Mr. Harper:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Health in order to merge the Food Standards Agency's livestock traceability scheme with his Department's animal tracing schemes. [316825]
Jim Fitzpatrick:
There are no plans to merge the livestock traceability work undertaken by DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency although DEFRA and the agency continue to collaborate closely. For example, Food Standards Agency official veterinarians already 23 Feb 2010 : Column 392W
make use of documentation required under DEFRA's livestock identification and movement regulations in checking the origin and identity of livestock entering slaughterhouses for human consumption.
Dangerous Dogs
Chris Grayling:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people have (a) been prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and (b) received the maximum sentence for ownership of a banned dog in each year since 1998; and how many weapon dogs have been seized by police in England and Wales in each of those years. [314771]
Jim Fitzpatrick:
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts and those fined and given immediate custody under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England and Wales, from 1998 to 2008 (latest available) can be viewed in the following table.
Data for 2009 are expected to be published in the autumn of 2010.
Figures for the number of dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are not collected centrally.
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England and Wales, 1998 to 2008( 1,2)
Defendants
1998
1999
2000( 3)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008( 4)
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person
Proceeded against
434
449
458
490
537
560
597
645
703
667
675
Found guilty
239
262
260
285
300
302
350
403
458
456
481
Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place and injuring any person
Proceeded against
28
34
35
50
38
52
48
44
54
50
44
Found guilty
13
19
19
31
30
33
25
25
29
27
33
Offences in relation to dogs under Section 1(2)(a)
Proceeded against
6
1
2
1
6
4
15
3
2
9
4
Found guilty
5
-
-
-
3
2
14
1
1
7
4
Offences in relation to dogs under Section 1(2)(b)
Proceeded against
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Found guilty
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Offences in relation to dogs under Section 1(2)(d)
Proceeded against
7
11
9
4
3
2
2
3
1
7
16
Found guilty
2
6
6
2
2
-
1
3
-
5
15
Offences in relation to dogs under Section1(2)(e)
Proceeded against
-
2
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
Found guilty
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Offences in relation to dogs under Section 1(3)
Proceeded against
23
12
5
4
6
1
5
11
8
87
117
Found guilty
8
5
2
2
2
1
2
7
5
62
95
23 Feb 2010 : Column 393W
23 Feb 2010 : Column 394W
Offences in relation to dogs under Section 3(1)
Proceeded against
248
254
266
278
284
329
290
278
278
341
356
Found guilty
125
126
130
157
150
171
167
168
160
205
239
Offences in relation to dogs under Section 3(3)
Proceeded against
12
9
24
20
18
20
11
24
19
22
20
Found guilty
8
5
13
14
7
10
5
9
11
15
10
Offences in relation to dogs under Dangerous Dogs Act Section 4(8) and Protection of Badgers Act 1992 Section 13
Proceeded against
6
30
23
39
29
20
22
16
12
10
14
Found guilty
6
18
16
31
23
12
18
9
4
5
11
Total
Proceeded against
764
802
823
886
922
988
990
1,025
1,077
1,193
1,247
Found guilty
406
442
446
522
517
531
582
625
668
782
889
(1) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (3) Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table. (4) Excludes convictions for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. Source:
Evidence and Analysis Unit, Ministry of Justice
