b
Dogs SCRUTINY COMMISSION
AGENDA
Date and Time: Wednesday, 14 th October 7 pm
Venue: Room 101, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1 RW
Scrutiny Officer contact:
Scrutiny Team Byron R. Green London Borough of Lambeth ( 020 792 62510 Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill Email: [email protected] London, SW2 1RW Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Despatched: Thursday, 7 th October 2009
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Councillors DIANA BRAITHWAITE, DAVID MALONE, IMOGEN WALKER and CLARE WHELAN
PAGE 2 AGENDA
Dogs Scrutiny Commission
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
1. INTRODUCTIONS AND APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. Welcome and discussion with external witnesses Response from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home Page 4 Scott Craddock, BDCH Director of Operations (Customer Services) Rob Jervis-Gibbons, BDCH Policy Officer Response from RSPCA, Chief Inspector Mark Miles Not yet Written response from Steve Pinner, MPS Strategic received Dogs Unit (unfortunately Steve has had to apologise)
4. Update on information requested at last meeting Confirmation that the revised tenancy conditions apply to all existing tenants as well as new tenants? Members briefing: Dogs, dog fouling, and control of Page 10 dogs Bye-laws for pleasure grounds etc Circulated separately 5. Animal Welfare Charter Page 14 Dave Bright, Head of Environmental Health 6. Microchipping and Scanning Page 23 Are the policies and processes for scanning microchips in place and are the right people properly resourced to complement the policy of encouraging their use. 7. General discussion Survey responses summary Still being processed
8. Preliminary recommendations and final members discussion to be agreed.
Background documents: Tower Hamlets and neutering – Page 23 Vets get scanning appeal – Page 30 Neutering – Page 31 RSPCA CAWF awards Page 33 PAGE 3 Bye-laws for pleasure grounds – separate file PAGE 4
Dogs Scrutiny Commission Terms of Reference
Terms of reference • To provide an avenue for public engagement and consultation in Lambeth around issues arising from dogs, including status dogs. • To understand the existing level of service, how it is organised, and the current proposals • To add value to the work already underway in the Safer Lambeth Partnership. • To investigate service provision elsewhere • A look at good practice locally such as an RSL and in the local community • To seek guidance from experts in the field • The commission should also focus on anti-social behaviour due to dogs, the prevention of animal cruelty, dealing with strays, preventing abandonment, examine how to support responsible owners, and promote responsible dog ownership . [Areas for questioning to include: What about the pet register? Sanctions? Enforcement? Changing ownership and micro-chipping. Examine Islington and Wandsworth policies – what would you change about them for Lambeth?] • To identify what is necessary for an fit for purpose service that can deal effectively with dogs and to develop recommendations in order to facilitate this.
Potential outcome/s • A fit for purpose service • Ensuring a strong lead and joined-up approach to the delivery of the strategy on dogs.
What will not be • Dog fouling will not be a major focus of this report. included
PAGE 5
b Scott Craddock, Operations Director (Customer Services) Rob Jervis-Gibbons, Policy Officer Battersea Dogs and Cats Home 4 Battersea Park Road London SW8 4AA
Lambeth Dogs Scrutiny Commission Questionnaire:
1. In your professional view does Lambeth currently have a problem with stray- dogs, dog related crime and anti-social behaviour involving dogs? For example the problem may include Dangerous Dogs Act Offences, organised dog fighting, the use of dogs as weapons, the use of dogs in organised crime, anti-social behaviour (including dog-fouling) or importantly dog cruelty offences. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.
Please explain your answer. For example, what is the extent of the problem and what sort of problems or offences are we now seeing in Lambeth? Is the problem(s) you identify getting better or worse?
Battersea Dogs & Cats Home (BDCH) is a charity that aims never to turn away a dog or cat in need of our help. We reunite lost dogs and cats with their owners and when we are unable to do this we care for them until new homes can be found for them. We operate an open intake policy, one that is becoming increasingly rare in the animal welfare sector. We accept dogs without prejudice and regardless of their history, breed, temperament or health status.
Lambeth has significant stray dog problems that need to be addressed. In 2008 Lambeth topped the list of London boroughs in terms of number of stray dogs received at BDCH. The Home has seen an increase in stray dog arrivals from Lambeth each year since 2006 as follows:
2006 196 dogs 2007 270 dogs 2008 340 dogs
Alarmingly a large proportion of these stray dogs are brought in by members of the public as there appears to be a far more limited provision for stray dog control in Lambeth as opposed to other London boroughs. In fact by operating only a 9-5 Monday-Friday service, Lambeth now offers residents less of a stray dog control Dogs Commission PAGE 6 service than when responsibility was jointly shared with the Met Police (pre 06 April 2008). This is borne out in our figures as follows:
2006 82 strays handed in by members of public 2007 127 strays 2008 186 strays
So far in 2009 we have taken in 186 stray dogs from Lambeth (39 via the borough’s animal warden, 31 from the police and 116 from the public). It is very concerning to still see far higher numbers of strays being handed in from members of the public, and such a large increase since 2006. This effectively amounts to a position where members of the public and BDCH are, by default, expected to plug the gap left by Lambeth’s limited stray control service.
The following is a breakdown by postcode of the origin of strays brought in by members of the public in Lambeth so far this year:
SE1 2 dogs SE11 9 SW8 17 SW4 11 SW12 1 SE4 0 SE5 5 SE21 1 SW16 8 SE19 2 SW9 28 SW2 19 SE27 13 Total 116
Of these 116 dogs, 36 were received during office hours (mon-fri 0900-1700) and 80 were received out of hours.
The following is a breakdown by police station of the strays that have arrived via Met Police in Lambeth so far this year:
Brixton 13 dogs Kennington 5 Streatham 10 Clapham 2 Gipsy Hill 1 Total 31
PAGE 7 2. Are you able to cite any particular experiences or cases you have dealt with and the lessons that can be learnt from these experiences or cases? We appreciate that the answer to this question may not be a matter for public consumption and we will without hesitation respect confidentiality and anonymity.
BDCH is taking greater responsibility for the care and welfare of out of hours stray dogs from Lambeth than the local authority itself. With its limited stray service, the local authority is unaware of the majority of stray dog cases, relying on BDCH to not only receive such dogs, but to document such cases and to pay for such dogs’ care/upkeep.
3. In your professional view, how seriously are problems and cases treated by the Council, Crown Prosecution Service, Metropolitan Police Service, the Court and other agencies involved?
As an animal welfare charity we work very closely with all our stakeholders in order to provide advice and assistance when appropriate and promote responsible ownership. BDCH welcomes Lambeth’s commitment to an animal welfare charter, however we would like to see this commitment backed up by support for a more robust stray service aimed at tackling the large numbers of stray dogs that appear to originate from the borough, as well as supporting much needed work on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare in general.
4. What, in your experience, is the range of sentences typically handed out to offenders?
The Home has no statutory responsibilities, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this matter.
5. What preventative and/or enforcement measures, if any, do you believe should be taken to resolve any problems? Who bears the responsibility for implementing such measures in Lambeth? The Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act (CNEA) 2005 passed all responsibility for stray dogs from the Police to Local Authorities. We would expect Lambeth to be taking more of a lead on stray dog issues, given that we received the highest number of strays from the borough in 2008.
