Session 2013 - 14
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament


 
 

Report Stage Proceedings: 15 October 2013                

338

 

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

 

Not selected  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


 
 

Report Stage Proceedings: 15 October 2013                

339

 

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

 
 

Mr Andrew Smith

 

Luciana Berger

 

Negatived on division  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.’.

 



 
 

Report Stage Proceedings: 15 October 2013                

340

 

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

 

Not called  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.’.

 



 
 

Report Stage Proceedings: 15 October 2013                

341

 

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

 
 

Community protection notices (dogs)

 

Angela Smith

 

Not called  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

 

Not called  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


 
 

Report Stage Proceedings: 15 October 2013                

342

 

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

 

Not called  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.


 
 

Report Stage Proceedings: 15 October 2013                

343

 

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

 

Not called  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.’.

 



 
 

Report Stage Proceedings: 15 October 2013                

344

 

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, continued

 
 

Rehoming of prohibited types of dog

 

Angela Smith

 

Not called  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

 

Not called  143

 

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

 

Richard Fuller

 

Not called  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

 

Not called  144

 

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

 

Philip Davies

 

Not called  145

 

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

 

Philip Davies

 

Not called  146

 

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

 

wholly for business purposes’.

 

Philip Davies

 

Not called  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

 

Not called  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.


 
previous section contents continue
 

© Parliamentary copyright
Revised 16 October 2013