Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has an abiding interest in this issue, for that most helpful intervention. I will seek to address his point further in my comments.

Dog control notices include the following measures: requiring a potentially dangerous dog to be muzzled whenever it is in a public place; requiring it to be kept on a lead in places to which the public have access; neutering male dogs; and requiring dogs and dog owners to attend training classes to bring potentially dangerous animals back under control. A dog control notice would also require the dog to be microchipped and registered, so that any dogs that were found to be in breach could be identified clearly and unambiguously—something that is absolutely necessary for effective enforcement.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to new clause 19, which appears in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)? It talks about not only the dog owner, but the person who is in control of the dog at the time. I hope that he will recognise that it is important to hold that person responsible.

[Mr Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and helpful point. I recognise the sense of what he says.

It is disappointing that on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government resisted dog control notices and said that community protection notices would be sufficient. I can only hope that, having read the Committee transcripts, the new Minister will bring fresh eyes to the issue and use fresh ears to listen to the experience of outside organisations, the victims of dog attacks and Members from all parts of the House who want tougher action.

The use of community protection notices, as advocated by the Government, is simply not sufficient. They are slow to serve, can be challenged in the courts, causing further delays, and have been described by one outside organisation as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Government had a perfect opportunity to show leadership on this issue. They could have led this House and this country to act to protect children and adults alike from further dog attacks. However, the powers in the Bill and the limited changes to which the Government are clinging are not sufficient—not even close.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

We wait with bated breath to see whether the new Minister has now been convinced.

[Mr Spencer]

I rise to speak to new clause 19 and amendments 97 to 99, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) tabled. Like the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), we are keen to ensure that there is provision for written notices so that not only dog owners but those in charge of a dog at any time have control of that animal and prevent it from causing injury or damage to any person or any other animal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I am sure that she spoke for the whole House in relation to the case of poor Jade Anderson. Sadly, that is just the latest and most tragic example of what the hon. Lady rightly described as an epidemic of dog attacks which are hospitalising thousands, and injuring thousands of postal workers and others. I am afraid that there have been many distressing cases in my own constituency, which led me to become involved in what has been quite a long campaign. I pay tribute to, in particular, the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), both of whom have campaigned very persistently.

For many years it seemed as if the Government were not budging at all on the issue, so it is enormously welcome that we are considering it in the context of this Bill, and that the Government are taking action. Their action is being taken step by step—it is rather gradualist—and that may be frustrating for some of us, but we should not make the best the enemy of the good. We should recognise the positive steps that are being taken in the Bill, not least in the context of the Government’s earlier action in setting a timetable for the introduction of universal microchipping. That will help us to identify the real culprits, who—as many Members have pointed out—are irresponsible dog owners as much as the dogs themselves, some of which are just more victims of this phenomenon.

The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and others have made a strong case for dog control orders. I have been sympathetic to that idea for many years, but I should be content if we could achieve the same outcome by other means. I understand the Government’s position; I realise that their main purpose is to simplify and rationalise antisocial behaviour legislation without sacrificing flexibility. The Bill underlines the important point that the issue of dangerous dogs is inextricably linked with that of human antisocial behaviour. If we can tackle one by tackling the other, I shall be satisfied, even if the legislation does not include the actual words “dog control order”.

One of the most important provisions involves the extension of liability for dangerous dogs to private property. Liberty has expressed some concern about the so-called “bite a burglar” provisions, and I think that Ministers need to consider those carefully. Our two contradictory instincts are to say, quite rightly, that burglars who enter other people’s properties with malicious intent should do so entirely at their own risk, and to support the extension to private property of liability for the dangerous behaviour of animals. Both are worthy instincts, and resolving that conflict will be a difficult task for Ministers. I speak as the brother of a postal worker who is very keen for the Bill to proceed.

[Mr Spencer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I want to address that point. Only this month the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a draft practitioners’ manual—it is a draft because we are inviting comments on it—entitled, “Tackling irresponsible dog ownership”. It gives an example on page 15. If a dog is out of control in a park, a written notice can be issued on the spot by the relevant officer who has control in that situation. The owner would then be given a “reasonable time”, which might be just five minutes, to respond. If the dog is not brought under control in that time, the community protection notice can be issued right away. I do not understand why the Opposition think that there could be huge delays in the process, because there could not. It is a simple piece of legislation to make it effective and quick, and that relates to the issues to which attention is rightly being drawn.

[Mr Spencer]

I am concerned about the term “owner”, because the person in control of the dog in the park might not be the owner, so the “It’s my cousin’s dog” defence could deflect the notice.

[Norman Baker]

The provision might specify the person in control of the dog, so if I have that wrong I will correct it. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point and will reflect on it.

The measures in the Bill go further and allow officers to make innovative requirements based on the specifics of the case they are dealing with, for example by requesting that signage be put up to warn visitors to a property of the presence of a dog, or that a letterbox guard be fitted. I have genuinely heard nothing during the course of the debate to suggest that there is a gap in what is proposed in the Bill.

The Local Government Association stated in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee:

“The LGA remains to be convinced that separate tools are necessary as no details have been provided of the specific gaps in the provisions for the injunctions, community protection notices or public space protection orders that a dog control notice is needed to fill.”

We all share the objective of trying to do something about this matter, but Opposition Members seem to think that a measure cannot be effective if it does not have the word “dog” in the title, which is simply wrong.