Present: Sheila Crispin (SC), Dan O’Neill (DO), David Grimsell (DG), Marisa Heath (MH), Carol Fowler (CF), Neil Parish, MP (NP)

Apologies: Clare Rusbridge, Julia Carr, Geoffrey Clifton Brown, MP, Lesley Field, Fiona Cooke, Chris Laurence, Sean Wensley, Lisa Richards

1. Matters arising:

• Minutes now being posted on CFSG website. CF will circulate to all members of DBRG
• Defra’s lack of response to Advisory Council’s ‘Recommendations for regulation and legislation’ will be followed up after the election
• CF will contact David Sargan regarding the Conformation Group
• SC (?) will check with Lisa McCaulder on progress/whereabouts of the scoring system for local authority inspections of licensed dog breeding establishments
• We await the result of negotiations between the RSPCA / BVA AWF and Kennel Club on an agreed Puppy Contract
• Codes of Practice: we understand that CFSG has been tasked with re-writing the COPs. We also understand they will be subject to consultation. We agreed that in the case of the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act the COPs relating to dog breeding should be statutory.

2. DBRG Objectives

A lengthy discussion took place and then further work done by email. The DBRG (revised) Objectives are available as a separate document and included with these Notes.

3. Canine and Feline Sector Group (CFSG) update

From the Minutes of the 26 February CFSG meeting it was noted that CFSG membership would consist of a steering group, main members, and advisors.  Engaging with other smaller groups was discussed and when appropriate their input/thoughts would be sought. There was a suggestion of a ‘big tent’ meeting to which those with an interest in dog and cat health and welfare be invited to give their views.

The on-going legacy work of the Dog Advisory Council was discussed.  The Council’s Recommendations for legislation and regulation was presented to CFSG as the area it could take forward. Consideration was also given to the Deregulation Bill and Codes of Practice. This would be put into the CFSG strategy work and CFSG would respond to any consultation on the Deregulation Bill. Information on the Council’s website was also discussed. It was agreed that the ‘How to Buy a Puppy’ section was very useful and that the BVA will be taking this on.

CSFG also discussed micro-chipping and the recent debate in the House of Lords. Key questions were: who registers a dog for the first time; who is the offender if ownership details are not updated; how regulations will affect breeders?  CFSG will monitor the effectiveness of the micro-chipping  guidelines for the five year review.

CFSG is in the process of setting out its priorities.

Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Cats and Dogs are due to be reviewed in 2015. CFSG are tasked to do this by considering how they can be improved and used more effectively. CSFG aims to provide AHWBE with its report by mid-summer 2015.

4. CARIAD Update

Breeding of Dogs (Wales) Regulations
DG reported that the Breeding of Dogs (Wales) Regulations will come into force April 30 2015. The Regulations will require that local authorities ‘have regard to’ guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers. CARIAD has seen a draft of the ‘Guidance’ proposed and is very disappointed, to say the least. CARIAD has issued a paper strongly criticising the draft ‘Guidance’ and has made a series a recommendations to the Welsh Government for improvements. All Welsh Assembly Members have been advised of this and urged to press for improvement.

Paper presented to RCVS on Veterinary Inspections
A discussion paper has been submitted by CARIAD to the RCVS concerning the role and professional responsibility of vets in the licensing of dog breeding establishments. This paper will be discussed at the next RCVS Standards Committee on 29 April.

Deregulation Bill
The draft Deregulation Bill currently includes a clause under Schedule 21 which would repeal the requirement under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 for the keeping of prescribed records by dog breeders.  This repeal, if it goes through, would be very damaging to dog welfare. The Government has implied it will consult on this but to date there has been no indication when or how such consultation will occur. CARIAD understands that Rob Flello, MP, is submitting a question to the Minister, Lord de Mauley, to seek clarification. DG emphasised that DBRG members should be very alert to this as it will be important to submit responses to a consultation.

How and why the Government chose to introduce this proposed repeal is unclear. To date, DEFRA have refused to provide any background papers. CARIAD is waiting for the decision of the Information Commissioner as to whether this information should be provided. It is thought a decision is likely soon.

