Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
1. We
were disappointed that the Government published a Bill including
dangerous dogs measures without waiting for the Committee to publish
this report on the draft Bill only a matter of days later. When
asking us to conduct scrutiny of the draft Bill, Defra requested
a response within only eight sitting days. We informed the Department
that this deadline was an impossible one to meet; it did not provide
an adequate opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny, and Defra
should not use this Bill as an example of such scrutiny. Subsequently,
the House Prorogued earlier than anticipated which meant that
the Committee was unable to meet to agree its report until after
the House returned on 8 May. We are reporting at the very earliest
opportunity but Defra must in future allow sufficient time for
proper scrutiny of draft legislation. We expect the Government
to put down appropriate amendments during passage of the Bill
to reflect the recommendations in this report. (Paragraph 2)
Clause 1: Offences on private property
2. We
welcome the amendment of section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
to close a current loophole in the law and enable prosecution
of a person whose dog attacks someone in a private place where
the dog is permitted to be, such as a family home. (Paragraph
7)
3. Householders need
the assurance that they will not be penalised for a dog's actions
if a trespasser chooses to break into their house while no-one
is home. The measure in the draft Bill did not adequately meet
the Minister's assurances that the new provision would not protect
a trespasser on private property. We are therefore pleased that
the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill includes an
amended measure such that no offence is committed by someone whose
dog attacks a trespasser in a dwelling where the dog is permitted
to be. (Paragraph 12)
4. We do not believe
that a dog attack that occurs on land around a dwelling, such
as a garden, should be covered by the householder case that provides
exemption from prosecution for the dog's owner. However, there
is a need to distinguish responsible dog owners, who take reasonable
precautions to prevent their dog from causing harm, from those
who are negligent as to the impact of their dog's behaviour. The
Government should provide a clear indication during the Anti-Social
Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill's passage through the House
of the need for the courts to take fully into account mitigating
factors, such as provision of warnings not to enter a garden and
the behaviour of the trespasser towards the dog. (Paragraph 15)
5. The definition
of dwelling in relation to the proposed changes to the Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 should be amended so that the householder case applies
to enclosed buildings associated with a dwelling such as garages,
sheds and outbuildings. Further, the definition of curtilage of
the dwelling or ancillary buildings should be defined in guidance
or during passage of the Bill. (Paragraph 16)
6. It would not be
appropriate to exempt from prosecution the owners of dogs kept
in non-domestic buildings since the householder exemption is designed
to enable someone to defend their family and home, not to protect
those who use dogs to guard commercial and other types of premises.
(Paragraph 18)
7. We recommend that
the Government clarifies whether it intends to exempt from prosecution
in all circumstances the owner of a dog that attacks a trespasser
who has entered a dwelling with innocent intentions. (Paragraph
19)
Clause 1: Dog attacks on assistance dogs
8. We
support the extension of offences under section 3 of the Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 to attacks on assistance dogs as well as people.
However, an assistance dog should, for the purposes of this Bill,
be defined as a dog which has been accredited to assist a disabled
person by a prescribed charity or organisation. (Paragraph 22)
9. We recommend that
Defra, in commissioning work from the Law Commission on consolidation
as recommended in our previous report, request that the Commission
examine the potential to extend the law to an attack which causes
injury to any protected animal. Defra should also liaise with
the Sentencing Council to consider what level of penalty it would
be appropriate to impose upon anyone convicted of such an offence.
(Paragraph 26)
Clause 2: Whether a dog is a danger to public
safety
10. Contrary
to the intention behind clause 2, the Government has failed to
clarify how provisions on the destruction of dogs should be interpreted.
The clause is unclear in several respects and we recommend that
the Government issue clear guidance on the test to determine whether
someone is 'fit and proper' to own or keep a dog, as well as to
how the temperament of the dog is to be assessed. Those advising
the courts must be required to have appropriate training in dog
behaviour. (Paragraph 29)
11. Clause 2 confers
a power on the court to consider all relevant circumstances when
determining the level of threat a dog presents. It is not necessary
to prescribe that courts must do so; rather, such a requirement
could make the application of this clause unwieldy and require
definition of all relevant circumstances, potentially limiting
the court's discretion. (Paragraph 30)
12. We recommend that
the Government clarify whether clause 2 would enable the transfer
of a dog of a banned type to be transferred to a new owner or
keeper. (Paragraph 31)
Missing measures
13. We
are disappointed that the Government has not recognised the benefits
to the public and law enforcers of consolidation of the myriad
legislative measures on dog control and breeding. While we recognise
Defra's concerns about the need to retain remedies under both
statute and at common law, the Department has not convinced us
that consolidation must necessarily diminish the range of legal
options available. A single unified Act would provide a clear
and holistic set of measures for those tasked with enforcing dog
legislation. (Paragraph 35)
14. Breeding regulations
should be brought together with dog control measures in recognition
that irresponsible breeding and poor early rearing can cause some
dogs to become aggressive or out-of-control. We repeat the recommendation
in our previous report that anyone breeding more than two litters
of puppies per year should be licensed by their local authority.
(Paragraph 37)
15. We endorse the
Government's work with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group on the
development of a Code of Practice to support good welfare for
animals sold online. (Paragraph 38)
16. We recommend that
the Government reconsider its rejection of our recommendation
and legislate to introduce Dog Control Notices to provide law
enforcers with tailored powers to tackle aggressive dogs before
they injure people and other animals. Further, Defra must assess
the current costs of managing out-of-control dogs so as to compare
these with the benefits of introducing measures such as Dog Control
Notices. The public needs to be reassured that such up-front investment
will in the long-run be recouped by savings to the police, local
authorities, health service, individuals and the community from
reduced numbers of dog attacks. (Paragraph 42)
17. It is vital that
dog warden and enforcement services are properly resourced by
local authorities. We recommend that Defra remove from its guidance
the qualification that local authorities must provide an out-of-hours
dog warden service only 'where practicable'. (Paragraph 43)
18. We accept that
the current ban on certain dog types in the Dangerous Dogs Act
1991 has not prevented attacks by dogs either of a banned type
or those of types not banned. It is not helpful for policy to
focus on the breed type since any dog may become aggressive in
the hands of an irresponsible owner. Rather, the policy focus
should be on preventing attacks through improving the behaviour
of breeders and owners. (Paragraph 45)
| 
