Dangerous Dogs

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, I entirely agree. The emphasis has to be on prevention. The House will be pleased to know that in the case I described, the little girl and her mother are now recovering. The little girl is having to endure a series of long operations, effectively to rebuild her ear. It is a dreadful thing for her to have to endure. We must all have in our minds the thought that the next child who is attacked by a vicious dog might not be fortunate enough to escape with injuries that the medical profession can put right.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate and on the work that she has done. Does she agree that criminal injuries compensation must be examined? I had a young constituent who suffered very bad injuries, and unfortunately she has not received any compensation whatever because it was deemed that there was no intent. Nobody set the dog on her, so she has had no compensation.

[Mrs Laing]

That is a very valid point, and when the Minister and his colleagues examine the consultation responses that they have received, I hope that they will consider the possibility of requiring insurance for dogs. The totally inadequate compensation that is being paid to my constituent’s family—£450 at a rate of £50 a month—does not even begin to cover the loss that they have endured through both the mother and father taking time off work, the costs of going to hospital and so on. Of course, they are thinking not about the money but about the health of their little daughter, but it is our duty to consider that side of things as well. I hope the Minister can give those matters adequate consideration.

I pay tribute to the many charities and organisations that campaign on such issues and that have taken part in the Government’s consultation. Since it was known that this debate would take place, I have been flooded with information by well-meaning and well-organised institutions that have taken the matter seriously for some time. I acknowledge their help and am sorry that I cannot mention all their points in the time available—I note that we have another hour and three quarters to go, but I shall limit my remarks to a reasonable length.

I pay tribute in particular to the Dogs Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, and the Communication Workers Union and its “Bite Back” campaign. Not surprisingly, there are calls from all sectors of society that we must do something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to confirm that that is still our intention and desire.

The issue of irresponsible dog ownership spans a number of areas, with the police, courts, local authorities, dog re-homing centres, veterinary surgeons and charitable bodies, many of which are dog re-homing centres, all having an interest. It is therefore important to strike the right balance between penalising irresponsible dog owners and not placing unrealistic burdens on the majority of responsible dog owners. The serious implications that irresponsible dog ownership can have for individuals mean that we regard it as a form of antisocial behaviour. It is important that the police and other professionals have effective tools and powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. That is why the Home Office published a consultation document that proposed a streamlined set of faster, more flexible and more effective tools to allow practitioners to protect victims and communities and get to the root of the problem. The Home Office received more than 1,000 written responses to its consultation from the police, other front-line professionals, members of the judiciary, local authorities, interest groups and members of the public, and it has worked with DEFRA officials on the detail of the proposed new criminal behaviour order and the crime prevention injunction to ensure that they adequately cover dog-related issues and could apply to antisocial behaviour by dog owners.

We also want to encourage informal measures to tackle inappropriate behaviour before it escalates into something more serious. Such measures could include raising awareness of examples where local areas are taking a more informal approach to issues through, for example, restorative justice or working with potential offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest mentioned that some local authorities could require dogs to be microchipped before their owners could have local authority accommodation. That struck me as a very good example of a local initiative that could be used without the need for legislation.

[Cathy Jamieson]

May I return the Minister briefly to the point I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) about criminal behaviour and the definition of criminal intent? She talked about victims. Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the Home Office and the Justice Department, if he has not already done so, the issue of criminal injuries compensation in circumstances in which innocent victims are severely injured through no fault of their own because of irresponsible dog owners?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to undertake to discuss that with my colleagues. My understanding is that the Home Office has considered the matter. I do not wish to presage what may or may not be announced by Ministers there. Suffice it to say that I do not think they are fully persuaded. I shall say a word in a moment about other financial aspects.

Currently dog control orders are available to local authorities, under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. These allow local authorities to impose restrictions on the walking of dogs in certain public open areas. Typically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest suggested, this allows child recreation areas in parks to remain dog-free and thereby helps to provide a safe area for children to play. It also allows local authorities to place restrictions in areas where there have been substantial complaints about unruly dogs in general causing problems. My hon. Friend rightly said that the part of a park where the children’s play area is should be free from dogs. I entirely agree. The powers exist and local authorities can ensure that. One would encourage them to do so in the appropriate situations.

As the House may know, dog control orders will be replaced by the new measures available under the Home Office’s proposed revised antisocial behaviour measures, but there are no proposals to remove the power to create dog-free areas. Another proposal being looked at by my Department is to extend the criminal law on dangerous dogs to all private property. My hon. Friend rightly made a great deal of this. The proposal would allow the police to investigate dog attacks on private property. However, we need to make sure that any new measure gets it right. There is an issue of balance here. Nobody would disagree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the Communication Workers Union. Clearly, someone going about their duties as a postman, milkman or anybody else who goes on to private property should not expect to be under attack from a dog. That, I hope, goes without saying.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of children. None of us wants to see children attacked anywhere, but there is a distinction to be made between people who are legitimately on premises, whether a postman or postwoman, a child whose home it is or who is staying with their grandparents or whatever it may be, and somebody who should not be on the property—a potential burglar or other trespasser.

I am carefully trying not to lead the House into any conclusions about what may be announced. All I would say is that there is an issue of getting it right. We are discussing a first-class example in which haste does not get it right. I was here—I do not think anyone else in the Chamber this evening was—when the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was passed. We all realised that we as a Government, of which I was a very junior member at the time, acted in haste. Perhaps we could say that we have repented at leisure. We clearly did not get it right.

I do not support any cause for delay, but deliberation is required. I have therefore pointed out the balance that we have to strike between those who have a right to be on a property and those who should not be there in the first place. Do we really want to see a trespasser successfully prosecuting a home owner because a dog has acted in a way that many people would consider only natural towards somebody who the dog would not expect to be on the premises? There are major implications to extending the law into the home. We need to make sure that all the potential risks are understood and can be addressed.