5. Dog Health Workshop/DogWellNet/International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD)

Dan O’Neill reported on the second Dog Health Workshop hosted by the German Kennel Club in Dortmund 14/15 February 2015. Presentations and post workshop summaries may be found here:
http://www.vdh.de/dog-health-workshop

Of particular note was the initiative by the Swedish Kennel Club (Goran Bodegard) for Breed Specific Strategies and Breed Specific Instructions (BSI) for show judges regarding morphologic breed type related to exaggerations in pedigree dogs. This programme has now been adopted by all of the Nordic kennel clubs. Judges reports and individual critiques are forwarded to the breed clubs of breeds identified as having the potential for exaggerations which impact on a dog’s quality of life. At present 39 breeds have been selected from 73 breeds deemed at risk of a negative welfare impact due to exaggerated features.

The International Partnership for Dogs (IFPD) seeks to ‘facilitate collaboration and sharing of resources to enhance the health, well-being and welfare of pedigreed dogs and all dogs worldwide.’ Its goals are to: enhance the health, well-being and welfare of dogs and enrich human-dog interactions; to facilitate sharing of knowledge, information, experience and resources across stakeholders; provide structure, evaluation and interpretation of information to support the actions of stakeholders in do health, well-being and welfare; to facilitate specific actions to improve the health and well-being of dogs, including, for example, to support globally relevant breed-specific breeding strategies; to create and run the web platform dogwellnet.com; to bring the dog community closer together through DogWellNet.com

The CEO of IPFD is Dr Brenda Bonnett: (brendabonnett@nullipfdogs.com) CF has made contact with Dr Bonnett but no reply so far. It remains to be seen if such noble objectives will be translated into collaborative actions by the kennel clubs involved. Following the Nordic kennel clubs’ example regarding breed specific strategies/instructions would be a good place to start.

6. Invitation to the Kennel Club

It was agreed that we should invite Bill Lambert, Aimee Llewellyn and Tom Lewis to our next meeting. CF has emailed Bill, Aimee and Tom, who have agreed to speak about the organisation and structure of the KC and answer specific questions we may have, provided these are sent in advance. It would be a good opportunity to discuss our suggestions about measures we would like the KC to implement to improve health and address the problem of inbreeding and closed gene pools.

7. Research papers

There was no time to discuss, however Dan has agreed to pass on any relevant research papers to all who would like to receive them. Please let Dan know if you do not wish to receive research papers

8. Lobbying your MP

Again there was no time to discuss this item but at a previous meeting we did agree that each of us would contact our MP. CF has sent around a draft letter to MPs as an example.  Geoffrey Clifton-Brown commented that it was too long, so please bear in mind.  A copy of DBRG Objectives would be a good place to start because this is what we want. An MP should follow up a surgery meeting with some action (something more than a polite acknowledgement of your concerns)  An MP can: ask oral and written questions of ministers; include an issue in his/her own press publicity; call a debate; write to the relevant minister; request to see a minister; lay down a private members bill.  Immediately after the general election would be a good time to contact an MP and ask for a surgery slot.

9. DBRG Press release

CF has circulated a draft press release. Linda Goodman from CARIAD has offered to help should we decide to go ahead. Discussion postponed until the next meeting.

10. A constitution. Should we have one?

Please give this some thought until such time as we can discuss properly. What are the advantages and disadvantages?