We would expect the Council to continue to work closely with stakeholders in order to tackle the issues of dangerous dogs, criminal activity, status dogs and banned breeds.
Dogs Commission PAGE 8
6. Is there enough legislation to deal with dog-related problems?
There are currently 15-20 live Acts of Parliament on dog control. The Home is lobbying for a complete review of the current legislation, some of which dates from 1839.
In what ways can Lambeth Council better lead or assist the Court, Metropolitan Police Service Police, Crown Prosecution Service, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other agencies in dealing with any problems?
BDCH welcomes Lambeth’s commitment to an Animal Welfare Charter and its recognition for a stray dog service. However in saying this we would urge you to reconsider the hours of operation. Only a 24hr service provision for stray dogs would fully demonstrate a long-term commitment to the statement that the “The Council supports all current animal welfare legislation”.
Lambeth’s proposal to offer only a weekday 9am-5pm service would represent a more limited service than that offered prior to CNEA implementation, when the police handled out of hours strays, and would be one of the most limited services of all London boroughs.
Out-of-hours, members of the public and the Home will, by default, be expected to plug the gap in the service provision. This raises the following concerns:
• Members of the public would be expected to contain and/or transport a dog which they know nothing about to BDCH, and the dog could potentially be dangerous and/or a banned breed. • The suitability of transport used to get dogs to BDCH out of hours is not guaranteed, possibly compromising an animal’s welfare, especially since the animal is likely to be very stressed. • BDCH would in effect be continuing to make a significant unpaid contribution to Lambeth’s public duties in this area.
7. What more should the Courts, Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other agencies be doing to deal with any problems?
BDCH is grateful for the opportunity to be included in working groups set up by Lambeth council related to dog control/responsible ownership. We also continue to offer our support in terms of training and outreach work, as well as offering communications support to ensure that residents are fully informed as to the reporting procedures for lost and found dogs. The Home accepts stray dogs 24-hrs a day, from local authorities and members of the public, even though we are not legally obliged to do so. This policy continues to assist local authorities with their statutory responsibilities, sometimes free of charge. PAGE 9
8. Do you have anything further to add?
It is important that the Council does not overlook the irresponsible breeding of dogs as part of this process.
The Home has made a contribution to the recent consultation, undertaken by Lambeth Living, on revised Tenancy Agreements. We would strongly urge you to include in the new tenancy agreement prohibition on the breeding of dogs in Lambeth Council owned properties.
We firmly believe that irresponsible breeding, usually undertaken in private dwellings and/or outbuildings, is fuelling an unregulated amateur trade, thus increasing the numbers of unwanted and stray dogs.
This is providing easy channels of opportunity for the advertisement and sale of a dog for reasons such as increasing a person’s ‘status’ and use in criminal activities. We are lobbying the UK Government in order that they investigate this underworld of breeding and we have requested they review and identify potential areas of concern, especially where local authorities do not have the appropriate enforcement powers in this area.
Dogs Commission PAGE 10 Total Strays 2008 Total Dog Arrivals (stray & gift) 2008 Total Strays Total Dogs Local authority 2008 Local authority 2008 1 Lambeth 340 1 Lambeth 415 2 Greenwich 324 2 Greenwich 356 3 Lewisham 324 3 Lewisham 350 4 Hillingdon 321 4 Hillingdon 348 5 Bromley 283 5 Bromley 306 6 Southwark 266 6 Southwark 306 7 Bexley 264 7 Bexley 290 8 Brent* 237 8 Brent* 247 9 Waltham Forest 209 9 Waltham Forest 236 10 Redbridge 197 10 Wandsworth 216 11 Wandsworth 187 11 Merton 210 12 Merton 186 12 Redbridge 204 13 Haringey 175 13 Haringey 194 14 Ealing 159 14 Croydon 191 15 Hounslow 159 15 Hounslow 187 16 Barking & Dagenham 145 `16 Ealing 181 17 Croydon 144 17 Barking & Dagenham 161 18 Newham 137 18 Newham 155 19 Enfield 133 19 Islington 150 20 Islington 130 20 Hammersmith & Fulham 149 21 Tower Hamlets 130 21 Enfield 146 22 Hammersmith & Fulham 124 22 Tower Hamlets 141 23 Hackney 121 23 Kingston 140 24 Barnet 112 24 Hackney 137 25 Sutton 109 25 Barnet 133 26 Kingston 106 26 Sutton 131 27 Camden 101 27 Camden 120 28 Harrow 97 28 Harrow 103 29 Havering 79 29 Richmond 99 30 Richmond 79 30 Havering 84 31 Westminster 73 31 Westminster 82 32 Kensington & Chelsea 60 32 Kensington & Chelsea 68 33 City of London 7 33 City of London 9 Total Stray Dogs (London boroughs) 2008 5518 Total Dogs (London Boroughs) 2008 6245 average stray intake - 167 dogs (not including City of gift' dogs - handed in by owners London) wishing to transfer ownership to the *Brent - includes 161 strays taken in by Mayhew Animal Home Home PAGE 11 BRIEFING FOR CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT, LAMBETH COUNCIL
DOGS, DOG FOULING & CONTROL OF DOGS
AUTHORS: IAIN BOULTON Email: [email protected] ) Tel: 020 7926 6209 Fax: 020 7926 6201
A. INTRODUCTION
Prior to 2005 local authorities could make byelaws to control dogs on certain areas of land, and to prohibit the fouling of land by dogs through the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. Section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972 set out the byelaw-making process and required byelaws to be "confirmed" by the relevant authority before they had effect; those committing an offence under a dog byelaw risked a fine of up to £500 in court.
However, this system was considered costly and complicated to administer, and contained too many exclusions and ‘get out’ clauses, as well as problems in setting and enforcing penalty notices. For example, there was no powers to demand the name and address of a person, committing a dog fouling offence, when an officer was proposing to give a fixed penalty notice, and there was no offence for that person to fail to give this information or to give false or inaccurate information (i.e. a misleading name and address).
B. CLEAN NEIGHBOURHOODS & ENVIRONMENT ACT
The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA 2005) replaces the previous system of dog byelaws with a new system of "Dog Control Orders" (DCOs). This sets out offences relating to dogs, which can then be applied by local authorities in relation to designated land in their area. These offences include fouling by dogs (and therefore the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 can be repealed), but the new system also allows for other types of dog-related offences such as the keeping of dogs on leads in designated areas, exclusion of dogs from such areas, and the maximum number of dogs that a person may walk in an area.
C. DOG CONTROL ORDERS
CNEA 2005 provides for five offences which may be prescribed in a DCO:
(a) failing to remove dog faeces; (b) not keeping a dog on a lead; (c) not putting and keeping a dog on a lead when asked to do so by an officer; (d) permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded; (e) taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land.
CNEA 2005 states that DCOs may apply to all public land which is “open to the air, and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access with or without payment”. This would mean parks, commons, housing open spaces and the public highway would be suitable for being covered by DCOs for the above offences. Dogs Commission PAGE 12
D. MAKING DOG CONTROL ORDERS
The council may make Dog Control Orders provided they are satisfied an order is justified and have followed the right procedures. The offences and forms of orders are prescribed in schedules to the Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations and the exact wording of the description of the offence must be used. A DCO may be brought into force at least 14 days after it has been made and there is no requirement for these to be confirmed by the Secretary of State – the council has powers to confirm DCOs.
