House of Commons Amendments

Session 2013 - 14
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

Consideration of Bill: 15 October 2013
1104

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

“(b)
the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland,

where—

(i)
the person who provided the material, or from

whom it was taken, resides in Scotland, or

(ii)
the chief constable believes that the person is in, or

is intending to come to, Scotland.”

      (3)
In paragraph 20J—

(a)
for paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of “police force” there is

substituted—

“(d)
the Police Service of Scotland;

(e)
the Scottish Police Authority;”;

(b)
in the second of the three definitions of “responsible chief officer of

police”, for the words after “the chief constable of” there is substituted

“the Police Service of Scotland”.

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28)


In section 18D of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (use of retained material),

in subsection (2) for “the Scottish Police Services Authority” there is

substituted “the Scottish Police Authority”.


In section 18E(1) of that Act (interpretation of sections 18 to 18E), for

paragraph (d) of the definition of “police force” there is substituted—

“(d)
the Police Service of Scotland;”.’.

New Clauses and new schedules relating to the control of dogs;

amendments to part 7; remaining proceedings on consideration

Amendment of Breeding of Dogs Act 1973

Mr David Amess

Julie Hilling

NC2

To move the following Clause:—

‘In section 1(4) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 omit subsection (g) and

insert—

“(g)
that bitches do not breed more than two litters per year without an

appropriate licence from the local authority.”.’.

Dog control notices

Mr David Hanson

Phil Wilson

Gloria De Piero

Julie Hilling

Consideration of Bill: 15 October 2013
1105

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

Mr Andrew Smith

Luciana Berger

NC3

To move the following Clause:—

‘(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 a wild state.’.

Consideration of Bill: 15 October 2013
1106

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

Dog number control notice

Julie Hilling

Mr Andrew Smith

Paul Goggins

Jim Fitzpatrick

Nic Dakin

Mrs Mary Glindon

Jim Fitzpatrick

Rosie Cooper

Mrs Madeleine Moon

Mr David Blunkett

Graeme Morrice

Joan Walley

NC6

To move the following Clause:—

‘(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.’.

Consideration of Bill: 15 October 2013
1107

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

Community protection notices (dogs)

Angela Smith

NC17

To move the following Clause:—

‘(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.’.

Requirement to fit a post box guard where a dog is present

Ann Coffey

Mr Clive Betts

Mr Bob Ainsworth

Graham Stringer

Derek Twigg

Andrew Gwynne

David Heyes

NC18

To move the following Clause:—

‘(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

Consideration of Bill: 15 October 2013
1108

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

(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.’.

Written control notice

Miss Anne McIntosh

Mrs Mary Glindon

Mr Mark Spencer

NC19

To move the following Clause:—

‘(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.

Consideration of Bill: 15 October 2013
1109

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

(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.’.

Improving the welfare of seized dogs

Angela Smith

NC29

To move the following Clause:—

‘(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.’.

Consideration of Bill: 15 October 2013
1110

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

Rehoming of prohibited types of dog

Angela Smith

NC30

To move the following Clause:—

‘(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”.’.

Philip Davies

143

Clause  98,  page  69,  line  43,  leave out subsection 2(a).

Richard Fuller

140

Clause  98,  page  70,  leave out line 3 and insert—

‘(ii)
for “injures any person” there is substituted “injures or kills any

person or assistance dog”.’.

Philip Davies

144

Clause  98,  page  70,  line  6,  after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.

Philip Davies

145

Clause  98,  page  70,  line  7,  after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.

Philip Davies

146

Clause  98,  page  70,  line  11,  after ‘(or is both)’, add ‘or in premises used partially or

wholly for business purposes’.

Philip Davies

147

Clause  98,  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.’.

Philip Davies

134

Clause  98,  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.



© Parliamentary copyright	Revised 15 October 2013