Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Finally, I seek the Minister’s assurance that he will look long and hard at the new clauses and amendments on written notices, take on board Members’ comments and consider the position.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

We have all heard the tragic tales of those who have been injured or even killed by dogs that are out of control, and the issue is of growing concern to the public. I am therefore glad at least to see that the Government are prepared to do something to tackle the problem.

The cases that have stuck out in the debate that has taken place over the past few years relate to children such as John Paul Massey, from Liverpool, who died three or four years ago; the girl from Chingford who was in the park and nearly lost part of her ear because of an attack by a dog that was running free, unrestrained by its owner; and Jade Anderson, who died recently and about whom we have heard today. There was also the case of Keith Davies, the postman in Cambridgeshire who was attacked in a cul-de-sac by two rottweilers that had escaped from behind the gates of a private residence, and who nearly lost an arm. It was saved only through the skilful intervention of surgeons. Paul Coleman, the Sheffield postman who got me involved in this campaign, nearly lost his leg as a result of an attack on the street where I used to live by a dog that was roaming free on the public highway.

All those cases indicate to me that enough is enough. We spend £9.5 million a year on NHS costs alone to deal with the injuries inflicted on human beings by dogs that are out of control, and that is before considering the costs incurred by the police and other bodies in dealing with the issue. Any progress, however slight, is therefore welcome. I particularly welcome the Government’s decision to extend the law to private property. The onus will now be on owners to exercise responsible control of their dogs at all times, which will be welcomed not just by postal workers but by other delivery workers, health visitors, doctors, party members canvassing at election times and a whole range of other people. That really important safeguard will be more than welcome, because 6,000 postal workers a year alone are injured as a result of attacks on private property.

I believe that a strengthening of the defence must be built into the proposed legislation. The Bill currently includes the defence of general household protection, but amendment 142 would strengthen the defences given to householders who do their utmost to ensure they keep their dogs under reasonable control. It is my contention, and that of bodies such as the RSPCA, that the current defence does not do enough to protect householders who do their best to keep their dogs under control at all times. We can never legislate for all possibilities, and it is important that we include the best possible defences in the Bill to ensure that householders do not, for example, adopt the habit of keeping dogs imprisoned in the house for most of the day because they have visitors. That would be unreasonable, but the Bill as currently drafted could make dog owners feel vulnerable to the proposed legislation, and therefore adopt those unfortunate welfare standards. Amendment 142 is reasonable and I hope the Minister will take it seriously.

My general point about the content of the Bill is that we need more than currently exists. What we do have is not necessarily best designed and in many ways is inadequate for encouraging responsible dog ownership and improving the welfare of dogs more generally. We need not only consolidation of the legislation but a comprehensive look at what measures we need for dog control. That position is supported by a grand coalition of charities and trade unions, including the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, the Blue Cross, and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. The Dogs Trust pointed out that 12 pieces of legislation in statute deal with dog control, but little emphasis is placed on the prevention of attacks and there is little focus on responsible dog ownership.

We need legislation that deals with dog ownership in the broadest possible sense, which is why I am working with animal welfare charities on a strategy to take a long-term look at what needs to be done, and at how charities work together to improve welfare standards and responsible dog ownership. Once finalised, legislation will inevitably be part of that strategy, focusing not only on dog control by the dog owner but on the breeding and sale of dogs, and the responsibility of all involved in dog welfare, including dog owners.

The Bill does not tackle that issue holistically or comprehensively, and along with animal welfare charities I remain disappointed that we have not had a dedicated Bill to update the legislation. Community protection notices are a blunt and unwieldy measure, not suited to the task of tackling irresponsible dog ownership. As indicated by the changes in new clause 17, the Bill contains no power to issue notices instantly so as to get on top of a dog that is potentially dangerous or out of control as soon as the situation occurs. In some cases, inevitably, the authorities will wait until an attack has been committed before issuing a notice, because they will not feel they should intervene and go through the unwieldy procedure to get a written notice before they can make that move. I do not believe that the Bill tackles those issues. New clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), contains the important requirement that an owner whose dog is potentially out of control should be made to engage in training and behaviour courses related to their ownership of the dog, and in that sense the new clause is helpful.

New clause 17 provides for a bespoke community protection notice modelled on the dog control notices recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Guidance has already been issued on community protection notices and the measures in the Bill, but so far that guidance is long and difficult to interpret, and much of the support offered is found in the annexes to the guidance, not the guidance itself. As far as animal welfare charities are concerned, there will be an issue about the interpretation of that guidance, and a risk that animal welfare standards will be compromised as a result of the way it has been drafted. The guidance has not been produced properly in consultation with animal welfare charities.

Finally—you have been patient, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will refer quickly to the new clauses that relate to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Clearly, section 1 on breed-specific legislation is not working. In a consultation run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that Act and the measures before us today, 71% of those consulted thought that the breed-specific section of that Act should be repealed because it is not working. It costs a tremendous amount of money to kennel dogs seized under section 1 of the Act, with an annual cost over the past three financial years of £2.6 million for the Metropolitan police alone.

The new clauses relate to the need to ensure that a time limit is imposed on the courts regarding how long a banned-breed dog can be held before the issue of whether it should be exempt from the legislation is dealt with, to ensure that animal welfare standards are not compromised. That is critical. There should also be the power to rehome dogs that are fit for exemption but have nowhere to go. The only other choice available to animal welfare charities at the moment is euthanasia, which is not good enough. It is the deed not the breed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that important issue, which I know the Metropolitan police, as well as animal charities such as the RSPCA, are keen to see dealt with.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I am sorry, but I will not, because of the time.