The procedure for making a DCO is set out in specified regulations, and it is important this procedure is adhered to since failure to do so invalidates them. The council must also be prepared to show that making DCOs is a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them.
The council must balance the interests of those in charge of dogs to have access to areas where they can exercise dogs without undue restrictions, against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs, particularly children who need access to dog-free areas or where dogs are under strict control. Failure to give due consideration could make any subsequent DCO vulnerable to challenge in the courts. The council should also consider how easy a DCO is to enforce, since failure to properly enforce undermines its effect. This is a particular issue for orders that exclude dogs completely from whole areas; it will be easier to enforce a DCO if the land it applies to is enclosed or special areas for dogs are provided.
D. PENALTIES & FIXED PENALTY NOTICES
CNEA 2005 and other material makes the penalty for committing an offence contained in a DCO as a maximum fine of level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1,000). Alternatively, there would be an opportunity to pay a fixed penalty in place of prosecution.
Amount of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs)
CNEA 2005 enables the council to specify the amount of a fixed penalty in relation to the DCOs made. It is also able to allow for payment of a lesser amount if the fine is paid within a specified time period. Where no amount is specified at the local level, the fixed penalty is set at £75, but other authorities are setting FPNs at around £50 for a single offence.
Powers to Issue FPNs
CNEA 2005 allows ‘authorised officers’ of the council, or an ‘authorised person working on their behalf’, to issue a FPN offering the public an opportunity to discharge any liability for offences under a DCO, i.e. agree to pay a fine of £50 rather than the full £1,000 penalty. Chief Police officers can authorise 'community support officers' and 'accredit' other persons under the Police Reform Act 2002 to issue FPNs on behalf of the police for certain offences specified in that act. This enables community support officers and other persons accredited by Chief Police officers to be given the power to issue fixed FPNs relating to dog offences.
Powers to Require Name and Address of Offenders
CNEA 2005 gives an authorised officer of the council the power to require a person whom they propose to give a fixed penalty notice, to provide them with a true name and address. It also makes it an offence for that person either to fail to give that information, or to give false or inaccurate information.
PAGE 13 E. KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION a) Do we want to make DCOs or not?
Lambeth Council needs to make a formal decision on whether the making and enforcing of DCOs offers officers and customers an effective means to control offences relating to dogs, and is ‘better than the existing situation’. There are a number of financial, legal, logistical and political implications to the process and council needs to be satisfied the benefits of a DCO-based system outweigh the disadvantages of initiating and delivering it.
Other local authorities have made or are making DCOs and it would be advisable that their experiences, and how they overcame any barriers or taken opportunities, is taken into account before the council commits time and financial resources to the procedure. It would be advisable to find out how long the process took and how much it cost these other authorities. b) How extensive will Lambeth’s DCOs be?
CNEA 2005 allows the council to make DCOs that cover not just dog fouling but also offences around dogs in restricted areas, number of dogs walked and dogs under control. Though it might be expedient to ‘bundle up’ all these offences under one process to ensure all possibilities are addressed in one go, it might be problematic if there are objections over where dogs can be allowed or not, which could slow down or derail the council’s good intentions.
One option might be to make DCOs dealing solely with dog fouling offences – which is universally popular and attracts widespread support, and then if these prove effective, to make DCOs which deal with other offences later. However, management and members would need to be aware of this policy and be prepared to support it against public concerns or demands. c) What will be the coverage of the DCOs?
DCOs can apply to public land which is open to the air, and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access. Therefore, the council could make DCOs that cover all public open areas, including parks, commons, housing land and the public highway.
The process for making DCOs is strict, and failure to comply exposes the council to legal challenge or their invalidation. There is no point in making DCOs if they can never be enforced because people refuse to comply with them, particularly if they have not been consulted, or alternative provision for walking dogs is not available or never offered. If we are to apply DCOs to our land, we must ensure their coverage and purpose is clear and sensible, and that all affected bodies – not just residents – are informed and consulted.
As regards DCOs relating to dog fouling offences, the general principle would be to make them applicable to all public areas, even where dogs are allowed for exercise (just because a person is allowed to exercise a dog doesn’t excuse them from picking up after the dog). In other words, this would be a ‘blanket DCO’ for the whole of the borough, and cover all public land.
However, where DCOs are proposed to exclude dogs, keep dogs under control or limit the number of dogs walked, the areas where they apply need to be carefully defined. Identifying and mapping out, as well as publicising and making any orders, will be a very labour- and time-consuming process, and involve a significant degree of communication and consultation otherwise critical areas might be missed out or inappropriate ones included in any prohibitions. Therefore, council needs to consider how widely it wants any DCOs to apply, where they would apply and for what offences. It also needs to ensure that, as regards excluding dogs from certain areas, legitimate dog walkers are provided with alternative areas for exercising dogs (either freely or under control depending on circumstances), and that these are available to the public not entailing excessive cost of travel, or where barriers to exclusion are created.
Dogs Commission PAGE 14 d) Who will lead on making DCOs?
Given dog offences in Lambeth affect all members of the community across all areas it would be preferable that the making of DCOs is undertaken at a corporate level, or at least with corporate sanction and resources for specific services to enact them. The main services affected by dog issues are Lambeth Housing (including Lambeth Living), Public Realm, Parks & Greenspaces, and these should lead on the process, with support and guidance from Legal Services, CYPS, ACS and Lambeth Borough Police. Council needs to make a decision on the lead service(s), and provide them with sufficient capacity and resources to deliver the process. e) Who will enforce DCOs?
In theory all officers of the council are authorised to enforce DCOs, issue FPNs and provide information to prosecute offenders under CNEA 2005, as would any persons working with the council, e.g. Lambeth Living employees, grounds maintenance contractors, and of course police constables and police community support officers. However, any such person needs to be properly trained in their enforcement, needs the resources to patrol, respond to incidents as reported, gather evidence and prosecute offenders, and needs to know that there will be appropriate legal and managerial support to deter or resolve offences and ensure the whole process is taken through to successful completion for every occasion. f) Where will the resources come from to make and enforce DCOs?
Making DCOs, including mapping, consultation, publicising and promoting, will have staffing and financial implications – officer time to manage and deliver, and funds to map, communicate and publicise, so that all options and issues are covered. Actually enforcing any DCOs will of course have a financial cost, in that staff need training (not just for issuing but also on the law, self- protection and gathering intelligence) and may need additional equipment (e.g. FPN books or electronic ticket systems, cameras, PPE). Council will need to be prepared to adequately fund the whole process and ensure that any income from the process is reinvested in the programme, to help provide value for money and improve capacity and performance. g) What are the limitations on DCOs?
i) DCOs cannot apply to ‘private land’ – land where the public do not have access, so any private estates or spaces where public access is not normally available could be excluded, and the public need to be aware of this. ii) DCOs do not extend to dangerous dogs or dogs dangerously out of control – this seems to remain as a police matter, with support from dog wardens. Such dogs may have ‘owners’ who are not willing to respond to any DCOs and so stronger, police- managed, measures may still be necessary and have to be resourced. iii) Stray dogs are the responsibility of the council through a dog warden scheme, or if it has partnership agreements with a dog rescue and re-homing charity. Council still needs to ensure it has sufficient resources to recover stray dogs, and DCOs do not exempt the council from managing this issue. PAGE 15 London Borough of Lambeth
Animal Welfare Charter Ver 2.2
Contact Officer: Dave Bright, Head of Environmental Health
Statement of Intent
1.0 This charter has been adopted by the London Borough of Lambeth to reflect the concerns of local people who care about animal welfare and any cruel treatment, abuse or neglect of animals.
