Dangerous Dogs

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who deserves great credit for having secured this debate. I assure the Minister that I will try to be reasonably brief so we do not break any records for marathon achievements in Adjournment debates.

First, I want to put on the record my appreciation of those organisations who have been working incredibly hard on this matter for a long time with very little public recognition. The work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is well known, but I also want to express appreciation of—and I do not often say this—the Association of Chief Police Officers for the lead it has taken in this area. Gareth Pritchard, assistant chief constable of North Wales police, has done a huge amount of unsung work, and he has done so in a very consultative manner, working with a lot of other organisations to bring that work together. Rather than simply pushing his own line or claiming to speak on behalf of all police forces without having done the necessary groundwork to be able to do so, he genuinely does speak not only for all police forces across the country, but for a far wider range of stakeholders. We are all indebted to him for his work in this area.

I have changed my mind on dog legislation and regulation. I welcomed the abolition of the old dog licences, which I considered to be bureaucratic and to have little effect. I believe that at the time 15p had to be paid at the post office in order to register. However, recently I have come to understand the scale of the problem. After all, there are 6,000-plus injuries per year. I was really quite moved by the recent appearance on “Newsnight” of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). The seriousness with which she has addressed this issue and others has impressed colleagues across the House. I have no doubt that we must provide relevant regulation; indeed, I think there is almost certainly a need for primary legislation, which should be consolidating legislation that pulls together the existing patchwork of unsatisfactory legislation and provides a new, more effective approach.

The focus must move away from the proscription of particular breeds to the behaviour of those dogs. We should not introduce a big-bang change, however, until we are sure the new legislation is working. Therefore, for a transitional period at least, dangerous breed legislation may still have a part to play, and I certainly have respect for ACPO’s position on this issue.

Much greater focus must be placed on prevention. There must be a criminal offence. If someone is causing, encouraging or allowing a dog to be aggressive, or is using a dog to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person or to attack a protected animal, that should be an offence. We need to consider circumstances where a dog’s behaviour, where the absence of effective restraint on a dog or where dogs acting in packs have given rise to an injury to a person or a protected animal. We also need to consider situations where a reasonable person would consider the behaviour of a dog or dogs to be antisocial, intimidating, irresponsible or dangerous. We need legislation to deal with those scenarios. If we go down the road of microchipping, a link could be presumed, through that microchip, between the registered owner and the behaviour of the dog. We could, thus, tie those things together and have effective legislation.

The criminal concept of mens rea is almost being applied uniquely here, because the dog is doing the action but what is the owner’s intention? Protection for the potential suspect in this area is difficult to retain. Where an owner is allowing a dog to behave dangerously, causing intimidation to people, there may need to be a presumption as to their responsibility—although there should be appropriate defences—unless they can show that they have taken the appropriate steps.

On prevention, I support the call that we have heard from Members across the House for something akin to dog control notices. My work on the Select Committee on Home Affairs and my knowledge of these areas has not convinced me that relying on the Home Office’s antisocial behaviour legislation, or on its replacement, will be appropriate in this field. I ask the Minister at least to consider whether something more specific is needed on dog control. Should we be allowing authorised officers, whether from councils or elsewhere, to take preventive steps to issue an order in respect of a particular dog or owner, so that things can be followed up, where necessary, in a given case without having to go through the full criminal procedure or bureaucracy on each occasion?

I wish to conclude by discussing a particular issue. I should declare a personal interest, because this happened to my wife before she became either my wife or my constituent. She was chased by boxer dogs while skiing on the hills above Edinburgh. These dogs assumed that she was prey and chased her as if she were a beast of which they were in pursuit. It was the most extraordinary, heart-rending experience for her and she never found that there was any effective action that could be taken on it. Those boxer dogs were part of a party of 13 dogs being walked by a commercial dog walker, who was profiting from purporting to control 13 dogs as the agent for other people. Surely no one can properly control 13 dogs, let alone 13 large dogs or dogs of that type of breed.

I hope that DEFRA will consider as part of this process whether particular arrangements applying to commercial dog walkers—where people are earning money—are justified. This is, if not a profession, at least something done for commercial return. We can talk about particular measures, but I suggest that someone walking four or more dogs should be over 18—it should be adults who do this—and should have appropriate public liability insurance. They should also stay away from areas where little children are playing. Regulation on that matter would be justified and I hope that Ministers will consider it. One particular model that works well is the byelaw developed by Wandsworth council, and it may well be an example that we can sensibly apply elsewhere.

As the Queen’s Speech approaches, I am not sure whether the pressure of legislation is as much as it might necessarily be in a normal year. We hope that we have at least three years of this coalition Government to run, and I hope that we take the opportunity to legislate in some non-contentious areas, where there may not be the major political impetus for a Government to make their mark but where there is agreement across the House and where there is a clear and pressing danger, as there is on this issue. I hope that we will use the opportunity to have proper consolidating legislation that puts a proper focus on prevention and can help to prevent at least some of these terrible incidents of injury that we see every year across the country.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing the debate. As she and many other hon. Members have said, the timing is very appropriate. I also congratulate her on the fact that she has clearly done so much research, not just into the tragedy that affected her constituents, the Smith family, but into much wider issues, including the thought she has given to potential measures to redress the situation.

