Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Diane Foreman, Principal Environmental Health Officer, St Helens Council
Are the approaches proposed by DEFRA in it’s announcement on “Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership” sufficient to ensure that there is a reduction in the number of attacks by dogs on people and animals?
It needs to be noted that there are local authorities who do enforce the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in it’s entirety, dealing with dogs that are dangerously our of control in a public place and dogs which are deemed to be a banned breed type.
However these authorities as is the case with the Police are finding that their costs are escalating and due to the financial cuts that are occurring more are needing to review the services they are providing. Local authorities are only statutorily required to deal with stray dogs. There is a potential for all other services provided to be withdrawn. If this were to happen the Police would become the sole enforcement agency for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
1. Is there a need for a more fundamental overhaul of dog legislation and it’s enforcement, including that relating to dog attacks on people, livestock and pets?
1.1 Yes the legislation needs to be fully reviewed. We need to have one piece of legislation that clearly identifies the responsibilities of responsible dog ownership. Currently we have a piecemeal legislative framework within which we work, which includes both criminal and civil proceedings in cases relating to dog attacks. Tinkering around the edges of the legislation will only succeed in further complicating the issues.
1.2 The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 bans certain types of dogs, however due to public pressure the Index of Exempt Dogs was introduced thereby allowing certain dogs, where no public safety issues were raised, to be exempted. This sanction was intended to allow the dogs which were living at that time to survive, however this sanction is continuing to be used today in a way that was never envisaged in the early 90’s as the intention was that the “breeds” would have naturally died out. What sanctions are now available to deal with those who breach the exempt conditions? Currently the enforcement agencies have to start proceedings again under Section 1.
1.3 The Government need to decide are we to ban certain types of dogs, if we are then we need to enforce the legislation or are we to allow the ownership of any type of dog with certain conditions attached ? At present we have a system which bans certain breeds but if there is no public safety issue the dog can be exempted, it’s the only piece of criminal legislation which exists whereby you can seek an exemption!
1.4 Section 1 banned breed dogs, we are of the opinion that owners should not be able to make their own application for exemption nor should banned breed dogs be handed back to owners pending court action.
1.5 Local authorities find that the cost of dealing with dangerous dog incidents where dogs are seized as Section 5 dogs or where they come into the authorities kennels as strays and are deemed to be of type to be prohibitive. There needs to be a sanction whereby all kennelling costs are recovered from the owner as is the case for stray dogs.
2. Is sufficient action taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities?
2.1 A consideration could be the need for owners or potential owners of particular identified breeds to undergo breed handling assessments prior to obtaining a particular dog or this could be a useful sanction enforced by the enforcement agencies if a dog has caused a problem due to it’s behaviour.
3. Will compulsory micro chipping of puppies improve dog welfare and help prevent dog attacks at an affordable cost to dog owners? Should a dog licensing scheme be considered?
3.1 The Government’s proposals go some way in helping to tackle the problems associated irresponsible dog ownership. The intention that all dogs be microchipped is a small step in the right direction. However this proposal on it’s own will not impact on the real issues. Alone it will not improve dog welfare nor will it prevent dog attacks
3.2 I am of the opinion that a national dog licensing regime needs to be introduced akin to car registration. Owners need to be caused to recognise the responsibilities which they have not only to their “pet dog” but also to the wider community. There needs to be clearer legislation which outlines owners responsibilities perhaps based upon the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which is supported by robust enforcement.
4. Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property ?
4.1 Dog attacks on private property need to be brought within the remit of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Anyone going about their lawful business should be able to visit premises without the fear of attack. However I would here ask that a review of the Guards Dogs Act be made as on occasions there may be a need for the correct use of guard dogs.
5. Are DEFRA’s proposals for the wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership sufficiently ambitious?
5.1 The inclusion of irresponsible dog ownership within the anti-social behaviour tools and powers is to be welcomed. Training of officers in dog legislation specialising in dangerous dog legislation needs to be extended to local authority officers.
6. Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime?
6.1 The Police do not have the responsibility to manage stray dogs this was removed in 2008. The responsibility is that of the local authorities . Many animal welfare charities work together with the authorities to tackle the problem of stray dogs. In our experience this works well as the authorities are local to the areas where dogs a re found and can reunite owners and dogs quickly. However the costs of handling and kennelling are very expensive and many authorities are now contracting this work out to private companies.
June 2012