1.1 The Council supports the view that all animals have a right to life free from cruel treatment and unnecessary suffering.
1.2 The Council recognises that animals are capable of feeling, capable of enjoying a state of well being and equally capable of suffering. Therefore the Council considers that the owners and keepers are responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are met.
These include the need:
• For a suitable environment (place to live) • For a suitable diet • To exhibit normal behaviour patterns • To have appropriate company (be housed with, or apart from, other animals) • To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease
1.3 This charter does not cover every aspect of animal welfare, but it does aim to detail those areas the Council considers important and where it feels it can have some influences as a responsible and representative public body.
1.4 The Council supports all current animal welfare legislation.
1.5 The Council expects animal owners to respect the rights of other people, to clear up after their dogs, to observe restrictions such as dog free areas and prevent nuisance, alarm or damage to property or the environment generally.
1.6 The animal welfare charter will be reviewed regularly and if necessary revised from time to time to reflect changes in legislation and to address the needs of the local community.
Statutory Duties
2.0 Under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, the Council has a sole statutory responsibility for stray dogs. This means, as a minimum, providing a dog wardening service between Monday - Friday 9 am – 5 pm and an out-of-hours reception service where practicable.
2.1 The Council will ensure that all strays found in the borough are treated humanely and are not subjected to any further pain or suffering, including stress.
2.3 The Council will have a clear policy for the treatment of injured or sick stray dogs found both during and outside of office hours.
2.4 All officers charged with dog wardening duties will be trained in basic dog handling and behaviour by a recognised organisation.
2.5 All advice and information on stray dog services in the borough will be both consistent and widely available.
Dogs Commission PAGE 16
2.6 All dogs will be thoroughly checked for identification and if possible returned to their owner. Otherwise strays will be transferred to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. If unclaimed after 7 days they will be considered for rehoming or destroyed.
2.7 Advice and information on responsible dog ownership will be provided to owners of all dogs that are directly returned to the owner by the Council.
2.8 The Council also has a statutory duty to licence animal establishments within the Borough, these being:
• Pets Shops • Dog Breeding Establishments • Dog and Cat Boarding Establishments (including Home Boarding) • Riding Establishments • Owners of Dangerous Wild Animals • Zoos • Performing Animals
2.9 The Council will continue to work in partnership with City of London Corporation to ensure that the premises comply with the published guidance and model licence conditions Annual inspections will be undertaken when licences are granted or renewed and unannounced visits made to ensure that the licence conditions are being adhered to and that animal welfare needs are met, as defined under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 “Duty of care” (Section 9).
Council Policies
Domestic and Captive Animals
Responsible Pet Ownership
3.0 The Council strongly advises that anyone thinking of getting a pet should have good knowledge and / or take professional advice on the care of such animals before acquiring them. It is a licence condition of pet shops within the Council that pet care leaflets or other similar written instructions must be made available to customers free of charge before purchase and that proper advice on the care of the animal must be given. Where appropriate the pet should be identified with its owner e.g. micro chipping. It is a legal requirement that all dogs wear a collar and tag with identifying name and address when out in a public area. Consideration should be given to neutering the animal to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There should be regular health checks, including vaccinations where required. Animal waste should be safely and hygienically disposed of. Pet owners are encouraged to control their animals properly to avoid the possibility of them causing annoyance or distress to members of the public or other animals.
Dogs
3.1 The Council liaises with other organisations to promote responsible dog ownership by:
• Arranging free of charge dog micro-chipping events. Microchipping is actively encouraged and promoted by the Council as it ensures quick return of the animal to it’s owner. • Promoting low cost neutering in conjunction with local veterinary practices and the RSPCA. • Developing the Borough Action for Responsible K9’s (BARK) project; a multi agency group which proactively encourages responsible dog ownership and tackles irresponsible dog owners. PAGE 17 • Promoting animal welfare by distributing animal welfare leaflets from Council reception areas and placing advice on the Council website, including information on statutory services such as stray dogs and licensing of animal establishments.
Dangerous Dogs
3.2 An increasing number of potentially dangerous dogs are kept illegally and in some cases are mistreated. The Council is working closely with The Metropolitan Police Service, Safer Neighbourhoods Team and the police Status Dogs Unit and will provide support to the investigation of incidents involving dangerous dogs used as “status symbols”. The Council will not tolerate anti social behaviour linked to dogs including;
• Using dogs to intimidate others • Using dogs as weapons • Allowing dogs to attack other dogs • Illegal dog fighting • Damage to public property including trees
3.3 The Council believes that any dog, no matter what breed, can be dangerous if it is in the wrong hands. Any dog is regarded as being dangerously out of control if:
• It injures a person Or • It behaves in such a way that it worries a person and makes them think that it will injure them.
To allow a dog to be dangerously out of control is an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Banned Dogs
3.4 In the UK, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Section 1 (Amended 1997), it is illegal to own a banned type of dogs (if it is not registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs Register). These four banned types of dogs are;
• Pit Bull Terrier type (other names include American Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull, American Staffordshire Terriers, Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Irish Blue or Red Nose). • Dogo Argentino type (other names include Argentinean Mastiff) • Japanese Tosa type (other names include Tosa Inu and Tosa Fighting Dog) • Fila Braziliero type (other names include Brazilian Mastiff)
Any dog that falls into the category of being a Pit Bull Terrier Type may be seized and the owner prosecuted.
Puppy Farming
3.5 The Council opposes puppy farming and supports the RSPCA in recommending that prospective dog owners purchase only puppies that are seen with their mothers. The Council would also encourage residents to consider re-homing a rescue dog rather than a puppy, in an effort to reduce the population of unwanted dogs.
Cats
3.6 The Council encourages residents to be responsible cat owners and supports local animal welfare organisations in their efforts to educate and assist cat owners.
Dogs Commission PAGE 18 Giving Animals as prizes
3.7 It is Council policy that the conditions for hiring or letting any of the Councils’ facilities – premises or land – shall include a clause specifically banning the provision of live creatures, animals or fish, as prizes. The Council opposes the giving of animals as prizes because:
• No preparation of animal housing, feeding or how the animal should be kept is available • The prize winner may have little knowledge about the pet’s husbandry requirements in question or how to be a responsible owner • The prize may be accepted without proper consideration or thought to the animal in question
3.8 The Council encourages other private premises or landowners to follow this lead. It is against the law for unaccompanied under 16 year olds to be given animals as prizes under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Licensing officers will ensure that licensees are aware of their duty of care under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Horse, Pony and Donkey Rides
3.9 Anyone offering pony rides on Council land should be licensed under the Riding Establishments Act 1964 and 1970 and must meet strict conditions as stipulated by the Council. The Council encourages other landowners to apply similar strict conditions.