11. Date of next meeting

June 4, Portcullis House, 12.00- 15.00

Present: Carol Fowler (CF), Dan O’Neill (DO) Sheila Crispin (SMC), Clare Rusbridge (CR), Fiona Cooke (FC), Sean Wensley (SW), Lesley Field (LF), Chris Laurence (CL), David Grimsell (DG), Julia Carr (JC), Lisa Richards (LR)

Guests: Stephen and Julia Charlton (Cockapoo Club of Great Britain)
Guest Speaker:  Dr Dan Lyons (Centre for Animals and Social Justice) (CASJ);  Angela Roberts (CASJ)
Member of Parliament present: Rob Flello

Apologies:  Marisa Heath, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (GCB)

1. Matters Arising

• Dog Advisory Council’s Recommendations for Regulation – a response from Lord de Mauley promised in a letter to GCB dated 23 March 2014 has not been forthcoming. GCB will follow up;
• Dog Advisory Council’s final Report will be available as a pdf document soon and will be circulated widely;
• Concern was expressed that the Minutes of the Canine and Feline Sector Group (CFSG) will no longer be available. Sheila will take this up at the next CFSG meeting and GCB will write to CFSG about this;
• CASJ Policy Proposal GCB will forward this document to Animal Health and Welfare Board for England (AHWBE);
• Michael Seal’s reply to GCB’s letter of 14 October following the Puppy Farm debate acknowledged the work of the DAC but did not mention whether any action would be taken as a result of the DAC’s recommendations. He said that the AHWBE continued to be actively engaged with dog welfare and had ongoing dialogue with CFSG. He advised that we should contact CFSG direct regarding our concerns and priorities.  Claire Horton’s recent appointment as a member of the AHWBE is very much welcomed. Claire will be able to provide a companion animal perspective.
• Concern was re-iterated about Defra’s preoccupation with farm animals. CL suggested direct contact with the Welsh Assembly where individual Assembly Members are responsive to AW concerns. RF pointed out that even when legislation is in place, local councils do not always take note;
• Use of the House of Commons conference call facility is welcomed – not as a substitute for regular face to face meetings but to enable us to call upon expert advice for specific items on the agenda.

2. DBRG and CFSG

Should we apply for membership of CFSG? DG felt that there is potential for DBRG concerns to be diluted if conveyed via a hierarchical process through successive layers (ie, DBRG to CFSG to AHWBE to Government). It is important to maintain a clear, independent voice.  Effective use should be made of the media and other mechanisms to ensure that a high profile is given to dog breeding issues raised by DBRG so that pressure can be applied and the Government challenged. It was pointed out that Sheila Crispin and Mike Radford were the only two independent members of CFSG. LF thought that continued constructive comment from the outside was important.  The issue of funding was raised and the difficulty of a truly independent group having sufficient funds to be effective. This matter will need to be raised at a future meeting.

We decided we should delay a decision about representation on CFSG until the next meeting.

3. Presentation from Dr Dan Lyons, Centre for Animals and Social Justice, ‘Overcoming Whitehall’s indifference to animal welfare: a political scientist’s perspective.’

Dominant belief systems

Dominant belief systems are the main factor in determining policy as well as funding. Public opinion only has a marginal impact. Government policy remains much the same even when Ministers come and go. An exception was the Hunting Act. Change was made because there was not the industry impact of farming and pharmaceuticals and it also became a party political issue. Animal welfare is better tackled from a cross party approach.

Animal policy belief systems

There are differences between a welfare based approach and the objectification approach. Whitehall’s approach is objectification and contrary to public opinion. There is a strong industry impact on policy decisions.

Lessons for Dog Breeding Welfare

Currently there is inadequate welfare protection, ineffective/difficult enforcement and Government indifference.  Simplification seems to be a euphemism for deregulation.

Deregulation Bill

The abolition of record keeping seems perverse.  Making changes to the Dog Breeding Act 1973 through the Deregulation Bill rather than revising the legislation is another indication that simplification is a euphemism and the Government isn’t interested. Economic Growth overrides everything and there is no duty on the Government to consider animal welfare. Mike Radford quoted the Wooler Review (Pt 28 p13) in his letter to DERFA on the Deregulation Bill.  Animals are ‘victims of an obsessive fetishism of cutting red tape.’ There also appears to be an attitude that, we can’t give ‘animal welfare people’ an inch or they will take a mile. Welfare is subtly organised out and subject to ‘non-decision making’.

