---PLEASE SHARE---

Through the Freedom of Information Act we have seen this letter sent to the European Human Rights Commission (EHRC) by the DWP facilitated working Group committee. This was signed by a majority of the members. It is highly discriminatory toward Independently Owner Trained Assistance Dogs.

This all has to do with the EHRC Guidelines they issued to all public service providers and businesses in the UK. Last year, Admin Sharon and I helped them revise what they had written to make it fair to non-ADUK assistance dog teams. 

“Assistance Dogs Public Access Assessment Working Group
c/o Dr Anne McBride
School of Psychology
University of Southampton
Highfield
Southampton SO17 1BJ Email: amcb@soton.ac.uk
REDACTED s40(2)

27 March 2018
Rebecca Hilsenrath
Chief Executive, Equality and Human Rights Commission Rebecca.Hilsenrath@equalityhumanrights.com
REDACTED S40(2)
REDACTED S40(2) Equality and Human Rights Commission REDACTED S40(2) @equalityhumanrights.com
Re your publications December 2017:
“Assistance Dogs: A guide for all businesses” and “Take the lead: a guide to welcoming customers with assistance dogs”.

Dear Ms Hilsenrath and REDACTED S40(2)
We are members of a group of organisations and individual experts that are working together, through the facilitation of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), on the development of a robust and fair means of Public Access Assessment of Assistance Dog Partnerships. This group includes but is not limited to assistance dog organisations such as Assistance Dogs UK (AD (UK)), Veterans With Dogs, individual assistance dog users, Canine Generated Independence (owner trainer representative group), Dog A.I.D, health experts, and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council.

We read with interest these recent publications from your office. We applaud the underlying aim of the document “to help businesses understand what they can do to comply with their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010” in respect of persons with an assistance dog. However, we do have some grave concerns regarding the content and the level of advice given regarding what is an assistance dog, its training and what should be considered as evidence of both. Where specific pages, paragraphs are indicated in this letter we are referring to the first document, Assistance Dogs: A guide for all businesses, but the points raised are relevant to both.

The overall impression from these documents is that anyone with a Disability under the Equality Act can present themselves to any business/service provider, with any dog and that the business/service provider must allow access without question. They do not have to verify that the dog is truly an Assistance Dog nor that it has been adequately trained and is capable of coping in the situation.

In essence our 8 areas of concern relate to dog, owner and public welfare. There is obviously much overlap and interconnectedness between these three. For example, a dog that is not trained to a standard which enables it to cope with a particular circumstance may become anxious / fearful and react inappropriately. This can have immediate and potential long-term negative consequences for the animal, owner and public, and thus by implication for the business. Such consequences include property damage, physical/psychological harm and injury, civil or criminal charges.

We detail our major concerns below, our conclusions and suggestions for forward steps. We would be very happy to enter into further dialogue with you regarding this.

1. Related Legislation
Where we are discussing an animal, in this case dog, then the Equality Act cannot be taken in isolation of other pertinent legislation; notably the Animal Welfare Act (2006), the Animals Act (1971), the Dogs Act (1871) and the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991 and amendments); and others, including the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
There is no reference made to these in the document nor how a business may or may not be potentially jointly culpable in relation to any of these should anything untoward occur.

2. Identifying an Assistance Dog
Nowhere in the document is there any Burden of Proof stated. In fact, for many assistance dogs there is a simple means of checking. Owners of dogs acquired from any member organisation of the AD(UK) have proof of assistance dog status. Other organisations have identification that can be clarified also.

However, the way in which the document is worded, there is implication that doing such checks is outwith, and even contrary to the Equality Act and that the person’s word should be sufficient.

By stating there is no requirement for the owner to provide any ID about the dog, or for the dog to wear a legitimately recognised jacket/harness, then there is no means for a business to identify an assistance dog from a dog that is simply a disabled person’s pet that they claim is there to ‘support their independence and confidence’. If the latter, a pet as described, then the dog may have had no particular training at all to enable it to cope with a variety of potential public places.

This has potential serious implications for all concerned, as indicated in the previous section regarding related legislation.

Indeed, the burden is being placed entirely on the businesses. This is unreasonable.