Another important provision, which has not been mentioned much in the debate so far, is clause 99, which begins the necessary shift from breed to deed. It requires a court to establish whether a dog is

“a danger to public safety”,

given

“the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour”,

and to establish whether the dog’s owner is a “fit and proper person” to own a dog. I agree with the criticism by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge of the rather strange list of obscure breeds, which I am not sure that most police forces would recognise even if they came across them. I do not know whether we will eventually abolish that list, but I certainly think it significant that the Bill is embarking on that shift towards tackling deed and behaviour rather than just breed.

I have some sympathy for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). They seek tougher sentencing, underlining the fact that in many instances dogs are used as lethal weapons, and that we should see that in the context of the responsibility of their owners. I also have some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), as, I think, will legions of Liberal Democrat “Focus” deliverers. My constituent Councillor Rob Reid provided me with a paddle which I now use to push leaflets through letter boxes. A deliverer can take some responsible action. The paddle now bears a good many teeth marks, which could have been on my fingers. Councillor Reid made it by cutting up old “Yes to the alternative vote” campaign placards, which is probably one of the lesser but more positive outcomes of that campaign.

[Angela Smith]

Is it not true that, if we legislate specifically to require dog owners to put guards on their letter boxes, we will run the danger of neglecting the other risks that people face when they go on to private property, such as dogs running free in back gardens? Is it not the case that there are a number of possibilities in terms of dog attacks once someone passes the boundary of the gate?

[Martin Horwood]

It is important that the Government consult carefully on all these things. We do not want to intrude too much into the realm of private property and what people are allowed to do with their dogs in their property, but the point that the hon. Lady makes is well made.

I ask the Minister to consider carefully the campaign by Naturewatch, which is based in my constituency and led me to table early-day motion 412 to address the issues of irresponsible breeders and the need to regulate the advertising and selling of pets. That could be the next important step that the Government take in their rather gradualist approach to the issue. In many ways, that is one of the root causes of the phenomenon of dangerous and trophy dogs and dogs used as weapons.

For now, however, we should congratulate the Government on taking some important steps to tackle the issue. The steps we are voting on today will help to save lives. They will potentially save the lives of children like poor Jade Anderson and the lives of adults. They will certainly save the lives of pets. Those steps are overwhelmingly to be welcomed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I do recognise that. That is a good reason why it is better to have flexible, general legislation rather than specific legislation that then creates loopholes. That is what the Opposition, who are well intentioned, would do if they had their way in the construction of antisocial behaviour legislation.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I must not, because I have lots of people to try to reply to. I am sorry.

I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that the approach put forward in the new clause is already provided for in the Bill. If they were minded to press it, I would invite the House to reject it. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is seeking to intervene while I am trying to respond to her points, proposes to reduce the time delay that can take place following the seizure of a suspected section 1 dog, such as a pit bull terrier, before it is examined by expert witnesses for the defence or prosecution to assess whether it is a prohibited dog. I understand her concerns about the impact that such delays can have on the welfare of dogs. That is why we are committed to bringing forward regulations next year to make it clear that when the police seize a suspected prohibited dog they will not be required to kennel it, but only in cases where they are satisfied that the situation of dog and owner do not present a risk to public safety. It is right to give the police this discretion, and that is the aim that we intend to take forward. It will be a condition of release, if release occurs, that the owner consents to the dog being muzzled and on a lead in public, as well as being microchipped and neutered before it can be released back to the owner. This is to ensure public safety and to prevent breeding from section 1 dogs. On that basis, we do not consider the hon. Lady’s new clause 29 to be necessary.

I now want to deal with the amendments eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which seek to extend the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover incidents where a dog injures or kills a protected animal. I entirely understand and sympathise with her reason for proposing that measure. She listed some of the existing legislation, which does have an effect and can be used in certain circumstances, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animals Act 1971, the Dogs Act 1871, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It is rather unfortunate that the Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies animals as goods or property in this respect.

I understand the concern of people whose cat is savaged by a dog, but the way forward is to consider other solutions. Instead of more legislation, we want better education for owners, training for dogs, and increased awareness among the public and the authorities who can use the new antisocial behaviour powers to address these incidents and help to prevent them before they happen.

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to particular resources in legislation in respect of horses, which she mentioned. The Dangerous Dogs Act would apply in a situation where a dog threatens or attacks a horse and a rider, because the rider is likely to have “reasonable apprehension” that the dog will injure them, and therefore an offence would be created. My hon. Friend also referred to the livestock issues that I mentioned earlier. We are keen to make sure that other animals are protected. However, as I said, the general nature of the legislation provides options through, for example, the injunction procedure to see whether there are other avenues that can be taken to deal with dogs that present a danger to the public and, indeed, to other animals.

On amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I regret that because of the lack of time I will have to write to her with a specific response to the point she raises.

The actions that this Government are taking in tackling dangerous dogs are absolutely right. Everybody in the House agrees that that needs to happen better than it has done in the past, and I believe the Bill will achieve that. The provisions will enable all the dreadful acts that have been taking place to be tackled in a sensible and effective way.