Dog Control Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Friday 9th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester]

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has attracted notoriety as a primary example of flawed legislation. It bears the hallmarks of being produced as a hurried response to a public outcry for action following a number of dog attacks, largely by pit bull-type dogs. Despite this, nearly 20 years later we are still trying to find a better answer to regulate the interaction between man and his best friend, the dog. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his constant championing of a better control regime over many years. I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire, albeit one without a dog, although I have worked with farm dogs in the past.

Since the law has fallen into disrepute here, it behoves us to improve matters. The Dangerous Dogs Act has failed to ban the ownership of four extreme types of dog. Indeed, through the index of exempted dogs, it sends out a mixed message. Under Section 1, the number of convictions for ownership has risen from 17 in 2004 to 115 in 2008, while the number of dogs added to the exempt list has risen over the two years from 2007 to 2009 from 185 to 396. This position has arisen as a consequence of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997, which repealed the mandatory destruction orders, provided that certain necessary conditions are met.

Following yet further high profile dog attacks in 2006, the legislation was reviewed by Defra in 2007. After extensive consultations with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dogs Trust, it was concluded that the current legislation was sufficiently robust to deal effectively with the problem. This was despite the cogent championing by many organisations that the Act’s basis of targeting breeds or breed types was the wrong approach, and the deed of the dog—from a lack of control or the irresponsible action of the owners—was the nub of the problem.

Since 2007, there has been a further explosion of attacks and ownership, brought about by the trend in gang culture to own such dogs as status dogs and use them in gang-related crime, drug dealing and anti-social behaviour. In response, the Metropolitan Police set up the Status Dogs Unit in March 2009. Defra announced funding in July 2009 to train designated dog legislation officers and issued extensive guidance and best practice notes to a wide range of audiences, including the courts, local authority officers, housing officers and the police, as well as pet owners. It has been difficult to obtain information and figures to reveal the extent and size of the problem as there are no centrally collected figures on the number of dogs seized or destroyed. The costs of law enforcement are also difficult to obtain as police forces do not appear to have separate budget provision for dealing with dangerous dogs. However, there are significant costs associated with inspecting premises, transport, veterinary fees, kennelling, prosecution and expert witness costs, as well as extensive court time.

Just recently there have been yet more tragic cases of dog attacks. I am indebted to Constable Kerr of Merseyside Police, who put me in touch with Chief Inspector Martin Woosey to update me on the position on Merseyside. In recent years, Merseyside Police have started recording information. Seizure of dogs averages around 150 dogs a year. Since 30 November 2009, under Section 1, “Ownership”, and Section 3, “Dogs Dangerously Out of Control”, Merseyside Police have received 988 calls from members of the public, and there have been a further 1,000 dog-related incidents where search warrants were obtained to enter premises. On 30 November 2009, John-Paul Massey, a four year-old boy, was mauled to death at his grandmother’s house, while she was babysitting, by a dog belonging to the boy’s uncle who lived with the boy's grandmother. Less than three years earlier, a five year-old, Ellie Lawrenson, died in similar circumstances in St Helens. These are tragic circumstances.

In 2009, 69 dogs were destroyed and in the period since the death of John-Paul Massey, of 311 dogs seized, 105 have been destroyed. At any one time around 80 dogs will be in kennels, with many having been kennelled for over 12 months, not only at considerable cost but with increasing welfare fears and associated veterinary attention. Merseyside Police have nine specially trained dog legislation officers. In comparison, the Metropolitan Police have seized 1,152 dogs in the 2009-10 financial year. In the four-year period 2004 to 2008, the RSPCA reported a 12-fold increase in reports of dog fighting, which can range from accidental scraps to organised fights, with the majority of incidents concerning anti-social behaviour with dogs.

The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association reports that, sadly, 61 per cent of attacks on guide dogs occurred when the guide dog was in harness by other dogs overwhelmingly off the lead and in public places. At present, dog-on-dog attacks usually come under the Dogs Act 1871 when only civil sanctions apply.

The problem legislation has to contend with is that this is not a single issue. Dogs that show aggression in the home, dogs that present a danger to the public and other dogs in accessible places and dogs that are kept as a status symbol pose differing risk analyses and demand differing solutions. While primarily an urban issue, dog control is becoming a more pressing problem in rural areas, with a lack of appreciation by walkers that their dogs can cause disease as well as distress to livestock. Neospora Caninum is spread by dog mess, increasing the chances of abortion in affected cattle, and more crucially leading to a 95 per cent chance that the disease will be vertically transmitted in-utero from cow to calf, rendering the breeding potential of the female virtually worthless. However, the legislation must not inadvertently affect the legitimate activities of working dogs on farms.

