Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Dog number control notice—

(1) This section applies where more than one dog is being kept in a domestic property in England or Wales.

(2) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that the number of dogs being kept in a domestic property gives rise to a risk that any one or more of the dogs may become dangerously out of control while in or partly in the domestic property (“the risk”), he or she may serve on the person in charge a written control notice which—

(a) states that the authorised officer is of that belief;

(b) specifies the maximum number of dogs which, in the opinion of the authorised officer, are capable of being kept in the domestic property such as to sufficiently reduce the risk;

(c) requires the person in charge to reduce the number of dogs kept in the domestic property to no more than the number specified under paragraph (b) and;

(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the control notice must be complied with.

(3) A control notice may be served on more than one person in respect of one domestic property.

(4) It is an offence for a person without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (2).

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6) An authorised officer may make a complaint to a Magistrates’ Court if a person in charge fails, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer, to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified.

(7) A Magistrates’ Court receiving a complaint under subsection (6) shall, if it finds that the person in charge has failed to comply with the steps required in a control notice, make an order in a summary way directing any of the dogs kept in the domestic property to be destroyed.

(8) In this section—

“authorised officer” means a person appointed by a local authority within whose area the domestic property is situated for the purposes of this section;

“domestic property” means a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or both);

“person in charge” means the owner or owners, and if different, person or persons for the time being in charge of the dogs.

New clause 17—Community protection notices (dogs)—

(1) An authorised person may issue a community protection notice (dogs) to the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog if they have reasonable cause to believe that—

(a) the dog is not under sufficient control, and

(b) preventative measures are required to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal.

(2) An “authorised person” means a police officer, local authority dog warden, or other authorised person.

(3) A community protection notice (dogs) is a notice that imposes any of the following requirements on the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog—

(a) a requirement to have the dog microchipped;

(b) a requirement to obtain third party liability insurance;

(c) a requirement for the dog to be kept on a leash in public;

(d) a requirement for the dog to be muzzled in public;

(e) a requirement for the transferring or relinquishing of ownership of the dog without notifying the enforcing authority.

(4) A community protection notice may be issued—

(a) without notice, and

(b) with immediate effect.

(5) A person issued with a community protection notice (dogs) who fails to comply with it commits an offence.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

New clause 18—Requirement to fit a post box guard where a dog is present—

(1) The Secretary of State shall bring forward regulations to require householders to fit a guard to their letterbox if—

(a) the householder owns a dog,

(b) the dog is kept in residential premises to which the letterbox is fitted,

(c) the letterbox opens directly into those premises, and

(d) a person may reasonably conclude that there is the possibility of the dog causing harm to someone using the letterbox.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provision in respect of—

(a) the size and style of the guard to be fitted, and

(b) the householder to be liable to a civil penalty for any harm caused as a result of failing to comply with this requirement.

(3) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

New clause 19—Written control notice—

(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and, if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—

(a) states that he or she is of that belief;

(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;

(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice.

(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and

(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.

(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—

(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed;

(b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;

(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;

(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and

(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.

(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.

(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) above as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.

(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.

(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in wild state.

(7) A person served with a dog control notice may appeal against the notice to a magistrates’ court within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which that person was served with the notice.

(8) The grounds on which a person served such a notice may appeal are one or more of the following—

(a) that the notice contains required steps which are unreasonable in character, or extent, or are unnecessary; or

(b) that there has been some defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice.

(9) On hearing of the appeal the court may—

(a) quash the dog control notice to which the appeal relates; or

(b) vary the notice in such a manner as it thinks fit; or

(c) dismiss the appeal.

New clause 29—Improving the welfare of seized dogs—

(1) Where an expert examination is required for a dog that is alleged to be one to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies that examination must be carried out and completed by both the defence and prosecution within 28 days of seizure of the dog and a written report produced within one week of the examination.

(2) If the prosecution or defence fail to carry out the examination as described in subsection 1 within the requisite period the prosecution or defence, as the case may be, may not rely in evidence on any expert report involving an examination of that dog after the 28 day period unless the Court extends this period.