Animal Hoarding
3.10 An increasing number of cases are coming to light nationally where individuals, including some private animal sanctuaries, keep many animals in unsuitable conditions. Anyone keeping large numbers of animals needs to consider carefully whether they have adequate suitable facilities and sufficient knowledge and resources to care properly for all of the animals. Professional advice should be sought. People are encouraged to report any suspected instances of animal hoarding to the Council or the RSPCA.
Pets in Council Accommodation
3.11 The Council allows tenants to have pets in permanent Council accommodation, providing that written permission is granted from the housing office. The Council will promote and actively encourage responsible pet ownership to such tenants. If a tenant owns a pet animal when they need to move into temporary accommodation, the Council will attempt to place them with a housing provider that allows pets in their properties. However, tenants who are currently in temporary accommodation shall not acquire a pet (or replace one that has died) as this may prevent them from moving to permanent accommodation, as some landlords and housing associations do not allow pets in their properties.
3.12 The Council will work with other social housing providers to try to develop and harmonise lettings policies, including tenancy agreements that are enforceable and enforced regarding pets. The aim of this is to address issues of hoarding, indiscriminate breeding and selling of animals, and other anti-social and irresponsible ownership issues, while at the same time protecting the responsible pet owning majority.
Pets in Sheltered Housing Schemes
3.13 Scheme managers and tenants of communal sheltered accommodation are not allowed to keep pets without prior written approval by the Council. Such approval l will be at the discretion of the Council and each application will be considered on its individual merits having regard in particular to the suitability of the accommodation, the nature and size of the pet and the interests of any other tenants.
PAGE 19 Pet Sitting Services
3.14 The Council encourages responsible pet ownership and recommends that pet owners use only licensed boarding establishments or, if using pet sitting services, dog sitters should be licensed under the Animal Boarding Establishment Act 1963. Cat sitting is not recommended.
Horses
3.15 The Council supports the New EU Horse Passport Registration in micro chipping of all foals born after 1 st July 2009 and all other horses applying for first passport. The Council also supports EU Registration in the requirement that all horses and ponies (and other forms of equidae) need to have a passport identifying the animal. If the horse is not accompanied by a valid passport it is an offence for an owner to:
• move a horse to the premises of a new keeper • use a horse for the purposes of competitions • present for slaughter for human consumption • use a horse for breeding purposes • export a horse • sell a horse . 3.16 The Council will enforce the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and will not allow tethering of horses and ponies as a method of keeping equines on a permanent basis when there is no regular daily exercise, in an open environment, on any land owned or managed by the Council. If tethering is temporary or regular daily exercise is provided then the Code of Practice for tethering horses and ponies should be followed. In line with the RSPCA, the Council does not oppose an animal being tethered for short periods, e.g. for grooming or having a short break in a journey or working period.
Dangerous Wild Animals
4.0 The Council recommends that if people are selling or keeping animals listed on the schedule of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and other dangerous and /or exotic animals, they should have specialist knowledge and/or seek professional advice on the care of these animals. Some of these animals can grow very large, live for a long time and can be a threat to life. The Council encourages the government to increase the number of animals listed on the schedule of Dangerous Wild Animals and supports the rigorous enforcement of current legislation.
Wildlife
5.0 The Council supports measures to conserve wildlife and in particular draws attention to the following:
The control of animals released into the wild
5.1 The Council is concerned at the potential threat to British wildlife, pets and people by the release of non-native animals into the wild. Expert advice should always be sought.
Traps and Snares
5.2 The Council is generally opposed to the use of traps and snares and these are not permitted to be used on council owned parks and open spaces. Where there is no alternative the Council will do all it can to reduce the suffering of the target species and avoid the capture of non-target species. The Council encourages the government to strengthen legislation in this regard. Dogs Commission PAGE 20
Bats
5.3 The Council supports legislation that protects bats and their roosts.
Squirrels
5.4 Where squirrels are causing damage to property they should be poisoned or trapped. If trapped they should not be released but should be humanely destroyed. Expert advice should be sought.
Bees
5.5 Bees perform a vital function in pollination and should not be destroyed except in very exceptional circumstances. The Council’s Pest Control Service will provide advice and wherever possible will arrange for bees to be removed by a beekeeper rather than destroyed. Anyone wishing to keep bees should contact the Bee Keepers Association for advice.
Wasps
5.6 Wasps nest are often sited where they cause nuisance and present a significant risk if disturbed or aggravated. The Council accepts that wasps nests will often need to be destroyed but advises that professional advice should always be sought.
Angling
5.7 The Council recommends that anglers follow the code of practice based on the recommendations of the Medway report. The key recommendations being:
1. The use of double and treble hooks should be kept to a minimum. These should be avoided entirely when the intention is to return the catch alive to the water.
2. Fish intended for food should be killed humanely.
3. Unhooking a fish humanely and safely is one of the most important skills for an angler to learn. All anglers should be equipped with disgorgers and unhooking mats and be properly trained in their use.
4. Employment of the pike-gag should take fully into account the size of the fish for which it is used.
5. Barbless hooks should be favoured.
6. Holding periods in keep-nets should be as brief as possible.
5.8 The Council considers it essential that fishing tackle is safely disposed of to prevent injury to both domestic and wild animals and that all fish, regardless of size, shall be returned to the water as quickly as possible.
5.9 All anglers are encouraged to ensure that they comply with national and regional byelaws relating to angling. Details of these byelaws can be found by visiting the Environment Agency Website.
5.10 The Environment Agency has produced a useful free leaflet ‘Golden Rules – Angling and Wildlife’ which can be obtained by contacting 08459 333 111. Alternatively pages from this leaflet can be viewed on the Environment Agency Website.
PAGE 21 Pest Control
6.0 The Council promotes and supports only the use of safe and humane methods of pest control.
6.1The Council encourages householders to seek professional advice on pest control, rather than over the counter preparations so as to prevent harm to non-target species, humans and the environment. It provides a free rat control service to householders to ensure that a professional and safe treatment is readily available.
6.2 The Council discourages the use of sticky board glue traps for controlling rodents as they can cause pain and suffering to both those animals and other animals e.g. kittens if they get caught on them, the Council will work closely with animal welfare organisations to bring about prosecutions if irresponsible use of glue boards is found to have caused any harm.
Pigeons
7.0 Overpopulations of feral pigeons in built up areas can cause health and safety problems.
The Council discourages the feeding of feral pigeons as it:
1. Affects their health. The food that pigeons receive from people may lack nutrients which are essential for the bird’s well being.
2. Attracts vermin and is a risk to human health. Left over food attracts mice and rats. Pigeons carry a number of potentially infectious diseases that can be passed onto humans. The presence of their droppings, especially when wet, can cause accidents.
3. Damages buildings. Not only are pigeon droppings unsightly but their acid content also causes long term damage to buildings. Their droppings and feathers block gutters and pipes causing water damage.
