This article deals with the welfare of dogs in England and Wales. I started to draft it over three months ago, but as the Animal Welfare Bill was due to become law in November, I decided to keep my powder dry! My reason for doing this is clear when you consider that there are a score or so of Acts of Parliament which deal with or touch on dog welfare, ranging back as far as 1911 and the Animal Welfare Act replaces, amends, or affects all of these! The Government was of the view, quite correctly, that the existing legislation was piecemeal and unsatisfactory, particularly as applied to non farming animals, e.g. pets and decided to bring into being a new law to rectify the position.

As is usual practice, it consulted with a wide variety of interested groups such as animal charities, vets, countryside organisations etc. and in 1999 helped create The Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) as an advisory body on Companion Animal Welfare. The CAWC is funded by charitable donations, but also received a three year government grant in 2005. CAWC has worked closely with DEFRA in the drafting of the new law.

The Animal Welfare Act deals with all domestic or captive animals, but I shall be restricting my observations to matters affecting dogs. The provisions of the Act to which I refer, may already have existed in previous legislation, in whole, in part or not at all, but with one or two exceptions I will not be pointing this out as to do so would make the situation almost incomprehensible.

The first, and perhaps most important, provision of the Act is that it introduces a duty on the owner of the dog to ensure the welfare of any dog in its care. In effect this means that action can be taken against an owner before the animal's welfare is actually damaged.

Other relevant provisions of the Act

1. Definition of person responsible under the Act - A person can be held responsible under the Act where they own the dog, are in charge of it, or have care and control of a person under 16 years of age who is responsible for the dog.

2. Offences under the Act

(a) It is an offence to cause unecessary suffering to a dog by act or omission. This is basically the same offence as the old cruelty offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

(b) It is an offence to mutilate a dog. Apart from obvious acts of physical cruelty this has most relevance to dogs in the question of tail docking. This can now only be done where a vet has certified that the dog is likely to work. The Act provides for the provision to be varied by subordinate legislation. At the time of writing this has just been done with regard to England. The Welsh Assembly is still considering the matter. There are strongly held views on both sides of this argument and at present it would appear that the RSPCA and other charities are unhappy with the position in England because, in their view, it favours the working dog lobby. It remains to be seen whether there will be any further developments. All interested parties are now furiously lobbying the Welsh Assembly and if you have views on the matter you had better make them known now, as any further provision should be in place by August 2007. The question as to whether working dogs that have been docked after April 2007 can also be shown under Kennel Club Rules is in the process of clarification.

(c) It will be no surprise to learn that dog fighting is still an offence. At long last, however, the offence carries an appropriate sting namely a year in prison or a £20,000 fine or both!

(d) It is an offence to poison your dog or to allow it to be poisoned.

(e) THIS IS IMPORTANT - It is an offence to fail to take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to meet the welfare needs of a dog for which you are responsible, to the extent required by good practice.

Animal needs include:-

I Suitable environment.
II Suitable diet.
III Ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns.
IV To be housed with, or apart from other animals.
V To be protected from pain, injury or disease.

"Good practice" will be defined by relevant codes of practice. These will be drawn up by the Government (Westminster for England, Welsh Assembly for Wales) after consultation, but existing industry codes can help as can vetinary or other specialist knowledge, or simply what is usually done in the circumstances. The definition of this offence will accordingly be very dependent upon the codes of practice and may change as the codes are altered in the future. We can expect a substantial amount of lobbying from animal charities, countryside organisations etc., on the formulation of these codes. I deal with this question later in more detail.

(f) It is an offence to sell a dog to someone under 16 years of age or to offer one as a prize to a person under 16 who is not accompanied by a person over 16.

3. Powers under the Act

The Government has decided that the power to prosecute an offence under the Act should remain what is known as "a common power". This means that anyone who has a sufficient interest in a dog may bring a prosecution and/or exercise powers under the Act under specific conditions where appropriate. The Police obviously have all the powers contained in the Act and it is evisaged that local authorities will appoint "inspectors" for this purpose. Although any private individual can also take proceedings under the Act it is accepted that most prosecutions will be brought by the RSPCA, as has always been the case. As will be seen the Act strengthens and clarifies the powers that are available for the protection of animals and have generally been welcomed by all interested parties. A summary of the relevant powers follows:-

(a) If there is concern for a dog's welfare, a notice (improvement notice) can be issued, specifying what steps the person responsible needs to take to put matters right. If they do so, they cannot be prosecuted under the welfare offence. If they do not take such steps, there is no penalty as such for their failure to do so, but they can then be prosecuted under the welfare offence.

