AC 110
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE WELFARE ISSUES OF DOG BREEDING
Minutes of Meeting Number 16 held on 2 July 2013 at the Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons, Belgravia House, Horseferry Road, London
Present:
Sheila Crispin (Chairman)
Lesley Bloomfield
Rachel Casey
Chris Laurence
Lisa McCaulder
Cathryn Mellersh
Mike Radford
Clare Rusbridge
David Sargan
Also attending:
Heather Peck
Agenda Item 1
1. The Chairman welcomed all members and expressed the particular thanks of the
Council to the College for the use of their conference room. Apologies had been
received from Lisa Collins.
Agenda Item 2 - Declarations of interest
2. CL had submitted an updated entry by email and RC reported that she was now a
member of the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme sub group.
ACTION: SECRETARY TO UPDATE AC 3
Agenda Item 3 - Minutes of the last meeting.
3. Some amendments provided by the Chairman were noted.
ACTION: SECRETARY TO UPDATE THE MINUTES
Agenda Item 4 - Matters arising from the minutes
4. The progress with outstanding items recorded in AC 106 was noted.
Other matters arising from the minutes
5. CL reported that he had emailed the head of the Kennel Club IT department, but
no progress had been made with regard to Mate Select.
6. With respect to the Joint Working Group on the standard for breeding dogs,
(Minute 12 referred) it was reported that the next meeting of the Working Group,
originally scheduled for 9 July, had to be postponed pending the outcome of a
Kennel Club meeting in late July. A new date was being sought.
7. Minute 13 - RC stated that the research project on the heritability of temperament
had received good comments from reviewers but no formal feedback had been
received. It was expected later the same week. DS noted that the other research
project (on prevalence data) was now half funded (ie the section using VetCompass
data under David Brodbelt) and both Lisa Collins and DS were involved. It was
agreed that funders other than Dogs Trust would be sought for the part of the project
using data from insurers.
ACTION: DS
8. Minute 22 – RC reported that she had reviewed the puppy plan produced by the
KC and Dogs Trust. While overall a good document she felt some elements were a
little inaccurate and it was not focussed on the target audience identified by the
Council – ie veterinary practices. She proposed to draft a separate document
directed at first opinion veterinary practices and covering the advice they should give
to new puppy owners; ie the eight things they should tell every new owner.
ACTION: RC TO PROVIDE A DRAFT IN TIME FOR THE AUGUST MEETING AND
TO TALK TO KC ABOUT LINKING IT TO THE PUPPY CONTRACT
9. Minute 25 - Re the issue discussed under AoB, the chairman reported that she
had consulted CARIAD on the draft letter to the NFU regarding its support for the
retrospective granting of planning permission for ‘puppy farms’ and its attitude to
farm diversification of this type in general. The intention is that the letter would make
reference to the Council’s Standard for breeding dogs as setting out what was
required in any such establishment.
10. Following up action from a preceding meeting, CL commented that the return of
Puppy health check forms had almost dried up. The average time to check a puppy
had been 3-4 minutes and most comments had been very positive with only one or
two opposed to the process. He considered that the form required amendments so
that each box prompted an indication that the parameter had been checked, and that
the fact it was checked did not necessarily indicate that the parameter was normal. It
was agreed that the next step should be to add this form to the issues to be
discussed with BVA AWF, as another enhancement to the puppy contract.
ACTION: CL AND RC
Agenda Item 5 – Expenditure Report
11. Paper AC 108 referred. It was noted that some members had experienced
difficulties with the bank, including some branches insisting on retaining the signed
documents. All the paperwork was now either with the bank or with the Secretary,
except for the papers from LC.
ACTION: SECRETARY TO CHASE AND FOLLOW UP WITH THE BANK
12. It was noted, with gratitude, that the PDSA had paid their donation to the work of
the Council for 2013. The question of following up the request for donations with
other patrons was postponed for further discussion after Agenda Item 6.
13. The Secretary reported that Mr Harvey Locke, a past president of the BVA, had
offered to approach Pedigree Petfoods on the Council’s behalf, seeking funding. The
Council expressed its appreciation and full support for Mr Locke’s initiative and
offered whatever assistance he would find most helpful.
ACTION: SECRETARY TO LIAISE WITH MR LOCKE.
Agenda item 6 – the future of advice on companion animals.
14. The Council noted that, with the exception of members of CAWC, a large number
of stakeholders had responded to the consultation document. A number of detailed
views had been expressed which the Council had found most helpful. The vast
majority of those who had responded agreed on three key points:
 They appreciated the work of the Council so far and for the foreseeable future
wished it to continue as a separate entity rather than amalgamate with CAWC
(although possible amalgamation had been mentioned by a number of the
respondents it should be noted that amalgamation was not actually a proposal
in the consultation document);
 They considered that a sector group that could talk to government on behalf
of the industry and other stakeholders was valuable; but they also thought that
dialogue between the sector group and the Council should be encouraged
and improved;
 The major stumbling block in achieving any significant change in the advisory
landscape was lack of funding, especially from government.
15. On the funding point, it was noted that an initiative with respect to the pet food
industry had already been discussed. The possibility of approaching other sectors,
such as the pharmaceutical industry, was also discussed and it was agreed that
Ross Tiffin should be approached for his advice.
ACTION: CL
16. It was also noted that the return from the Kennel Club had stated that it had
previously offered funding and been turned down. This did not accord with the
memory of members, but the indication that funding could be provided was
welcomed and it was agreed to approach the Kennel Club.
ACTION: SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN
17. Subject to other action recorded below, it was also agreed to repeat the
approach to the Animal Defence Trust.