3. Recourse for Complaint:
Incidents may not be discovered / reported immediately. For example, a dog defecates but this is not noticed until after the person-dog partnership has left; or a dog growls/snaps at someone (say a young person) but they say nothing at the time, but tell their parents who then report it to the business/service provider or to the police.
There is no stated avenue for businesses/service providers to follow in case of complaint.

In cases where a dog is from a provider organisation, then they could contact that organisation. However, as there is no requirement for identification they may not have that information.

Likewise, for a person whose has self-identified their dog as an assistance dog (generally known as an owner-trainer); where the person may not even be local and therefore may not be able to be traced.

4. “Assistance Dogs are highly trained”
This statement is repeated throughout the document and is extremely mis-leading, and inaccurate, potentially dangerously so, given the previously discussed concern of lack of identification.

a. Only providers of Assistance Dogs who are member organisations of the AD (UK) have by virtue of that membership have agreed to work to a set of minimum training standards that the dog must meet before being paired with a person. These standards have been internationally agreed.

b. Organisations outwith AD (UK) may work to such standards, but without any verification this cannot be assumed.

c. There is no recognised, or required, UK standard to which an Assistance dog must be trained

d. Individual owner trainers have no standard to work with, and they are not endorsed by any standard.
Indeed, these latter two points are fundamental aspects of the rationale for the Public Access Assessment working party initiative being facilitated by the DWP.

5. Expectation of an Assistance Dog
The expected standard of behaviour considered appropriate in this document is that the dog

i. “will not wander freely around the premises”
ii. “will sit or lie quietly on the floor next to its owner” and
iii. that it is “unlikely to foul the premises”.

These are simply not adequate to ensure health and safety. They certainly do not differentiate between an assistance dog and a reasonably well trained pet dog. Indeed, the first standard, of not wandering around freely, does not even require training. It simply requires a lead attached to the dog and person.

Sitting or lying quietly by the owner again is not sufficient. If this is presumed to be an assistance dog it should also not be concerned by stimuli in the environment, especially people who may approach it. Assistance dogs are perceived as ‘safe’ by the public and thus approachable (Walsh et al., 2007). This may not be the case… just because a dog is sitting quietly does not mean it is safe to be approached by a stranger, or even a stranger walking past if, for example, the dog is anxious, guarding or there is food around.

6. Assistance dogs do not present a health risk
The document states that dogs receive “regular veterinary treatment and are tested on a regular basis to ensure they don’t present a health risk” (pg 11, pt 4). This is inaccurate and misleading.

This only definitely required by AD(UK) organisations that provide assistance dogs. It may be true of organisations outside of the AD(UK), but this is not guaranteed. Likewise, there is no guarantee that this is case for any owner-trained dog.

In reference to the statement that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) has determined that assistance dogs are unlikely to present a risk to hygiene is thus also misleading, as this implies all assistance dogs would be meeting the requirements of those supplied by AD(UK) organisations. It is our understanding that the CIEH statement was written when the sole supplier of Assistance dogs was AD (UK) organisations, whose dogs’ health is monitored closely throughout their working life. The supply chain of assistance dogs has changed radically, and not all require proof of health monitoring. Thus, the CIEH statement can now be considered presumptive and not an accurate reflection of the situation.

7. Disabled people - ensuring they can handle their dogs.
Pg 12 states “Disabled people who are partnered with assistance dogs may also receive expert training to ensure that they can handle their dogs”. Whilst the careful use of the word ‘may’ here is accurate, this statement is also misleading.

What does a business/service provider understand by the word ‘partnered’? How would they know if the dog was specifically partnered to the person by an Assistance Dog provider, given no burden of proof is required?

Whilst all AD (UK) providers do provide expert training to persons, this may not be true for other providers.
Not all owner-trainers will have the skills / knowledge to be able to sufficiently handle their dogs.

Training for the dog-handler team to reach a set standard is only a guaranteed requirement from AD(UK) organisations. This includes other aspects beyond handling such as: understanding dog related legislation; having public liability insurance, routine checks and ongoing reviews and assessments of the partnership being conducted. Both the person’s and the dog’s ability to work to the required safe standard can change over time.
There is no such guarantees for dogs provided by other organisations, nor for owner-trained dogs.