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about many other hon. Members and the diligence with which they have pursued these issues. I am not saying that I agree with every aspect of their suggestions, but I fully respect and understand their genuine concerns. I am sure the whole House—and certainly the Government—endorses her sympathy for the Smith family, the family of John-Paul Massey and countless other families who, as Members have said, have been affected by out-of-control dogs.

The Government are aware that the issue is important to many people. I am a dog owner myself and I see it as both a privilege and a great responsibility. It should not be taken lightly by individuals, as it is a serious responsibility, and the owner is clearly responsible for how the dog behaves. Several hon. Members have mentioned that the owner is often at fault. We all know that certain breeds and crossbreeds are more prone to bad behaviour or attacking people, but in many cases the actions of the owner are responsible for how the dog behaves.

As a former owner of a boxer, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) that the vast majority of boxers are placid and quiet. The behaviour to which he referred, where dogs chased his wife before she was his wife—I am not in any way suggesting that it did not happen—was obviously horrendous for her and none of us would want to be in that situation, but it would be wrong to damn the whole breed because of those animals. We all know that some breeds are more prone to the problem, and pit bulls and their crossbreeds are a clear example of that.

[Mark Reckless]

Of course, I respect what the Minister has said, but does that not go to show that it is not the breed but the behaviour and the circumstances that matter? In my example, a commercial dog walker was purporting to control 13 dogs, including some significantly large breeds.

[Mr Paice]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am jumping into specifics, but as far as the issue of commercial dog walkers is concerned—although I confess I do not have a particular note or brief on the subject—I do not think that anybody could dissent from what he has said. It defies belief that anybody could be in control of 13 dogs, however competent they were. No doubt somebody will write to me and say that that is possible, but I suspect that not many people would agree with them.

Having a dog that is out of control is clearly an issue of public safety. It is not fair on the dog if it is not being properly cared for and has not been trained to behave appropriately. Sometimes, one can witness examples of dogs that appear to be out of control and one wonders what care they are getting and whether the treatment the dog is receiving is fair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to the Smith case and she properly made the point that the owner of the dog has been prosecuted successfully and convicted. I fully understand her concern about the penalties imposed, but it demonstrates that even when an offence is committed, it does not always force people to do the right thing. I fully understand her comments about the penalty, but I must say that we have not had any pressure from the courts to increase the penalties. However, I fully understand and endorse her concerns.

I am also very much aware that I and other Ministers have said that we are close to making an announcement on a package of measures designed to tackle irresponsible dog owners. I confess that it is a matter of personal disappointment that I have not been able to make that announcement before today. I had very much hoped that that would be possible but I am afraid it has not been. If hon. Members want to intervene on me about this issue, I shall treat them with my usual courtesy, I hope, but for obvious reasons I will not be in a position to enlighten the House in great detail about what might be in the package. I know that many Members in the House and people outside it await our announcement with keen interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I fully accept everything the hon. Lady says. I referred to postmen and women only by way of example; it was not meant to be an exclusive list, as I am sure she appreciates.

A number of people, including some hon. Members, support the idea that if breed-specific legislation is not repealed, and frankly we have no intention of repealing it—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said, the police point to its benefits and do not wish it to be repealed—owners should be allowed to apply to the courts to have their dogs added to the index of exempted dogs. I would want the police to have the final say on whether a dog should be seized, and there might also be scope for not kennelling other types of dogs that are not a danger.

In answer to another point that was raised, we are very much aware of the costs of kennelling not only to the Metropolitan police, who are the biggest example, but to many others, including some charities, and we are aware that those costs have risen steeply over the past few years. We are not aware of the police having any central records for all forces in England, but we might be wrong about that, so my officials will make inquiries with ACPO to see whether those central records exist. In all cases, the police would need to be satisfied that the dogs are in the care of a responsible owner, as there would be no point in putting them on the list of exempted dogs if they were then left in the care of someone who would not be responsible. The idea would clearly save the police money, which we fully appreciate.

Another proposal referred to by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is the compulsory microchipping of dogs. My officials in DEFRA keep in close and regular contact with officials in the Northern Ireland Executive. We are aware of what they are doing and are watching the development of their new initiative carefully. There are obviously benefits to the compulsory microchipping of dogs, one of which is the ability to identify the owner of a dog that had become dangerously out of control, even if they were not present at the time of the incident. Better traceability of owners could discourage owners from letting their dogs run loose and, therefore, reduce the likelihood of attacks. We have to consider the downsides. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest is probably right about the issue of cost, which some people raise, but updating the records is more important. Clearly, if a dog changes hands or its owner moves, the record becomes useless unless it is updated. Again, it is an example of not just a simplistic approach, but one that has huge merits.

We have made it a priority to see how the issue is being dealt with on the ground by many local authorities and are looking at how local community initiatives are promoting responsible dog ownership. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to initiatives for local authority accommodation. One example is Ealing borough council’s “dog watch” initiative. I know that Waltham Forest district council has also carried out many initiatives in part of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have a long list of initiatives and congratulate the council on its work. All of them are key to tackling the problem of irresponsible dog ownership. They can provide suitably tailored local approaches to local problems.