Dog control notices were introduced by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, and relate to any dog being in a certain public place and being prohibited from doing certain things. Control of dogs, although covered in a variety of ways, is thus at best a patchwork; at worst, it results in poor dog welfare and in extreme cases poses a real risk to public safety.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has admirably spoken to his Bill. It very logically follows the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act of April 2010 passed by the Scottish Parliament. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will remove the focus from breeds and instead will make owners responsible for the behaviour of their dogs by focusing on “deed not breed”. It also extends the coverage of the 1991 Act to any place rather than just public places. It will build in England on the new regime of dog control orders, which will enable local authorities to impose requirements on the dog owner where that person has failed to keep the dog under proper control. Where failure occurs, dog control notices will provide a range of sanctions, including destruction of the dog and disqualification from ownership and keeping an animal.

On behalf of these Benches, I largely support these provisions. In drawing up his Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has been very ably supported by the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, made up, I believe, of organisations including the animal welfare charities of which he has spoken, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and Wandsworth Borough Council.

In response to the growing concern over public safety issues and to improve animal welfare, Defra went out to consultation in March 2010, which has only just recently closed. The DDA study group has largely been in unison with its submissions. However, in drilling down into the detail of further measures to control dogs, there is a divergence of views regarding the use of licensing, micro-chipping and guidance improvements. The responses to the consultation have also revealed a sharp divergence of views between the DDA study group, the RSPCA and ACPO. This was highlighted as well in the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. This Act, in contrast to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and along with the RSPCA/ACPO position does not remove the ban on the four breed types included under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Furthermore, the RSPCA, in conjunction with ACPO, has submitted to Defra a rival Bill which is seriously divergent in its provisions from the Bill before your Lordships today. From these Benches, we would need to examine in some detail the discrepancies between the two Bills. For this Bill today to proceed through Committee, comprehensive analysis would need to be undertaken to assess whether there could be a “hybridisation” or joined-up approach to the issues. Would the Minister in his reply clarify what policy would guide his department, what cost analysis would be undertaken in regard to the various submissions, and whether and to what degree it would be necessary or advantageous to have a common regime with the devolved Administrations?

I have identified a few crucial differences between the Bill today and the RSPCA draft Bill. They are, first, the retention or not of Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 regarding the banning of various breed types. I have sympathy for the view that although breed-specific legislation is incorrect and unjust, it provides a preventive framework and effective approach against this extreme type of dog that can cause death and severe injury.

The second fundamental difference between the Bills relates to responsibility for administration of the control regime. The noble Lord’s Bill places responsibility in the hands of local authorities, whereas the RSPCA draft Bill has as an “authorised officer” either a police constable or local authority officer. The noble Lord outlined in his introduction that he would bring in an amendment to reconcile these two positions. In his reply, will the noble Lord explain whether and how wide he consulted among police authorities and local authorities on the provisions of his Bill?

Thirdly, there are discrepancies regarding the reintroduction of a dog licence and consequential databases, whether to cover all dogs, pedigree dogs with a breed characteristic with health issues or only dogs under control notices.

The fourth difference is the extent to which microchipping will be applicable to dogs and, lastly, there is a difference in the level of fines for breaches between the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, which imposes fines up to level 3 on the standard scale, and the RSPCA draft Bill with fines at level 5. Will the Minister explain the difference between the two levels? These are the immediately recognisable discrepancies which would give these Benches cause to proceed with caution. Upon deeper analysis, there may be more discrepancies.

The RSPCA has written in its briefing that it cannot support the Bill before your Lordships as it believes that it would be a retrograde step for human safety and animal welfare. It comments that the Bill does not have a genuine preventive approach to ensure that owners of dogs would be more responsible. The provisions of the Bill are reactive—they relate to when an incident has occurred. The RSPCA believes that early intervention is crucial in improving standards and preventing serious and fatal incidents. Speaking more generally, what assessment have the exponents of this Bill undertaken in regard to its effect on magistrates’ courts? One of the major concerns relates to the potential impact on welfare and costs, should all appeals and prosecutions be taken through the courts.

For these Benches therefore, this Bill faces severe challenges. It would be unwise for the law on dog control to be brought into further disrepute by being pressed into a partial solution by the hasty consideration brought about by this Bill.