(3) In considering any application to extend the examination period the Court must take into account the welfare of the dog, the costs of kennelling the dog and any other relevant matters.

New clause 30—Rehoming of prohibited types of dog—

(1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4B(1)(b) (Destruction orders otherwise than on a conviction) after the first “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”, and after the second “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”.

Amendment 143, in clause 98, page 69, line 43, leave out subsection 2(a).

Amendment 140, page 70, leave out line 3 and insert—

(ii) for “injures any person” there is substituted “injures or kills any person or assistance dog”.’.

Amendment 144, page 70, line 6, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.

Amendment 145, page 70, line 7, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.

Amendment 146, page 70, line 11, after ‘(or is both)’, add

‘or in premises used partially or wholly for business purposes’.

Amendment 147, page 70, line 17, at end insert—

(iii) D (if not present at any time) could have reasonably believed V to be in, or entering the building or part as a trespasser if they had been present.’.

Amendment 134, page 70, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1C) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case where they, or an associated person, are being attacked by another person or another dog at the relevant time.

(1D) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are a vet or someone working in a veterinary practice at the relevant time.

(1E) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they themselves are the victim of any incident involving their dog.

(1F) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are removing in connection with their work.

(1G) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are required to maintain in any police or court proceedings or if they are assisting the courts as a witness (expert or otherwise).

(1H) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog that they are authorised or required to look after in connection with their work.

(1I) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are looking after by virtue of the dog being in their kennels.

(1J) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is a police dog or a dog being used in an official capacity to assist with their work.

(1K) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is an assistance dog.

(1L) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are registered blind.

(1M) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) if, as a result of any disability, they were not able to physically prevent the offence.

(1N) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) unless they encouraged the dog in its actions.’.

Amendment 133, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) If an owner of a dog, and if different the person for the time being in charge of a dog unreasonably omits to keep the dog under proper control, or if he causes, or encourages the dog to attack a protected animal, and any of those things lead to the injury or death of a protected animal he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2B) A “protected animal” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.’.

Amendment 141, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

(iii) for “two years” there is substituted “fourteen years”.’.

Amendment 142, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

‘(1C) In proceedings for an offence under section 3(1) it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he took reasonable steps to prevent the dog being dangerously out of control.’.

Amendment 135, page 70, line 41, at end insert—

‘(1B) Anyone authorised to seize a dog under subsection 1A is exempted from the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.’.

Amendment 98, page 70, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert

‘for the purposes of this Act, “assistance dog” means a dog which has been accredited to assist a disabled person by a prescribed charity or other organisation.’.

Amendment 97, page 70, line 46, at end insert

‘“dwelling”, for the purposes of section 3, includes enclosed buildings within the curtilage of the dwelling and associated with it, where a person might reasonably expect to find a dog, such as garages, sheds and other outbuildings;’.

Amendment 132, page 70, line 47, leave out subsection (6)(b).

Amendment 99, in clause 99, page 71, line 33, at end add—.

‘(5) After section 7 there is inserted—

“7A Fit and proper person code of practice

(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a draft code of practice giving guidance about the matters to be considered when determining whether someone is a fit and proper person for the purposes of sections 1, 4 and 4B.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) any draft code of practice prepared under this section; and

(b) an order to be made by statutory instrument providing for the code to come into force, subject to subsection (4).

(3) Before preparing such a draft code, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.

(4) Where a draft is laid before Parliament under subsection (2)(a), if neither House passes a resolution disapproving the draft within 40 days—

(a) the Secretary of State may issue the code in the form of the draft; and

(b) it shall come into force in accordance with provision made under subsection (2)(b).”.’.

[Mr Reed]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to move this new clause, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).

Dangerous dogs, or, perhaps more accurately, irresponsible dog owners, are a serious public threat. Not only do we have a duty to act, but there is widespread agreement on what form that action should take. I regret to say that the Government are the only ones standing meekly on the sidelines, refusing to take the necessary action. Having failed to lead from the start with this Bill, the Government refused to act in Committee, despite the support of their own Back Benchers for such action, but I hope, with a new Minister in place, there will be a fresh approach and a chance to move forward and tackle this menace.

