|
Matthew Green: The Minister will also notice that when I spoke, I made it clear that the amendment had been tabled to provoke a discussion on the transfer of funds, because that seemed the appropriate way of doing so. The Minister will understand that various techniques can be used in Committee, and that that is one of them. He therefore does not need to go into great detail as to why the amendment might not work—he can spare the Committee that.
Column Number: 253
Alun Michael: Well, I do not know whether the Committee should be spared. The hon. Gentleman's amendment was not about the transfer of resources; it was about what police powers will continue to exist under the new legislation. I want to make it clear that the police will retain their existing powers to deal with dangerous dogs. Section 5(1)(c) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 enables a constable or an officer of a local authority to seize any dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place. The fact is that the police have the same right as anyone else to take charge of a dog that does not have an obvious owner; that is why I oppose the hon. Gentleman's probing amendment, which would delete that power.At present, under section 150(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, anyone who takes charge of such a dog has to return it to the owner or deliver it to the police or local authority. When the Bill is enacted, the police and others will have to take the dog to the local authority or return it to the owner.
I shall give an assurance. The question might arise as to what happens when there are no local authority representatives to deal with a stray. If it is clear that the situation needs to be dealt with immediately for the benefit of the local community, the police would be able to get hold of that dog. They could, if appropriate, use their power under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers has also confirmed its view that the police do not require specific statutory power to seize stray dogs. The police regularly round up strays of other species such as horses and sheep, without having a specific statutory power to do so. I will ensure that the guidance needed to spell out how these parts of the Bill should be enacted will point to the existing powers and practice so that there is no misunderstanding or a feeling that the police cannot do anything about this as a result of the Bill. That is not the case and I hope that that provides the clarity that the hon. Gentleman sought.
10 am
For those reasons, it is not necessary to retain the power that is being deleted in the Bill. The police will be most unlikely to make use of that power. Indeed, they have asked for it to be removed, despite having clarity about what they will continue to be able to do, which is referred to in the ACPO representations.
While I appreciate the reasons for tabling amendment No. 21, I can assure the Committee that it is unnecessary. Any local authority faced with a sick or injured dog would seek to have it treated immediately. It is worth reminding the Committee that this is not a new duty for local authorities, but the extension of an existing one. Local authorities are under a duty under sections 149 and 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 properly to feed and maintain stray dogs that they seize or that are delivered to them. That includes and covers treating sick and injured dogs. The provisions of the Animal Welfare Bill will make a seminal improvement to the way animals are treated in a variety of circumstances.
Amendment No. 22 is also unnecessary, although I note that it was moved in an extremely constructive manner by the hon. Member for Vale of York. As I
Column Number: 254
indicated in my intervention, stray dogs have been provided for in legislation for at least 98 years. During that period, the lack of a legal definition of stray dogs has not created major problems for those dealing with them, and I do not think that we need a legal definition to describe what is a matter of common sense and normal English usage. I am sure that the hon. Lady, given her legal background, would accept that the injunction to legislators, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it'', is useful. There are often unintended consequences in constraining the ordinary common-sense meaning of various words, which the courts and organisations such as the police and local authorities are well used to interpreting.
The hon. Lady referred to microchipping. This is comparatively recent technology. I have been at pains to encourage, but not to require, the use of microchips for horses, for instance. They can be very valuable animals. Use of microchips has also been encouraged by organisations such as the British Horse Society. It is required by some of the breed societies that deal with particularly valuable animals. This is a progressive arrangement. Microchipping of animals by owners and the use of microchips by authorities to identify animals is likely to continue and to accelerate. It is being used in Cardiff to deal with stray horses and I was discussing that with the police last week—
The Chairman: Order. May I point out to the Minister that the clause deals not with the microchipping of horses but with the termination of police responsibility for stray dogs?
Alun Michael: Indeed. I pointed that out in an intervention earlier. I was simply explaining that the issues raised by the hon. Lady are reasonable, although outside the scope of the Bill. This Bill is not the appropriate place to make a step change in requirements for microchips although I am sure that they will continue to be important.
It would not be appropriate to accept amendment No. 99. I will explain why. Clause 68 makes local authorities solely responsible for stray dogs. It will be for local authorities to make arrangements to ensure that there are facilities to deal with stray dogs at all times, including at night. It is up to local authorities how they do this. Providing a 24-hour dog warden service may be one way, but it could be costly. So could providing dedicated or council-owned kennels. Those are not necessarily examples of the right way to do it, although it is up to the local authority to decide. In a large rural district, those examples might well be an expensive way of providing the necessary cover. However, making arrangements with local vets would be one good way.
I made the point to police officers when I spoke to them last week that often, even though there may be a dedicated service, the first stop for many people will be to knock at the door of the police station or to ring the police. It fits well with the crime reduction approach that has been encouraged for arrangements to be made locally so that information is readily available. On all those grounds, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Column Number: 255
Matthew Green: As I said, the amendment was designed to provoke a discussion, rather than to be pressed to a vote, because we do not oppose the measure to make the local authority the responsible party in this instance.
Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's comments, although my softly-softly, charming approach is not working quite as successfully as I thought, so I might try a more aggressive approach as the morning proceeds. I understood him to say that he thought that amendment No. 99 was the work of the RSPCA, but in fact it was suggested by the Kennel Club, because local authority dog warden services tend to operate a standard, nine-to-five working day, Monday to Friday, with no weekend cover. I understand that the Minister said that as recently as Friday he was still having discussions, presumably on the resources and on the level of cover, but we would still prefer the matter to be dealt with explicitly in the Bill.
We pay tribute to the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the National Dog Warden Association for the work that they do. For the record, it is important that we accept that certainly the members of the NDWA already work long hours for modest pay. If local authorities are to rely on them, they will probably want more resources to be made available. I ask the Minister also to take note of the fact that Westminster city council believes that the consultation document and the Bill are still light on detail. It would prefer the responsibility to remain with the police. With those remarks, and given that we have had a lengthy debate, I shall conclude.
Matthew Green: We have said far too much on this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Designation of alarm notification areas
Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 118, in clause 69, page 56, line 34, leave out from 'area' to end of line 35.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 119, in clause 70, page 57, line 12, leave out from 'area' to end of line 13.
Sue Doughty: Again, this is a probing amendment. We are really considering how the designation of alarm notification areas will work. The Bill requires local authorities to send written notification to the
Column Number: 256
address of every premises in their area. Our amendment would remove that requirement. Our concern is whether it is practicable to mail every address, especially in view of the in-fill building that is going on; if someone was not notified, they could have a reasonable objection to the alarm notification later on and say that they had not received a letter about it.
Alun Michael: I appreciate that this is a probing amendment; we will provide clarification when we can. I can clarify the point that failure by the post to deliver notification to all addresses in the area would not invalidate an order designating an area, provided that a genuine attempt had been made to notify people. There is no question of a clerical error or a mistake on an address invalidating the order. I am happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance.
| 
