House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Dog Control and Welfare Seventh Report of Session 2012–13 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 February 2013 HC 575 Published on 15 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Richard Drax, (Conservative, South Dorset) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Iain McKenzie (Labour, Inverclyde) Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Ms Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) was also a member of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/efracom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Richard Cooke (Clerk), Anna Dickson (Second Clerk), Sarah Coe (Committee Specialist—Environment), Phil Jones (Committee Specialist —Agriculture), Clare Genis (Senior Committee Assistant), Owen James (Committee Assistant), Yago Zayed (Committee Support Assistant), and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Hannah Pearce on 020 7219 8430. Dog Control and Welfare 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Background to the Inquiry 5 2 Dog Control 6 Overview of Defra proposals 6 Defra’s consultation proposals 10 Dog attacks which take place on private property 10 Microchipping of dogs 12 Missing elements from Defra proposals 17 Stray dogs 17 Review of Dangerous Dogs Act Section 1 provisions 19 Compulsory insurance 21 Attacks on livestock and other animals 22 Home Office proposals on antisocial behaviour and crime 23 Training 28 Community and educational work 28 3 Dog Welfare 31 Breeding of dogs 31 Sale of dogs 33 Pedigree dogs 34 Response from the breeding community 35 Regulation of pedigree dog breeding 43 4 Conclusion 46 Conclusions and recommendations 47 Formal Minutes 51 Witnesses 52 List of printed written evidence 53 List of additional written evidence 53 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 55 Dog Control and Welfare 3 Summary The UK is said to be a nation of dog lovers, with some 8 million canine pets—yet over 100,000 strays are found each year, incidences of cruelty and neglect are rising and many dogs are out of control due to the irresponsible or deliberate actions of a minority of owners. Seven people, including five children, have been killed by dogs in homes since 2007 and the cost to the NHS of treating severe dog attack injuries is over £3 million annually. Additionally, many animals, including livestock and some eight assistance dogs a month, are attacked by dogs. Current dangerous dogs laws have comprehensively failed to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and Defra’s current, belated proposals are woefully inadequate. Ministers’ inability to provide us with detailed answers on a range of dog control and welfare questions has done little to reassure us about the priority the Government gives to these issues. Defra should urgently introduce a comprehensive Bill consolidating the fragmented legislation relating to dog control and welfare. This should include tailored Dog Control Notices which would allow enforcement officers more effectively to prevent dog attacks by enabling action on any dog-related antisocial behaviour. Failing this, Defra must be given a much firmer locus in policy-making so that dog-related issues can be fully taken into account in the Home Office current proposals for a ‘one size fits all’ set of antisocial behaviour prevention measures. The Government’s simplistic approach ignores the real cause of antisocial behaviour related to dogs. Irresponsible dog breeding and the failure to socialise puppies in the first few months of life can lead to persistent problems which are hard to tackle later on. The current Home Office approach appears to focus solely on the current owner of a dog rather than the initial breeder and this cannot begin to tackle the scale of the problem. Local authorities must ensure that dog warden services are fully resourced so as to more effectively manage stray dogs: failing this the Government should consider returning statutory responsibility for stray dogs to the police. There is a gap in the current law on dog attacks which means that those attacked on private property have no recourse to the criminal law provisions which apply to attacks on public land. We fully endorse the Government’s proposed amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to encompass attacks on private land but it will be crucial, in enforcing this, that the police and prosecutors distinguish between those lawfully on a person’s property and intruders. The Government’s assurances on this are too vague and clear guidance is needed to avoid unintended consequences. Dog attacks on animals are not given sufficient attention in the current legal framework. Attacks on assistance dogs such as guide dogs can have severe impacts on a disabled person’s mobility and daily life. Legislation should be amended so that an attack by a dog on an assistance dog is treated as an aggravated attack in the same manner as an attack on a person. The police must be more consistent in prosecuting those whose dogs attack livestock and existing legislation must be updated to include livestock such as llamas and other camelids. 4 Dog Control and Welfare The Government’s proposal to require the microchipping of all dogs from April 2016 will have positive benefits since microchipping provides a means of identifying a stray dog to allow it to be reunited with its owner. However, it will do little to prevent irresponsible dog owners from allowing or encouraging their dogs to be aggressive and rigorous enforcement will be needed to ensure that all owners comply. The current law banning ownership of specific types of dogs was introduced with the laudable intention of banning fighting dogs, but the criteria for inclusion of a dog type in the banned list is flawed and has led to the exclusion of some dangerous dog types. The Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to enable the Secretary of State to add other types of dog with particularly aggressive characteristics to the list of banned dogs as required. We believe that Government policy should be consistent with targeting ‘deed not breed’. Welfare issues related to dog breeding remain an issue of high public concern, particularly the practices of so-called ‘puppy farmers’ and some pedigree breeders. A breeder can currently produce up to five litters per year without being licensed or facing checks on welfare standards. The threshold should be reduced to no more than two litters a year per breeder. Online advertising is making it easy for disreputable breeders to find a market for puppies and dogs with little redress available to buyers of pets that turn out to be unhealthy. A voluntary Code of Practice should be established for websites offering dogs and puppies for sale and such sites should do more to educate potential buyers and to check up on the credentials of sellers. The dog breeding community, including the Kennel Club and some breed clubs, has taken steps to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs in recent years. However, too many dogs continue to suffer ill-health due to inbreeding and breeding for exaggerated characteristics. The Kennel Club must also do far more to use its influence with the pedigree dog community, including refusing to register puppies from breeders not compliant with the Club’s Assured Breeder Scheme. The Kennel Club should also commission an independent annual review of Breed Standards led by vets. Defra has been insufficiently proactive in tackling dog welfare issues related to breeding practices. Reliance on voluntary action has led to limited and slow reform. The Minister’s evidence to us did little to reassure us as to the priority the Department places on these issues. Defra should give the Advisory Council on Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding a regulatory role in enforcing standards. Given the complexity of genetic health issues, breed-specific strategies are needed to improve the health of breeds but further data is required on the incidences of heritable diseases. Dog Control and Welfare 5 1 Introduction Background to the Inquiry 1. The UK is a nation of dog lovers with around eight million dogs kept as pets.1 Yet in 2011–12 there were some 118,000 stray dogs found, 7% of which were destroyed, and increasing numbers of cases of cruelty are reported by animal welfare charities.2 Recent reports have highlighted the poor conditions in which some dogs are bred and sold (often at so-called ‘puppy farms’) as well as concerns about some practices linked to pedigree dog breeding.