006. This approach would give every Local Authority an authorised inspector who could act immediately to force an immediate improvement in animal welfare. For those Local Authorities who would merely have an inspector but would not want to enforce the legislation, this person could work with local RSPCA officials to improve animal welfare. As Dog Wardens and Animal Welfare Officers by the very nature of their role work closely with animals and the RSPCA, it may be wise to recommend that these officers are authorised as inspectors.
Training could be arranged in accordance with the Governments own recommendation on shared training between Local Authorities to save money or the RSPCA be approached to provide training in relation to joint working practices.
Some Local Authorities do not have the resources nor finances to offer full Dog Warden/Animal Welfare Services, so the fact that legislation is accessible to all is meaningless if there is no compulsion to enforce it due to a lack of available funding and resources.
Legislation to cover attacks on private land (less for intruders or trespassers) is welcomed. When a murder takes place, the Police do not say it has happened on private land so no charges will be forthcoming.
There should be no opening of the list of prohibited breeds to add any more. As mentioned the Secretary of State already has the discretion to add breeds. By opining on the opening of the list, does this mean the Government is considering adding new breeds. If this is to be, who has decided on what additional breeds are to be added.
Attacks on Assistance Dogs
This to be equated with an attack on a person and be unequivocally considered an aggravated attack. Many Police forces currently class dogs attacking other dogs in public as “dog on dog” and therefore do not deal with these incidents? Any attack on an Assistance Dog and especially on Guide Dogs is horrific but surely all dog owners and the general public should be protected from dogs dangerously out of control in public regardless of whether a person, an Assistance Dog or an ordinary dog are attacked? One Police force recently seized a dog that had attacked another dog in a “dog on dog” situation after much publicity on social media sites, why is this not a standard approach across all Police forces.
Microchipping
There is an air of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” regarding microchipping, unfortunately the government has only listened to organisations that whilst waxing lyrical on how the microchip is the solution to stray dogs, dangerous dogs and many other animal welfare issues have failed to gauge how enforcement to ensure compliance will be carried out. There was a very poor press release from DEFRA extolling the benefits of the microchip in cutting the number of stray dogs on the streets. It unfortunately painted a picture of packs of stray dogs wandering around the country which is simply not the case. Many stray dogs are out on the street because of accidentally escaping, being wilfully let out to wander or indeed may have been abandoned by an irresponsible owner. It also misguides the public regarding the process of reclaiming a dog that a Local Authority may have seized. Whilst microchipping may indeed result in faster reunification between dog and owner, it glosses over the fact that there will be a statutory charge of £25, kennel charges and possibly other costs that must be paid before a dog is returned. This procedure is enshrined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which DEFRA should at least be aware of.
Will the Police really have a role to play regarding microchipping? When it appeared that the Police were going to be enforcers of mandatory microchipping, this elicited amusement amongst Dog Wardens.
When it appeared that Local Authorities would be the proper authority to enforce at no extra cost as they already deal with stray dogs, it was apparent that whatever organisation advised the government on enforcement had little or no actual concept of how the enforcement would actually be carried out. Local Authorities are hard pressed to provide many services at present, will they be able to deliver enforcement of mandatory microchipping when no funding is available.
If a dog owner receives an ultimatum to have their dog implanted within two weeks or face prosecution, if the owner fails to comply, will a Local Authority take that owner to the Magistrates Court or simply ignore non compliance due to a lack of finance to bring a prosecution.
Multiply this scenario by even ten non compliant dog owners and just one Local Authority faces a large legal bill to bring dog owners to Court.
Even free microchips are of no interest to dog owners if they have an objection to having their dogs implanted for some reason. There are some dog owners who do not even have their animals vaccinated because they do not want a needle to be used on their dogs.
It seems the government has been advised to introduce mandatory microchipping but should not be too concerned about the actual enforcement for non compliance. There is already much dog related legislation that is not enforced mainly due to cost implications to the enforcers, why introduce more legislation that will not be enforced fairly across the country thus producing a postcode lottery with enforcement and compliance.
Some Local Authorities have excellent Dog Warden Services that are properly funded, others have an officer who may only deal with dogs as a secondary role due to having a primary non-dog role. There used to be lots of fit for purpose Dog Warden Services between the years 1990–2010 but due to the current economic climate many are now no more which has resulted in some areas having nothing but a collection service for stray dogs. The ancillary but equally important promotion of responsible dog ownership through a combination of education and enforcement has been lost as a result of this loss of services.