4. Makes them dependent on people for food. Pigeons are wild birds and they are perfectly capable of feeding themselves.
5. Deprives other birds of food. Smaller birds can be frightened away by pigeons. Also feral pigeons carry viruses that can be spread to other birds.
7.1 The Council encourages the safe and hygienic disposal of all waste, especially fast food waste products so as not to provide a source of food for pigeons, foxes or vermin.
7.2 Where the pigeon population has to be controlled, only humane methods will be used.
Foxes
8.0 The Council does not control the population of foxes and discourages the killing of foxes. Sick or injured foxes will be treated or destroyed. Advice and information about foxes is available on the Council’s website and leaflets are also available.
Planning
9.0 Through the delivery of the planning process, the Council is committed to using the mechanism in the planning system to ensure that animals, plants and their habitats are afforded the appropriate level of protection in accordance with their protected status.
Dogs Commission PAGE 22 Parks /Open Spaces
10.0 The Council makes minimum use of pesticides in all Council controlled public open spaces and encourages the introduction of wildlife and fauna into these areas by sympathetic management and the display of notices explaining this type of management to visitors. Weed control is by approved methods only. The expansion of such areas within the Council is an ongoing project.
Pesticides
11.0 The Council encourages householders to use only authorised pesticides that will do no harm to the flora and fauna. Members of the public should check for an up to date list of authorised pesticides before using them.
11.1 The Council is fully opposed to the use of pesticides that fall within the group of pesticides classed as Organo–Chlorines; the use of these will not be permitted in any council owned property because of their potential carcinogenic effects.
Litter
12.0 Litter is not only unsightly, but much of it, such as multi-pack plastic can ties, tin cans, and plastic bags can cause harm to both domestic and wild animals, therefore, the Council expects that all litter is disposed of safely in the facilities that it provides for this purpose throughout the Council.
Guns
13.0 The Council does not permit guns on any Council owned public open space, woodlands, parks or country parks.
Experiments on Living Animals
14.0 The Council advocates methods of research that do not involve animals. The Council also recognises that it is irresponsible and not in the interests of the animal for laboratory animals to be released into the wild where they may not be able to fend for themselves.
Higher Welfare Farming
15.0 The Council regrets the use of intensive farming methods and would seek that a higher welfare approach to farming be adopted and requests that Members of Parliament support any legislation that will improve animal welfare conditions. The Council encourages consumers to check food labelling very carefully and to seek assistance from store managers if they are unsure of their meaning in an effort to encourage a more ethical approach to farming.
Transport of Food Animals
16.0 The Council believes that the live export of food animals is not necessary and that the slaughter of animals should take place as close to where they are reared as possible.
16.1 The Council supports the role of Trading Standards in enforcing roadside checks of livestock in transit to ensure compliance with legislation designed to protect animal welfare.
16.2 The Council supports Police action with regards to the enforcing of speed restrictions and the condition of vehicles transporting live animals and requests that enforcement be more rigorously applied.
PAGE 23 Animal Cruelty
17.0 Agencies dealing with children or vulnerable adults, who have suffered physical and/or mental abuse, recognise that there is a link between animal and ‘people’ cruelty. Indeed, a protocol exists between social services staff and the RSPCA in some local authority areas, whereby there is an exchange of information. The Council will consider adopting such a protocol.
17.1 The Council believes that there should be a requirement on local authorities to establish and operate such a protocol, and that police forces should also be part of such agreements, so that every effort can be made to prevent cruelty wherever it might arise.
17.2 The Council encourages the Government to support all research by other agencies on the link between animal/child and vulnerable adult abuse in an effort to reduce both animal cruelty and serious crime.
17.3 The Animal Welfare Act 2006 stipulates that owners and keepers of animals are responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of the animals are met.
Council Purchasing/Education
• Meals 18.0 It is the personal choice of a person to eat meat or not. The Council will aim to use higher welfare produce at all Council run functions or where it has an influence. Particular attention will be paid to labelling to ensure that, for example, Halal meat is clearly identified. In addition to this, at least one vegetarian alternative will appear on all menus and vegan food will be made available on request.
• Fireworks 18.1 Many animals are frightened by fireworks. The Council supports the introduction and enforcement of legislation such as the Licensing of shops selling fireworks and the limit of hours that fireworks are permitted to be used.
The council supports and promotes organised public firework displays.
• Publicity 18.2 The Council will regularly update the information it provides to promote animal welfare through articles in Lambeth Life and other publications and by maintaining pages on the Council’s Website.
Specific Policies
Blood Sports
19.0 It is Council Policy that hunting is not allowed on Council owned land.
Circuses, Performances, Exhibitions and Displays of Animals
20.0 Having regard to the Councils premises and land, either owned or managed, it is unlikely that they would be suitable for circuses, performances, exhibitions or displays of animals. However, it is Council policy that all applications to hold circuses, performances, exhibitions or displays of animals on any Council land or premises will be considered individually and the decision to grant or refuse such applications will be based on a wide range of considerations, including animal welfare. When considering the application on Council owned or maintained land, the following will be taken into account:
• The type of animals used, i.e. domestic animals or wild species • Whether the five welfare needs have been observed during the animal’s life
Dogs Commission PAGE 24
Tower Hamlets takes the lead on dangerous dogs
Published by Hannah Wooderson for 24dash.com in Local Government Wednesday 3rd June 2009 - 2:14pm
Tower Hamlets takes the lead on dangerous dogs
The first London seminar briefing local landlords and crime reduction professionals about dangerous dogs took place in Tower Hamlets yesterday (1 June).
Tower Hamlets Council’s Community Safety Service hosted the event, which was organised with housing association Poplar HARCA.
The briefing addressed officers from other London authorities, local housing association landlords and estate managers, crime reduction professionals, representatives from the Deputy Mayor for Policing (Kit Malthouse)'s office as well as members of the public who chair Local Area Partnerships.
The speakers Ian McPartland and Claire Robinson from the RSPCA briefed those attending about the law and dangerous dogs and what support there was for people who were being intimidated by such dogs.
Ian McPartland from the metropolitan police’s status dog unit said they had seen an increase in dangerous dogs across London and showed this rise through the recorded numbers of dogs they had seized across London:
2002 – 2006, 40 dogs 2006 – 2007, 143 dogs 2007 – 2008, 481 dogs 2008 – 2009, 719 dogs – of which 600 were Pitbull terriers
These figures are reflected locally. The council’s Animal Warden Service has taken in over 170 stray dogs since 1st April 2008, and 140 of them were Staffordshire bull terriers or similar crossbreeds. Of these, 105 had to be put down.
Mr McPartland explained that it if anyone had concerns about dangerous dogs in the area they should contact their Safer Neighbourhood Team in the first instance. PAGE 25
Tower Hamlets Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener Abdal Ullah said: “We are seeing Staffordshire bull terriers and crosses with big dogs like mastiffs and American bull dogs being owned as a fashion accessory. But unlike other accessories, a dog isn't so easy to throw out when you're fed up with it. There is no 'dog dumping station' as some owners seem to think, where untrained, uncontrollable dogs can be sent to 'find another home'.
“People often don't realise that a cute puppy will become a strong, wilful adult unless it is properly trained. I’m afraid there are no other homes for dogs which have become aggressive and unmanageable through irresponsible ownership. The next step is putting them down."