(b) Powers to alleviate a dog in distress include:-

I To take such steps as immediately necessary to alleviate suffering.
II To destroy on vet's advice.
III To destroy without vet's advice if not reasonably practicable to wait.
IV To take the dog into possession on vet's advice.
V To take into possession without vet's advice if not reasonably practicable to wait.
VI To remove the dog to a place of safety.
VII To care for it on the premises.
VIII To mark it for identification purposes.

If you use these powers without the consent of the person responsible, you must take reasonable steps to notify such person as soon as possible. You can also apply to the court for the expenses involved in the use of these powers. If the court so agrees it can order the person responsible to pay such expenses. The fact that these powers have been used does not mean that you have to proceed to prosecution. Such powers can be used by any person with sufficient interest in the dog.

(c) The Act gives power for a person to enter premises if they reasonably believe an animal in distress can be found on such premises. A Warrant is required to enter a private dwelling. BUT NOTE sheds or buildings on the property containing dogs may not be part of a private dwelling, e.g. a shed full of toys and furniture is part of a private dwelling, a shed full of dogs is not.

(d) Powers to apply to the court for disposal of dog taken into possession includes:-

I Administration of treatment, e.g. neutering.
II Possession to be given up by the person responsible.
III Sale.
IV Disposal other than sale.
V Destruction.

(e) Power for the Police to enter premises without a warrant to arrest for a cruelty offence.

(f) Power to inspect licenced premises. These are premises that are licenced by the local authority for breeding or boarding of dogs. This power now extends to premises where activity which should be licenced is taking place.

(g) The power to inspect farm premises. Warrant still required for private dwellings.

(h) Power to prosecute at any time within three years of an offence, providing prosecution takes place within six months of the evidence coming to light.

(i) Power for the court to deprive the person responsible of a dog and its economic value (the court can prevent the person responsible from receiving the proceeds of sale of a dog in such circumstances).

(j) The power to disqualify from ownership or keeping a dog or participating in either, or being party to an arrangement which entitles him or her to influence how dogs are kept. This provision prevents a person committing such an offence from transferring the dog to his daughter in law or some relative or friend whilst still being in a position to influence the dog's welfare, or lack of it. The court decides how long such a disqualification will last, and can extend such disqualification to dealing in dogs or even transporting them.

(k) Power for the court to destroy a dog, if it is in the dog's interest.

(l) Power for the court to order the person responsible to forfeit equipment used in connection with the keeping of dogs.

(m) Power for the court to disqualify the person responsible from holding a licence to breed or board dogs.

(n) Power for the court to use it powers against persons who are directors of a company that owns or is responsible for dogs.

(o) Power for the Welsh Assembly (for Wales) and The Secretary of State (for England) to make regulations for welfare and licensing and to issue codes of practice.

Deprivation, disqualification, destruction, fines and inprisonment can all be applied by the court in the same instance if the court feels appropriate. If the court decides not to disqualify a person responsible it must state its reasons.

In my opinion the provisions in powers f and g above are clearly aimed at "puppy farming". It is also clear from the Act that abandonment of a dog can, depending on the circumstances, be an offence under the welfare or cruelty provisions.

Codes of Practice

The Act is clearly comprehensive, but by creating specific powers for further regulation, licensing and codes of practice, it is also intended to move with the times as to its interpretation of the welfare of dogs and also to deal with, in detail certain areas which have given rise to concern. This is clearly indicated by statements in the Act to the effect that it is intended that regulations and codes of practice will be introduced within specified timescales (albeit over some years) on the following subjects:-

I Pet sales.
II Greyhound racing.
III Dog breeding.
IV Animal sanctuaries.
V Dog boarding.

This is not an exclusive list, but obviously touches closely on those of us in the dog world. It is therefore up to us, either personally or through organisations of which we are members to lobby and to take part in any consultative process, prior to these regulations and codes being implemented. It will be of little effect to complain after the event! A good example is the question of electronic collars, which have been marketed here in recent years as "G-d's gift" to dog control and training. A lot of people (including me) think them cruel. The Kennel Club agrees and is lobbying hard, so regulations are likely to follow. If this does happen, my wife reluctantly agrees that I will be able to remove mine!

This article is intended purely for information and discussion purposes, and does not comprise legal advice in any form. I am however always interested in comment and discussion, so if you have any points to make, please do not hesitate to get in touch.