8. Where can I find further advice?
Section 5 names five specific organisations who are not members of AD(UK).

Given the issues outlined above this raises some questions. Have these organisations been checked by the Equality and Human Rights Commission as meeting the standards of safety implied in the document? On what basis have these particular ones been named?
It would have been more appropriate to have simply referred to AD(UK) as a source of reliable advice on a range of topics related to assistance dog and dog–person partnership training, legal aspects of assistance dogs, access and disability rights in the UK.

Conclusions
It is clearly stated (pg 14) that: “It would be unlawful to refuse access to a disabled person accompanied by an assistance dog, except in the most exceptional circumstances.” Yet, these guidelines lack any clear means for a business to know what such a dog is, how it can be identified or how to ensure that it is safe!

As it stands, this publication has significant potential for serious detrimental consequences:

a. Abuse: as people present to businesses / service providers with this publication as evidence that they have right of access with their dog.

b. Right of access may thus be granted to dog-person partnerships where the dog is unable to cope and there is the potential for harm to occur to one or more parties.

c. Such events would have knock-on detrimental effects on the perception of the business, and on the public perception of Assistance dogs in general.

It is our considered conclusion that:
It is unreasonable for businesses and services to have to accept these guidelines without question.
It is unreasonable to expose the public to the significantly increased risk of harm from inadequately trained and assessed person-dog partnerships
and
It is unreasonable to expose those with genuine, highly trained Assistance Dogs to reputational risk.

Suggested forward Steps
a. That these publications are withdrawn as soon as is possible and some interim statement of clarity for businesses/service providers and owners with a disability is issued.

b. The publication is rewritten with wider consultation and research, including with the DWP facilitated working group on Public Access Assessment for Assistance Dog Partnerships.

Once again, just to reiterate who we are. We are members of a group of non-governmental representatives who have come together to seek a solution to ensure that everyone can have access to a “registered” assistance dog, through the development of a Public Access Assessment process. Our aim in writing is one of constructive criticism and a wish to engage with E&HRC regarding awareness of developments and possible future combining of efforts to the common good.

The signatories below (in alphabetical order) represent the majority but not the totality of that working group for the Public Access Assessment for Assistance Dog Partnerships.

In the interests of clarity, 2 individuals chose not to sign this letter on the basis of timing. They considered it would be better sent once the Public Access Assessment development is finalised later this year. 1 individual considered the guidelines are there simply to reflect the law which they do; i.e. access to persons with a disability. One group, whilst acknowledging there were issues with the guidelines as they currently stand, did not wish to be associated with the letter.

We thank you for your consideration of this letter and we look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Maggie Bracher, Lecturer in Occupational Therapy, University of Southampton
Kirsten Dillon, Head of Training, Veterans With Dogs; Trainer / Assessor Dog Assistance in Disability (Dog A.I.D.)

Sandra Fraser, Dog Assistance in Disability (Dog A.I.D.)
Peter Gorbing, Dogs for Good
Anthea Langshaw, Mental Health Practitioner, Veterans With Dogs
Craig MacLellan, Veterans With Dogs
Dr Anne McBride, Dog behaviour expert and senior lecturer in Human-Animal Interactions (University of Southampton), Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC)
David Montgomery, Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC)
Robert Stuhldreer, Independent Owner-Trainer (CGI)
Toby Veall, Independent Owner-Trainer
PP on behalf of the above
REDACTED S40(2)

Reference
Walsh EA, McBride A, Bishop F, Leyvraz AM. (2007) Influence of breed, handler appearance and people’s experience of dogs on their perception of the temperament of a breed of dog in Ireland. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Anthrozoology; Toyko, Japan. Available from eprints.soton.ac.uk”
-------------------

Sharon Lawrence and I have both written to the DWP because we want to know what the DWP is going to do about it and how we plan to move forward. It is obvious ADUK are controlling the process along with ABTC. How can the initiative move forward with what was agreed on in August 2017 Shareholder Meeting with the majority of the Assistance Dog Working Group signing a piece of propaganda like this? The DWP working Group was organized to make the UK EQUAL for all assistance dogs.

Then they go in secret to get these guidances changed to work against what the group was set out to accomplish. ADUK have not stopped discriminating against us during these DWP meetings when they should or the DWP should make them....

The EHRC has informed us they have no plans to change the guidances.

I could go on but we at the OTCC would like to know what your opinions are.