The Animal Wardens would like to see people think carefully before getting a dog, but when so many puppies are produced they become cheaply available and the area gets saturated with them.
Tower Hamlets Council’s Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener Abdal Ullah said: “I am pleased that Tower Hamlets is leading on what is an issue of growing concern across London. The aim is to highlight to local people what action they can take and what support there is for them.
“This issue is not new to me and we have all read reports in the borough of dangerous dogs attacking other dogs. There is an emerging trend of these dogs being used as a fashion accessory, street status, owner protection and perhaps even organised dog fighting.
“The police are here to offer full support though and the council itself also offers a free neutering service for any bull breed type dog. We are urging these responsible owners to take advantage of the scheme and get their dogs neutered, because the key to eliminating the misuse of bull breeds in future is to prevent them being born in the first place.”
The scheme is completely free and open to any resident of Tower Hamlets who owns a bull breed dog of any type, including crossbreeds. Male and female dogs can be neutered on the scheme.
Neutering is an operation which prevents the dog from having puppies. It can also have health, hygiene and temperament benefits for the dog.
For more information, contact the Animal Neutering Clinic on 020 7987 3045 or the Animal Warden Service on 020 7364 5008.
Dogs Commission PAGE 26
MPS response to dangerous dogs – update report
Report: 11 Date: 8 June 2009 By: T/AC Territorial Operations on behalf of the Commissioner
Summary
This is an update to the report submitted to the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee on 8 January 2009. On 2 March 2009 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) launched its new Status Dogs Unit (SDU) as part of the Dog Support Unit (DSU) within Central Operations (CO). The unit consists of one police sergeant, five constables and one member of police staff providing administrative support. The officers are accredited experts known as Dog Legislation Officers (DLO). These officers are dedicated to this role as opposed to the previous system where MPS DSU officers carried out these duties in addition to the handling of police dogs . This report gives an outline of how the new unit is working and its benefits to the MPS and the public.
A. Recommendation
That members note the action being taken by the MPS.
B. Supporting information
1. 2008/2009 year end figures:
§ 719 dogs seized by the MPS
§ Kennelling spend £1.342m (incl. all veterinary and transport costs)
§ 584 pre-planned operations regarding dogs on premises undertaken by the MPS DSU
§ 1891 spontaneous calls regarding dogs responded to by the MPS DSU
The scope of the problem is increasing and will continue to do so until a number of initiatives begin to take effect. 2. SDU impact Between 2 March – 28 April 2009:
§ 111 examinations of dogs
§ 82 new dog seizures
§ 128 dogs out of kennels
§ 62 examinations taken place at welfare organisations
§ Attended the execution of 25 warrants
On 2 March the MPS were kennelling 302 dogs . Due to the new working practises this PAGE 27 number has reduced to 251 despite the increasing numbers being seized. 3. SDU good practice
§ Few seized dogs are now allocated for examination to DSU DLO dog handlers resulting in better availability for their core role (handing MPS police dogs ) and front line duties. 90% of all dogs seized by the MPS are dealt with by SDU officers.
§ The average number of days that dogs are kennelled by the MPS is reducing. The first year aim of the SDU is to reduce the average number of kennelling days by 10%; this will make a significant financial saving.
§ There has been an increased use of a new policy where there is no prosecution and under certain strict conditions responsible owners can keep their dogs at home until the matter is heard at Court. This process requires that an adult owner undertakes and abides by all the conditions imposed by the Dangerous Dogs Act and is based upon a stringent risk assessment undertaken by the MPS. The SDU aim to use the ‘ dogs at home’ policy in 10% of cases year one.
§ SDU officers have been allocated geographical responsibilities to identify themselves as single points of contact for MPS boroughs, the priority being Tier 1 Operation Blunt boroughs where the most significant issues are present.
§ The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has created the post - London Dangerous Dogs Project Officer. That officer works closely with SDU officers resulting in more effective working relationships and outcomes.
4. SDU significant events/results since 2 March 2009
§ Anti social behaviour and dog fighting in public parks in Ealing. Identified gang members involved, filmed themselves using gang identification while fighting dogs . Gang member arrested for breaking puppies legs led to seizure of two Pit bull type dogs which in turn led to the arrest of two further gang members and recovery of ½ kilo of heroin.
§ Presentation to MPS Crime and Intelligence Managers regarding access to and services offered by the SDU.
§ Meeting regarding linking SDU to tier one Borough’s in support of Operation Blunt initiatives and tackling gang related violence where dogs are used as weapons. Intervention tactics discussed.
§ Working with RSPCA Special Operations Unit and provincial police force undertook operations at three London addresses (tier one boroughs) where dog fighting and welfare issues were identified. Pit bull type dog seized with offensive weapons and controlled drugs.
§ Three behavioural examinations undertaken by SDU officer for Court process saving MPS in region of £6,000 expert witness fees.
5. SDU priorities for the next three to six months Dogs Commission PAGE 28
§ The London Dangerous Dog Forum (LDDF) brings together the Greater London Authority (GLA), local authorities, police and welfare organisations in a bid to address the underlying issues backed up with enforcement by SDU officers. Various strands such as education, welfare, public affairs, responsible ownership, joint initiatives and legal processes are being progressed.
§ SDU partnership work – through borough contacts – initially tier one, encouragement of partnership projects encouraging responsible dog ownership such as BARK (borough action for responsible canines) and ‘People with dogs project’, working together with Battersea Dogs and Cats home, the RSPCA and local authorities. There are presently five ‘BARK’ projects in London and three more are in the initial planning stages. The SDU are involved in all.
§ SDU officers will host a national ‘Dog Legislation Seminar’ for provincial police forces. This leads to individual officers becoming experts in this area and is supported by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). It also presents a significant opportunity to generate income for the MPS.
§ SDU officers will staff the larger public order events throughout the summer in London. Senior MPS officers are aware of the significant threat posed by dogs , particularly those prohibited by law in confined spaces where many people gather. Examples include the Notting Hill Carnival, Lovebox, Peckham Rye and Brockwell fairs.
§ Presentation to the South West London Region Magistrates Circuit meeting. SDU officer to give presentation regarding overall issue particularly in relation to Court processes and suggestions around time saving initiatives. In particular the HM Court Service’s current practice of charging police for making applications under the Dangerous Dogs Act will be raised for discussion again. This issue is of considerable concern to the MPS as there is no budget available to pay this and could cost £25000 this year.
§ The MPS has met with the deputy Mayor for London, Kit Malthouse, to discuss the challenges it and other enforcement agencies face concerning dangerous and status dogs . Mr Malthouse indicated he would be keen to sponsor a partnership event (GLA, MPS, RSPCA and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home) with the tier one boroughs to discuss these issues and ensure action is taken where needed. A proposal is currently being drafted for the deputy mayor and it is hoped such an event can take place by the autumn this year. SDU officers will represent the MPS at such an event.
C. Race and equality impact
There are no equality or diversity implications identified at this time.