Taking Animal Welfare Seriously

Animal welfare needs to be accepted as a matter of justice, not personal whim, and institutionalised within Government as an Animal Protection Commission (as proposed by CASJ). This should include: deliberate, democratic decision making; a duty to promote animal welfare; strategic targets; an impact assessment. There should be an Animal Welfare Select Committee. Animal welfare groups need to be more politically sophisticated.

Deliberate democratic decisions

If the public are at the heart of decision making from the outset this overcomes people’s feelings of disenfranchisement with politics.

Animal welfare impact assessment is not measured properly. This is another symptom of Whitehall indifference.

An Animal Welfare Select Committee would hold the Government to account.

Animal Welfare Groups

There is plenty of focus on policy shortcomings and what is required but groups also need to focus on the political processes. Resources should be devoted to developing appropriate pressure. This could be achieved by a 20 year plan and strategic approach.
CASJ could be catalyst for harnessing public support but needs backing from all groups.

Questions and discussion

SMC reminded those present that the link between animal abuse and human abuse had been recognised for some time and suggested working more closely with other groups with related interests. There could be shared philosophies with child protection and protection of the elderly.

The Welsh Assembly is a good model where existing policy areas have been broken up and new ones formed.

Q from DG:  MPs say the majority of mail is in relation to animal welfare but why is this not resulting in action?
DL:  Historically support for issues has come from back bench MPs but if they take up Ministerial positions they tend to ‘forget’. Specific policy making areas are insulated from public opinion. Government accountability is low with General elections only every 5 years.

Q from CF:  What actions can we take immediately?
DL:  Trying to get issues onto political party manifestos; raising issues with MPs in the run up to the General Election is particularly relevant in order to feed into party thinking and build momentum and awareness. It is probably not worth lobbying AHWBE because it is structured in such a way that Animal Welfare is a peripheral issue for them.

MPs want to see all animal welfare groups agreeing about what they want before considering action.

(CF will produce a written example of points to make to an MP during a constituency consultation regarding the Reform of Dog Breeding).

4. VetCompass (DO)

Dan O’Neill outlined the background and progress made so far of the VetCompass (VC). Post ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’ it was agreed that data needed to be collected from primary veterinary practices to support claims that dogs were suffering unnecessarily from breed related genetic problems. Increasing scientific evidence will have the impact of improving animal welfare.

VC started as a RSPCA funded PhD: Epidemiology of disorders reported in dogs and cats in general practice in England. Scientific papers get fed back to veterinary profession but they are failing to make much difference. If fed out to other stakeholders it has more impact and better decisions. Owners have a much bigger impact as they spend the majority of time with the animal and are in a position to make the difference to welfare, also breed selection and day to day care. VC uses ID systems so there is no identification with human data but it can trace individual animals via many different criteria. 299 vet clinics are feeding in. There are more than 10m unique episodes of care and over 811,000 dogs.

So far results have been detailed in 11 peer reviewed publications. The process is now switching from specific disorders to specific breeds.

VC makes use of public infographics. These can transfer key results from full published papers.  They are perfect for social media such as Facebook and can be read in the optimum time of 50-90 seconds. They are colourful and clear and provide education for owners – therefore are very empowering. There are also interactive pages on the VC website showing the prevalence of disorders and demographics. The VC database has the capacity to provide huge amounts of information and has the flexibility to work with a wide range of groups. Dan O’Neill’s position in VC is currently funded by the KC Charitable Trust.

DogWellNet will be launched at Dog Health Conference in Dortmund, Germany (14-15 February 2015)  DogWellNet is a website where many KCs around the world have contributed information on dog health for studies. DO is attending the DHC and will report back.

5. Deregulation Bill

DG submitted an FOI request to DEFRA to obtain background documents relating to the rationale for the Government’s proposed repeal, contained in the Deregulation Bill, of the requirement for dog breeders to keep specified records.  Written records are required currently under the Breeding of Dogs Act, 1973.  DEFRA have refused to disclose this information.  A formal complaint has been submitted to the Information Commissioner challenging this refusal. It is understood that a case officer has been assigned and we now await the decision of the Commissioner.