ACTION: SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN
18. It was pointed out that it was impossible to separate the issue of funding from
that of the Council’s strategy. MR suggested that the Council needed to be less an
implementing body and much more a peer review body, putting material to ministers
and the Efra Committee in a timely way.
19. A number of options were considered for carrying out the work of the Council
even more cheaply. Fewer meetings were one option. The Secretary pointed out that
some other bodies were supported by secretariats provided by a stakeholder, for
example, APGAW was supported by the RSPCA and the Canine and Feline Sector
Group by the Kennel Club. The Council was of the view that there was value in
having an independent secretariat.
20. It was agreed that:
 the recommendations on legislation should be submitted to governments as
soon as possible;


The strategy should be revisited in the light of comments from stakeholders;
A letter should be sent to stakeholders and patrons as a matter of urgency,
thanking them for their responses, noting the agreement on key points as set
out above and informing them that a revised strategy would be circulated
after the meeting on 20 August. It would also note that the Council
acknowledged that timeliness had sometimes been an issue but that the work
of the Council was constrained by the limited budget and the voluntary nature
of the members’ input.
ACTION SECRETARY
21. Finally, it was noted for the record that, subject to the availability of appropriate
funding, the Council would continue as constituted but that further consideration
would be given to the following:
 Changing the name of the Council;
 The Council becoming a charity in its own right;
 The reappointments or appointments necessary before 2014, including the
secretariat contract.
ACTION: SECRETARY TO EXPLORE OPTIONS
22. On the question of the website, it was noted that Henny had done a superb job of
recreating the website into something more attractive and user friendly and the
Council was very grateful for her efforts. However, the direct control by the secretary
had been lost and it was more difficult both to keep the website up to date and also
to post papers on private pages for member convenience. DS thought that the site
could be translated into a system readily useable by the Secretary and LMcC offered
also the assistance of her PA.
ACTION: DS AND LMCc.
Agenda item 8 - proposals on legislation
23. It was agreed that the Council’s proposals with regard to legislation should be
amended in the light of comments as a matter of urgency and the next version, once
signed off by the Council, should go to Ministers. The following points were noted in
discussion:
 A common major concern was about the workload for Local Authorities,
particularly with regard to the proposal relating to registration. However, it was
also noted that no one seemed to recognise that LAs would be able to charge
for the work and that the Council’s concept of registration was very light touch;
 The Kennel Club’s opposition to being regarded as a body exercising public
functions was noted. However, it was also noted that it wished to exercise
public functions in the form of providing enforcement inspections for the
purposes of the Welsh regulations with regard to members of the Assured
Breeder Scheme;
 Inspection and enforcement will depend on the powers of the AWA;
 It was agreed that the proposals should be amended to introduce a provision
for licensing, keeping in step with what was agreed in Wales;
 The Council should perhaps work with LANTRA to establish what
enforcement officers should do and how they should be trained;

The recommendation re pet shops should be kept, along with the fall back
relating to a code of practice which was widely supported;
 There was a need to emphasise the importance of the link between the
database and microchips;
 Proposals needed to recognise that we would never get away from large
scale breeders altogether, in part, because of the instant gratification culture.
Therefore the Council had to ensure that the provisions enforced appropriate
levels of welfare for large scale breeders;
 The recommendation should include case studies illustrating the impact of the
controls;
 The recommendations should return to referring to bitches in breeding
condition as the definition of the trigger for a need for licensing.
ACTION: SECRETARY TO REDRAFT THE PROPOSALS WEEK BEGINNING 15
JULY; CL TO EXPLORE POTENTIAL COST OF DATABASE WITH ONE OR TWO
LAs
24. The Council also discussed the need to ensure that there should be clarity on the
best location for the microchip, as well as when, and by whom, the microchip should
be inserted, before microchipping became compulsory. The Microchip Alliance (MA)
and all governments should be involved in this work and the MA might wish to
consider a data gathering exercise to provide a more robust evidence base.
Item 9 - RSPCA request re breed standards.
25. It was agreed that the Council would take each of the priorities already
developed by the Council and, taking the issues body system by body system,
develop the recommendations from the priorities into clear recommendations relating
to terms used in breed standards. Those recommendations should then be sent to a
group of experts to peer review the advice.
ACTION: SECRETARY TO INCORPORATE THE CONCEPT INTO THE COUNCIL
STRATEGY
Item 10 – Any other Business
26. The Kennel Club proposal relating to the proposed exclusion of Assured Breeder
Scheme (ABS) members from Local Authority inspections was noted. Issues
included the need for the ABS to inspect to a standard fully consonant with that set in
the Council Standard, the need for at least annual inspections, and the fact that while
such an arrangement (as in the case of greyhound establishments) could exempt
scheme members from routine inspections, it would not exempt them from
enforcement inspections under the Animal Welfare Act.
27. It was agreed that comments should be passed to the Secretary to compile a
composite response on the part of the Council.
ACTION: ALL MEMBERS BY END JULY
28. The Council had been asked by the Dog Breeding Reform Group to send a long
questionnaire to Local Authorities on their experience of enforcing dog controls. The
Council concluded that the questionnaire in its current form was likely to cost LAs too
much time and resource to complete and indeed the responses, if any, would be
difficult to interpret. It was agreed that CR should feed the Council’s comments back,
suggesting that the questionnaire design might be reconsidered and perhaps tried
out on a few friendly LAs as a pilot exercise. No more than 10 multiple choice
questions were recommended as a practical way forward.
The meeting closed at 1500.