The Accuracy of Data held on a Dog Microchipping Database be Placed on the Current Owner
There are a plethora of reasons why microchips have incorrect details or are not even registered, sometimes due to the incompetence of implanters themselves or the fact that unscrupulous implanters will indeed implant an animal but will never register the microchip. Inaccuracy of data processing can also result in incorrect data being uploaded onto a database. DEFRA are apparently unconcerned about foreign microchip details being recorded on UK databases. If EU citizens come to live and work in the UK surely their animals microchip details should be recorded on a UK database. Anecdotal evidence from Dog Wardens shows that some stray dogs with a non-UK microchip register will have no point of contact within the UK, information for dog owners in Eastern Europe, France, Spain and the United States of America are of little use to a Dog Warden standing in a street in the UK with a dog that is microchipped but has no UK contact details. There also needs to be more support from databases when this happens, on occasion a database will simply give the Dog Warden an email address or telephone number for a European database whilst on the other hand one database will actually contact overseas databases to help the Dog Warden find an owner to contact.
Some microchip implanters expect the dog owner to send the registration paperwork off when a dog has been implanted. It is possible to now upload information from the implanter to the microchip providers database via computer, all microchip implanters should be required to upload owner details to the database of the microchip provider to ensure registration is correctly carried out.
Resourcing and Training
DEFRA provided funding for Police Dog Legislation Officers but nothing for Local Authority Dog Wardens. Dog Wardens have to deal with aggressive dogs of all breeds and types in the course of their duties. DEFRA appears to think that all dangerous dogs are solely dealt with by the police. Sometimes the police call in Dog Wardens to assist with aggressive dogs as they carry the appropriate equipment and have knowledge and skills to handle such dogs. The confusion is that the term dangerous dogs in government publications seems to relate to prohibited breeds, in reality it can be any dog of any breed or size that is out of control in a public place. A dog may turn aggressive due to fear, anxiety, distress or mishandling by a finder especially if it is in a situation to which it is not accustomed to.
The National Dog Warden Association has worked with the Kennel Club on devising a training qualification module for Dog Wardens via the Kennel Club Accredited Instructor scheme which has been specifically created to set the standards for those who work with dogs professionally. This qualification is currently the only City and Guilds level accreditation available for Dog Wardens and it is hoped that it will be the benchmark to recognise competent Dog Warden skills.
Instead of funding animal welfare charities to work with Local Authority Antisocial Behaviour Teams, the government should provide ring fenced funding for extra Dog Wardens to work with such teams as is the norm in most Local Authorities. Most Dog Warden Services are located with Environmental Protection Departments and provide advice and support regarding, stray dogs, barking dogs, animal hoarding, accumulation of animal faeces, aggressive dogs and general nuisance caused by dogs.
To bring in government funded dog welfare charities into such teams duplicates the work and interaction of current Dog Warden Services. Instead of funding the dog welfare charities who have no enforcement jurisdiction, why not give consideration to providing funding for Dog Wardens.
Home Office ASB Measures & DCN’s
As the current trend is to reduce or even decimate Dog Warden Services for a plethora of reasons where will any expert dog knowledge come from in regard to who will issue DCNs at a Local Authority.
The fact that both the Home Office and DEFRA have separate responsibilities for dog related issues shows that the approach to dealing with dog issues is already diluted and fragmented at central government level.
As mentioned previously a majority of Local Authorities have not adopted the Animal Welfare Act 2006, this negates the effectiveness of this legislation to protect animals at a Local Authority level.
There needs to be one point of contact in Government to provide continuity, leadership and guidance for dog and animal related legislation.
The Local Government Association has on its website best practice notes for Dog Behaviour Contracts (DBC) created by Local Government Officers from Eastleigh Borough Council in Hampshire and now used across Hampshire by other Local Authorities to control dog behaviour where there is a risk to the safety of the public. These Dog Behaviour Contracts are also used by Hampshire Constabulary and as an example of best practice partnership working can be signed by the dog owner and the Police or Local Authority or by all three parties.
Further information on DBC’s can be found at:
http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/regulatory-services-and-licensing/-/journal_content/56/10171/3711072/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE
Insurance
Both the committee and the government have misunderstood the fact that many dog owners already have some form of specialist dog insurance and some Home Insurance policies may also include third party insurance for dog related incidents. By forcing those dog owners who have no form of insurance to obtain dog insurance as a mandatory requirement, this offers protection for their own dogs and should their dogs cause accident or injury there would be recompense available for victims. It is interesting that NDWA has called since 2009 for a form of licensing connected with a requirement to have at least third party cover and now the Dog Advisory Council and the Dogs Trust are studying data relating to insurance claims.
Dog Breeding
The proposal for those who breed more than two litters per year to be licensed as a breeder is welcomed by the NDWA.
This will address the issue of back street breeders who produce puppies solely for financial reasons with little or no regard for animal welfare. Such people may concentrate on vanity breeds or bull breeds and the over breeding of such dogs can flood an area with dogs, some of these dogs may then be associated with future dog related complaints as they are sold to unsuitable owners.
Again the Government is misled into believing that Local Authorities have adopted the Animal Welfare Act 2006, until Local Authorities are forced to adopt this legislation, there will be no blanket animal welfare cover across the country from Local Authorities.