(Lord Trees stated in the House of Lords: ‘There is a simple pro forma to fill in and you keep a record every time that the bitch breeds. To remove that will not see a surge in the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom, so why imperil animal welfare for no obvious purpose?’)

6. After the Advisory Council (AC)

It was agreed to leave a more detailed discussion on this until next meeting.

Actions to be carried forward: it is intended that the Priority welfare conditions will be added to the BVA website (a review of the Canine Health Schemes is currently in progress); wide distribution of the AC Final Report; David Sargan (Cambridge University and former Advisory Council member) is to chair a Working Group funded by the RSPCA that will address the issues of selection for extremes of conformation. No timescale has been set as yet; Lisa McCaulder (former AC member) has produced a checklist, using a simple weighted scoring system, for those carrying out local authority inspections of dog breeding establishments; AC Recommendations on legislation will now be lodged formally with CFSG.

Defra Codes of Practice:  It is the intention that DEFRA Codes of Practice will become non-statutory and based on industry standards. This a matter of concern. DG said that the removal of the statutory basis of the Codes and their replacement with industry defined guidance had the clear potential for undermining the species-specific minimum standards that are associated with the five core criteria of the Animal Welfare Act. The Act states that these criteria are to be met ‘to the extent of good practice,’ and any codes in place are likely to determine what this means. The removal of the statutory basis of Codes of Practice may well have the effect of reducing standards of welfare for all species.

Serious concerns have been raised by CARIAD and Canine Action UK on the Code of Practice for the Sale of Dogs from Licensed Pet Shops. This will need to be discussed at a later date. Please see separate joint paper from CARIAD and Canine Action UK.

7. AC Breeding Standard (CL)

The document is based on practical inspection requirements. The working party set up to produce an agreed Breeding Standard with the KC has completed its work without achieving its ideal goal. The compromise reached is that the KC Assured Breeders Scheme Contract plus Guidance more or less equates to the Council’s Breeding Standard.  We feel it is less than satisfactory, however, as the KC ABS Guidance is not enforceable.

CIEH Model Conditions and Guidance for Dog Breeding Establishments

Current legislation allows charges to be passed on to the licensee. Local Authorities may not realise this. Lack of funding is often given as a reason for not carrying out thorough and frequent inspections of breeding establishments. A recent letter from Defra to all LAs has reminded them that all breeders who are carrying out a business (not just those who breed five or more litters per year) needs to be licensed.

8. Puppy Contract Update  (LR)

The KC agreed in principle with the Puppy Contract but made considerable changes to the sale aspect including, ‘Breeder makes no warranty as to the health of the puppy.’ However, the KC is now happy to have this statement removed. The RSPCA legal department are redrafting the Contract based on KC suggestions. The time frame for the Puppy Contract to be ready is in the next couple of months. 10,000 downloads of the Contract have so far occurred and feedback positive from the Cockapoo Club of GB.

9. DBRG Revised Objectives

Item deferred until next meeting.

10. AOB

Margaret Carter’s petition to the KC that no Cavalier should be used for breeding unless both parents have been MRI scanned according to the BVA/KC Scheme and Heart tested in line with the breed club scheme. The petition has now reached more than 3,500 signatures. KC has issued a flat refusal. CF made the point that the Cavalier breed has reached point where it has nowhere to go and that the scale of suffering is unacceptable.  In this situation exceptional measures need to be taken. CR said that assessment under BVA/KC scheme has a low uptake due to poor promotion. She said that fundamental changes are needed. More research and refining of the CM scoring are also needed. Useful discussions might be had with the Scheme’s panel and BVA/KC.

Beebee’s Story Charlotte Mackaness wrote of her experiences with her Cavalier, Beebee, who was diagnosed with CMSM.  Copies of Beebee’s Story were distributed. The story is a reminder of the devastating affect CMSM has on the family of a much loved pet (not to mention the life of pain which this dog will endure) It also illustrates that taking the advice of the breed club when buying a puppy isn’t always successful.

11. Date of next meeting

12 March 2015, Portcullis House, Westminster, 12.00 – 15.00, room to be decided