I want to start by speaking to amendment 141, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). I have strong sympathy with the case he is making, and which he made in Committee, for a much stronger punishment for irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to maim and kill. We were deeply disappointed, however, that the Government failed to meet their own promise, made in an open Committee, to publish the findings of a consultation on what level of sentencing would be appropriate in such cases before the Bill returned to the Chamber.

As it was, the Minister wrote to members of the Committee last Friday, after the tabling deadline. An e-mail was sent at 5.50 in the evening, stating that the Government had not had time to review the consultation responses, and that therefore no Government amendment would be put before the House. It was in good faith that the Opposition did not table an amendment, as we believed his predecessor’s word that the consultation would result in a Government amendment. Announcing that he would not do anything after the tabling deadline was not a welcome start to the Minister’s tenure in the Home Office. I hope that we will not see a repeat of those tactics.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the families and loved ones of victims who have been injured or killed by out-of-control dogs will be very disappointed that their representatives in this House will not be able to vote on the precise measures and changes that are required to increase the sentences for such actions?

[Mr Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have read the comments that he made in Committee and sympathise with his views. I hope to address them further in my comments.

The Opposition supported increasing the guideline prison terms for manslaughter under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in Committee. We continue to support an increase, although we would prefer to have the consultation response before the House so that an informed decision can be made. Our starting point is that the current maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment for allowing one’s dog to kill someone is far too lenient. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedford will accept our support in principle for toughening the sentencing guidelines and work with us in the other place to agree on appropriate sentencing guidelines, informed by the consultation response when the Government get around to publishing it.

New clause 3 would introduce dog control notices. I believe that this measure enjoys widespread cross-party support in the House and near-unanimous support from outside organisations with an interest in dangerous dogs and animal welfare. When reading the Committee transcripts, I was struck by the strength of support from Government Back Benchers, in addition to the support from Labour Members. However, that should not be surprising. Taking responsible, tough action to protect people from dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners is plain common sense and something that Members on all sides of the House should support.

Yesterday, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) to meet the father of Jade Anderson, who was savaged to death by four dogs when she was just 14 years old. Michael Anderson and his friend Royston had cycled down from Bolton in support of the Justice for Jade campaign. They came to lobby Members of this House because they want dog control notices to be introduced in England and Wales, as they have been in Scotland. To lose a child is bad enough; to live with the knowledge of the appalling circumstances in which they died is almost too much to bear. I can offer Mr Anderson only my support, sympathy and admiration that he is seeking to make something good out of such desperate and tragic circumstances.

Sadly, Jade’s case is not an isolated one. Since 2005, nine children and seven adults have died as a consequence of dog attacks. In the three years to February 2013, 18,000 people were admitted to hospital in England and Wales after dog attacks. That is almost 20 attacks a day that result in someone ending up in hospital. Not only could many of those attacks be prevented by dog control notices, but the cost of those attacks to the NHS, the police and communities is an avoidable drain on already overstretched resources.

Dog control notices are not punitive. They provide a menu of options that local authorities and the police can use to act in the interests of their local communities against dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend and those who tabled new clause 3, which would improve the Bill. May I also commend to him and other hon. Members new clause 17, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? It would dovetail nicely with new clause 3 and would allow the notices to be published there and then at the point when they are needed, rather than waiting for an attack to take place.

[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.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 3. Does he agree that one of the successes of devolution is that we in Westminster can learn from the experiences of the devolved authorities in various matters and do not have to reinvent the wheel? Will he refer later in his speech to the experiences of Northern Ireland and Scotland?

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reference to the situation in Scotland. Given that the experience of dog control notices in Scotland shows that they work effectively, it is all the more baffling that the Government refuse to support them. I hope that the House can persuade the Minister to change his position.

The position for which I am arguing is not just a Labour one. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has a coalition majority, considered the Bill and concluded:

“We consider there to be strong evidence that targeted measures would be more effective in tackling dog-related problems than the general powers proposed under the Government’s anti-social behaviour and crime legislation…We recommend that the Government reconsider its rejection of our recommendation and legislate to introduce Dog Control Notices to provide law enforcers with tailored powers to tackle aggressive dogs before they injure people and other animals.”