The person who deals with the licensing of animal boarding establishments and breeding licences at a Local Authority should at least have a knowledge of the subject. Some officers have the primary role of taxi licensing or alcohol licensing, surely there needs to be appropriate training provided for such officers.
Dog Advertising, Selling & Buying
NDWA has worked with the internet site Preloved to address the issue of puppy farmers offering puppies for sale under 8 weeks of age via websites. The owner of the website was enthusiastic about this joint initiative and already had stringent checks in place. Other similar websites approached by NDWA were not interested in partnership working to promote improved animal welfare standards as they were a part of the self regulatory PAAG.
Summary
NDWA has advocated from the very start of its creation that education and enforcement are the best ways to promote responsible dog ownership in society and that Breed Specific Legislation is wrong.
There is a lack of will to enforce legislation amongst Local Authorities and many Dog Warden Services have already been decimated by Local Authorities. Whenever savings have been needed the Dog Warden Service is an easy target although it is one of only two statutory roles in a Local Authority.
The idea of funding dog welfare charities to work with ASB teams is an insult to the work of hard pressed Dog Wardens who already work with such teams to promote public safety and animal welfare. Instead of funding a charity that has no enforcement functions, why not fund Dog Warden’s who are legally mandated by legislation to control dogs.
Without clear guidance from whom ever, the Home Office or DEFRA, there will be no standard approach to enforcement of dog related legislation for the benefit of animal welfare and public safety.
NDWA doubts that mandatory microchipping will be robustly enforced, if it is to be, who will enforce it? Will the Police have a role in prosecuting non compliant dog owners? The Police themselves will surely admit that they lobbied for many years to be relieved of their responsibility for dealing with stray dogs, why would they wish to be involved with ensuring dogs have microchips.
The mention of the consideration of returning responsibility for stray dogs to the police is staggering. The Police would surely oppose such a move and some forces actually dismantled their stray dog kennels at Police stations. When the relinquishment of responsibility for strays was first raised NDWA at the time pointed out that the Police were the only authority with the manpower and infrastructure available to deal with stray dogs on a twenty four hour basis due to the very working arrangements of Police forces.
NDWA is disappointed that no Local Government representative involved in front line dog control has been called to give evidence to the EFRA Committee. Sadly apart from the Police officers called to give evidence regarding Dangerous Dogs, the other witnesses are from dog welfare charities and Guide Dogs for the Blind. These witnesses have no involvement with dog control at a Local Authority level and whilst they undoubtedly do great work in the field of dog and animal welfare, they have no enforcement responsibilities but are involved in advising the EFRA Committee and the government on how to introduce legislation and schemes that have a level of enforcement but their staff will not be carrying out any enforcement duties.
NDWA is appalled at the number of attacks on Guide Dogs and other Assistance Dogs but believes that whilst a new offence should be considered, ACPO should offer guidance to its members that the practice of Police forces classing aggressive dogs attacking other dogs as “dog on dog” attacks and taking no action should cease. In many of these situations dog owners and members of the public can become embroiled in trying to stop a fight and during the course of this can be injured. If the Police do not deal with dogs attacking other dogs in public but will prosecute dog attacks on Assistance Dogs, then this becomes selective legislation. There is no legislation that offers prosecution for people who assault one section of society but will not prosecute them if they assault another section of society.
There should be a standardised approach to deal with all incidents of dogs being out of control. If it is too time consuming for the Police then Local Authorities should be appropriately funded to enforce Dog Control Notices to protect public safety or to use Dog Behaviour Contracts which can be issued immediately based upon the dog owner agreeing to abide by the terms of the Dog Behaviour Contract.
An overhaul of how Local Authorities deal with dog control should be addressed and gaps in expertise or service provision be resolved. The ruse of having a minimum dog collection service that has no provision for dealing with dog related enforcement and the promotion of responsible dog ownership fails to address the issues and concerns of irresponsible dog ownership. An example of poor adherence to government legislation was the failure by many Local Authorities to organise Out of Hours Stray Dog Services to replace the gap created by Police relinquishment for responsibility for stray dogs. Once Local Authorities realised that provision was “where practical” as advised by the government, many used the term that it was “not practical” due to lack of funding or resources. Even Acceptance Points are misleading, if the finder of a dog is unable or unwilling to bring the dog to such an Acceptance Point and cannot hold the dog until the next day the dog is invariably let go to wander the streets again. Local Authorities can say they have a facility but should the finder of a dog be unable to bring it on foot or by motor vehicle to the Acceptance Point then it is not the local Authority’s fault.
Any new legislation needs to clearly show who the prosecuting authorities are. Any guidance needs to be written in such a way as to not provide enforcers with options to not have to adopt or comply with their obligations. Without simple legislation that has no ambiguity in relation to what is required from those tasked to enforce or comply, the current patchwork approach that exists across the country will continue.
April 2013