The guidance that my Department issued to law enforcers in 2009, under the previous Government, also reminds local authority housing providers and other landlords that they can play an important part in addressing antisocial behaviour in areas where they have jurisdiction, as we have discussed. Housing providers are strongly encouraged to have a clear and positive policy towards dogs, with sanctions and consequences if a tenant fails to adhere, and of course that applies just as much to housing associations as it does to local authority housing.

I said that I was going to return to the issue of finance and, in particular, to insurance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest raised as one of her proposals. The previous Government considered the matter when they launched their consultation in 2010. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is, I am pleased to say, nodding in agreement. At the time, however, the insurance business was not at all supportive of the proposition, and if the industry is not prepared to offer such policies it is difficult to see how one could make insurance compulsory, as my hon. Friend suggested.

I am also not sure that insurance is a necessary prerequisite, bearing in mind that the vast majority of dog owners would therefore pay for it to deal with the behaviour of a tiny but nevertheless significant minority of irresponsible dog owners, but I reaffirm that it has been a matter of consideration and interest for the Department. I should not want to discourage any individual who wanted to take out such insurance, but part of me wonders whether, if they want to take it out, they have doubts about their ability to control their dog.

I apologise to the House for not being able to be more specific about what we are proposing, but the House will be very much aware of the constraints on Ministers before decisions have been made. I reaffirm, however, that we are working on two separate packages of measures—although we hope that they will come together—in DEFRA and in the Home Office, and we are determined to take action.

[Mark Reckless]

I hear the Minister’s point about the issues regarding compulsion for every dog owner in the country, but before he leaves the issue of insurance entirely, will his Department consider the case of insurance for the much narrower category of commercial dog walkers, who earn money for supplying a service that purports to look after and control dogs?

[Mr Paice]

Yes, of course. I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we will look at that issue. My immediate concern is the definition of “commercial dog walker”, but I do not want to sound negative.

I apologise to the House for not being able to be more precise, and I hope that we can be in the not too distant future, but we want to be clear that we are not producing changes with a load of unintended consequences that we shall live to regret. We will continue to work up our proposals both to reduce dog attacks and on antisocial behaviour involving dogs, including the whole issue of trophy dogs and their use for intimidation. They might never attack anybody, but if they are intimidatory that can be just as antisocial.

We clearly want to promote responsible dog ownership, and I emphasise that the Government believe that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but we need to address the minority.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I support the motion as it is high time we banned animals in circuses. I have been worried about the stance that has been taken and I am glad the Government Whips have now given us a free vote on this, because animal welfare is a moral issue and Members on both sides of the House want a ban on wild animals in circuses.

The plank of the Government’s argument relating to Austria is fragile, and I fear that it might be sawn off at some stage. I would prefer us to take a much firmer stance by going for a ban and letting somebody challenge it if they want to, because I do not think that anybody will do so.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Given the position my hon. Friend has set out, why has he decided to be the lead signatory to the amendment to the motion? If my understanding is correct, the amendment would have prevented any ban from being introduced until some supposed EU legal issue was resolved.

[Neil Parish]

I will deal with that later, but I have previously stated that we should challenge the court ruling in the Austria case.

There has been too much talk today about the process of government and who is to blame and who is not to blame, instead of getting to grips with the welfare issues of animals in circuses. If we do have to take note of the case in Austria—

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, which I will deal with. The clause is, in many ways, a fig leaf. It tries to give the impression that everything will be all right because the Secretary of State must take into account the amount of meat consumed in this country and should not do anything that would increase, the proportion of imported meat consumed in the United Kingdom.

Two dangers arise from that. First, the provision slightly contradicts the rest of the Bill and would put the Secretary of State in a difficult position. Secondly, clause 1(4), which I shall come to later, makes no reference to dairy products, which are excluded. It is purely about meat eating. There is no reference to milk, cheese, butter or other dairy products.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Is not a further issue with clause 1(4)—potentially an advantage, rather than a problem—that it might not be consistent with our obligations under the European Communities Act 1972?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a danger that the Secretary of State would be in a cleft stick in trying to deal with the obligations imposed by the Bill and the competing obligations under the rules and regulations of the common agricultural policy.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is a real danger arising from the Bill. We would finish up with people having no choice but to eat only food that we could do nothing about and which was produced in the European Union. That would be bad for consumers, it would damage choice, and our good relations with countries such as New Zealand would be put at serious risk.

[Mark Reckless]

I am cautious about contradicting my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but if we inserted the provision “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”, there would be nothing illegal about the clause whatsoever, and would not the courts be obliged to give effect to it?

[Mr Nuttall]

As my hon. Friend knows, I entirely support the idea that the House should be sovereign, and if there is any doubt about which set of rules should reign supreme, it should be Acts of Parliament passed in this House, not those passed by the European Union. I do not want to spend too long proceeding down the line of European Union rules and regulations. I appreciate that that would stray—