Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by BVA and BSAVA
1. The BVA (British Veterinary Association) and BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association) welcome the opportunity to provide input to the EFRA Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.
2. The BVA is the national representative body for the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom and has over 13,000 members. Its primary aim is to protect and promote the interests of the veterinary profession in this country. The BSAVA is the largest specialist division of the BVA and of the veterinary profession. It represents approximately 8,500 members, the majority of whom are in general practice and have an interest in the health and welfare of small companion animals, namely cats and dogs.
3. In preparing this response the BVA has also consulted with its Welsh and Scottish branches.
4. While we support the individual proposals put forward in the draft Bill we do see the package as a missed opportunity to introduce consolidated legislation and preventive measures.
Keeping Dogs under Proper Control
5. We support the proposal to extend the current offence of having a dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place to cover private property (with appropriate protection for householders whose dog attacks an intruder). We also support the extension of the offence to cover attacks on assistance dogs. As mentioned in our previous response to the EFRA Committee on Dog Control and Welfare, consideration should also be given to extending the legislation to cover attacks on other protected animals (as defined by the Animal Welfare Act).
6. However, we do have some concerns in relation to the wording of the draft Bill and in particular the definition of “a householder case”. As drafted, (1B)(a) suggests that D only has a defence if they were in the building (or partly in the building) when the dog was dangerously out of control towards a trespasser. As many incidents of trespassing occur when the owner/keeper of the dog is away from the property, we feel that D should not have to be present to avail themselves of the defence. Also, (1B) (a) refers to D being in a building or a part of a building and we question whether the defence would apply if D was, for example, in the garden?
Whether a Dog is a Danger to Public Safety
7. We also support the proposal that a Court must consider a range of issues including the character of the owner or keeper, as well as the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour, along with any other relevant circumstances when deciding whether a dog should be destroyed due to an offence under section 1 or 3(1) of the 1991 Act.
8. However in those cases where the character/behaviour of the owner/keeper of the dog is found to be a major factor to the dog being a danger to public safety, provision should be made for independent assessment of the dog and its suitability for re-homing before a destruction order is issued.
9. If the owner is found not to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of a dog measures should be put in place to stop them getting another dog.
10. While these proposals may be a proportionate response once a dog behaves dangerously, it is unlikely to be effective as it contains no preventive measures. We would prefer to see the introduction of a range of preventive measures, such as Dog Control Notices.
11. For further information, please find attached at Annex A, a letter signed by the BVA and a number of other welfare organisations in response to the dog control elements of the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
12. The BVA-BSAVA response to the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill can be found at: http://www.bva.co.uk/Consultations/Documents/BVA-BSAVA-response-to-the-Draft-Anti-Social-Behaviour-Bill.pdf.
13. We would also like to refer the Committee to our response to their inquiry on Dog Control and Dog Welfare can be found at: http://www.bva.co.uk/Consultations/Documents/BVA-BSAVA%20response%20to%20EFRA%20Com%20Inquiry.pdf.
April 2013