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has eloquently set out the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s response on this serious issue. I do not know whether he saw the Chair of that Committee’s summary of what was in the report, in which she said that what the Government had brought forward was “woefully inadequate”. She said that unless we have a measure that deals effectively with prevention, we will not tackle the problem at its source. Does my hon. Friend agree that without the introduction of dog control notices, what the Government propose is indeed woefully inadequate?

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that sensible view on the record. Of course, I am sympathetic to it. Indeed, I will add another sensible view, that of the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said:

“We remain unconvinced that CPNs will fulfil the same purpose as bespoke Dog Control Notices.”

I could go on to read the evidence to the Bill Committee of organisation after organisation: the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, police and crime commissioners, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Although that would support my argument, I fear that a lengthy recitation would weary the House. However, two further sources of support for dog control notices are worth drawing to the House’s attention.

First, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) helpfully drew the Bill Committee’s attention to the fact that before the general election, the Conservative party pledged to give police and councils more power to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs through the introduction of dog control notices. As it happens, the same is true of the Liberal Democrats, who also supported such notices when in opposition. We are used to the policies of one or other Government party being lost in coalition fudges, but I am not aware of a policy supported by both parties being lost in such a way. On this occasion, not only do I agree with Nick, but I am willing to agree with Dave as well. If we all agree, for goodness’ sake let us act and bring in long-overdue and much-needed tough but fair measures to deal with dangerous dogs. Six thousand hospitalisations a year is too many simply to look the other way. I would challenge any Member to sit down with Michael Anderson, Jade’s father, as I did yesterday, and not conclude that the measures that we suggest must be on the statute book.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who is in her place, for tabling new clause 6, which is similar to new clause 3 in many ways. It highlights her commitment to bringing her constituency issues to the House in the most powerful way possible.

New clauses 17, 29 and 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), were mentioned earlier. They include a number of further sensible and proportionate measures to deal with dangerous dogs, and I am sure that Members of the other place will want to study them carefully in their less time-pressured environment and take up many of them.

I must push the Minister to accept new clause 3. To date, the Bill has been a missed opportunity for the Government. The need for tougher action is clear and well evidenced, and the desire to act has been endorsed not just by the parties of government before the last election but by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and by every major organisation that deals with dangerous dogs, animal welfare and irresponsible owners. The means to act are now before the Minister, and I urge him to take the chance to do so.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

In the many months since the Government brought forward their provisional proposals, they have failed to persuade any of those good and sensible people and organisations of their case. Those are not stupid organisations and people, and I urge Members to support them and support new clause 3.

[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 ---

[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.

[Mr Steve Reed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I will give way one more time.

[Mr Reed]

It is not just the Opposition who are making those points; so too are many experienced organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Veterinary Association, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and this House’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. All of those organisations have more experience in this area than either the Minister or I have, yet he is not taking their views on board.

[Norman Baker]

The shadow Minister made that point in his opening remarks. I have not been a Home Office Minister for long, but I dealt with dog legislation for many years in opposition, so I think I know what the legislation says. I have given him an absolute assurance that the issues the Opposition are concerned about, as am I, such as microchipping and neutering, could all be dealt with under the community protection notice. I have given the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) an assurance that those matters can be dealt with very quickly. Those are the two points that the Opposition are perfectly correct to pursue, and I have given answers that I had hoped would satisfy them. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As far as I am concerned, the measures they want to deal with the problem that they, and we, have identified are in the Bill.

Notwithstanding that, I understand the concern that, as Labour Members have said, any dog issues may be lost in the breadth of these measures. However, these powers recognise, first, that antisocial behaviour does not come packaged into distinct areas, and secondly, that what matters is whether it can be dealt with quickly and effectively, which is what the Bill does. The practitioners’ manual from DEFRA is the Government’s attempt to reassure people that these matters will be dealt with properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Steve Reed]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced and we will press new clause 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.