D. Financial implications PAGE 29
The six new posts within Central Operations have been created. The potential change from constable to Band E police staff post in future years would generate approximately £24k savings per officer. This potential change should not be undertaken whilst the SDU is in its infancy. 2. The current kennelling cost to the MPS is between £13.70 and £22.00 per dog, per day. There is already evidence that the implementation of the SDU has resulted in savings in respect of opportunity costs (officers returned to core duties), better management of resources resulting in fewer kennelling days/costs, more speedy results being obtained at Courts and use of the ‘ dogs at home’ policy are all steps in the right direction. A 10% reduction in the number of kennelling days, based on current demand, would result in a cost saving of around £132k. However as the demand for Kennelling is forecast to increase, no financial savings are being offered up at this stage. 3. The kennelling budget remains the responsibility of MPS HR Logistical Services. A further report regarding this issue is being submitted however it does outline that the numbers of seizures is likely to increase over the short term, and any additional pressures will be considered as part of the 2010-13 budget and business planning process.
E. Background papers
None
F. Contact details
Report author: Trevor Hughes, Territorial Operations, MPS For information contact: MPA general: 020 7202 0202 Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18
Dogs Commission PAGE 30
Information from Bruce Forsyth’s Vets Get Scanning Appeal
The aim of the Vets Get Scanning appeal is: • We want all vets to adopt a practice policy where all dogs are scanned on their first visit, as well as the back log of dogs that they have registered but have never been scanned. • This is the only time a stolen microchipped dog that has been sold to the unsuspecting public will have of coming into contact with a scanner. • This will result in stolen dogs being reunited with their rightful owners. • We also believe that Permanent ID and the routine Scanning of all dogs are powerful weapons in the fight against Dog Theft.
A Microchip is useless to a stolen dog, unless Vets Get Scanning! There has been a 74% increase in Dog Theft in London over the last two years according to statistics released by the Metropolitan Police in February 2007 and is one of the biggest growing crimes in the UK. All dogs are at risk; all sizes, breeds and ages are being stolen from cars, gardens, tied up outside shops or even when being walked in a park. Vets are the missing link and both dogs and their owners need their help in halting this heart breaking crime. It is a fact that stolen microchipped dogs are being sold to the unsuspecting public and Vets are the only hope of these dogs getting back home. We can find no valid reason why Vets are not scanning and we are asking them to help. Responsible pet owners are microchipping their pets believing that a full reunification service is in place. The present system only works for lost pets or pet’s involved in an accident needing emergency treatment when no owner is present. The microchip becomes useless for stolen dogs that have been sold on, as once a dog enters a veterinary practice with a collar and lead on attached to a new owner no check will be made. Did you know? • Only a third of vets scan dogs on their first visit. • Some vets are implanting non ISO standard Microchips; therefore these chips will not be picked up when scanned. • Small rescue homes are rehoming dogs without scanning. • Local Authorites and Highway Agencies that collect deceased dogs do not always scan. See Jester's Law at: DOGTHEFTACTION.COM We have found out that Microchipping/Scanning is totally unregulated as an industry, other than the process for issuing microchip numbers which is controlled by ISO. That explains why it is in such a mess. We would like to see this changed, so that everyone who comes into contact with a dog knows what they should do, we believe vets, dog wardens, police, rescue centres and local authorities all need guidelines to follow. Microchipping could be the answer to so many dog related problems, from lost and stolen dogs to dangerous dogs and dog dumping and even puppy farming. PAGE 31 Neutering BDCH Factsheet - http://www.battersea.org.uk/help_advice/responsible_ownership/neutering.html
It’s not just about controlling pet numbers, neutering can give your dog or cat many other benefits.
At Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, we understand the importance of neutering. We care for over 11,000 dogs and cats every year, many of which are young puppies and kittens. Although very appealing, owners often find themselves unable to cope with the time or cost involved with caring for young dependent animals, and they find their way through the Home’s doors.
Over a lifetime, female cats and dogs can have a staggering number of kittens and puppies. At Battersea, we’re sure that the numbers of unwanted cats and dogs coming through the Home’s doors each year could be dramatically reduced if owners took the decision to neuter their pets.
Neutering is a simple operation performed by a vet while the animal is under anaesthetic. After the op the cat or dog is no longer able to reproduce. There are a range of benefits to neutering your pet. Owning an unneutered female cat or dog can be very stressful when they come into season. A female dog can come into season twice a year, and a female cat can come into season several times a year.
In addition to the mess involved, your female dog may be pursued by persistent male dogs, which can make walks very difficult. A female dog in season may also try to escape during this time to find a mate, and male dogs will go to great efforts to find her. A female cat is also likely to attract unneutered males into the garden, and she will have to be kept at home during this time because if allowed out, she will almost certainly find a mate and become pregnant. She will constantly be looking for an escape route and could be very vocal.
There are also medical and behavioural benefits of neutering. Castration removes the worry of testicular cancer for male dogs and cats, and helps prevent the onset of diseases such as prostate cancer. In female dogs, spaying can reduce the risk of mammary tumours and womb infections. In male cats, unneutered males tend to be territorial and can be aggressive, which can lead to fights. As well as serious injury, this can put them at greater risk of catching FIV (Feline Immunodeficiency Virus).
For more information on the benefits of neutering your pet, as well as other aspects of responsible pet ownership, download the factsheets on our website at www.battersea.org.uk/help_advice/publications .
Dogs Commission PAGE 32 RSPCA's Community Animal Welfare Footprints (CAWF)
About the annual awards scheme
Launched in April 2008, the RSPCA's Community Animal Welfare Footprints (CAWF) scheme aims to reward and promote good practice in animal welfare by local authorities and housing providers in England and Wales.
It recognises organisations that have gone above and beyond their basic service requirements to ensure higher animal welfare standards.
This year the scheme is being supported by the Trading Standards Institute (TSI) and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH).
The four Footprint categories
CAWF covers four areas of work (Footprints) that impacts on animal welfare, and includes having an animal welfare charter. The areas are:
1. stray dog services 2. housing 3. contingency planning 4. animal welfare principles .
Each Footprint has three levels - bronze, silver and gold - each level carrying progressively more demanding criteria.
Successful entrants will receive a gold, silver or bronze logo to use on their organisation's website and letterheads, subject to terms of usage, as well as a certificate.
The organisation could also appear in the 2009 edition of the CAWF Guide to good practice (PDF 2.28MB) .
This booklet contains practical advice from the winners of last year's awards and aims to help other service providers that are now developing their own animal welfare policies.
Innovator in Animal Welfare Award
In addition to the four Footprints, there is the Innovator in Animal Welfare Award , the most prestigious accolade of the scheme.
It aims to reward innovation or exceptional achievement in tackling an issue of animal welfare. In 2008 there were three awards, for different tiers of local government:
§ Cardiff Council (Wales Unitary Authority category) § Flyde Borough Council (District Council category) § Somerset County Council (Council and Unitary category)
New for 2009, there is a fourth Innovator in Animal Welfare Award aimed at any organisation, group or project that is working largely with the public sector and improving PAGE 33 animal welfare. This includes housing providers, animal welfare forums and consortiums.
Winners of the Innovator in Animal Welfare Award 2009 will receive a trophy, certificate and an Innovator logo to use on the organisation's website and letterheads, subject to the terms of usage.
Dogs Commission