Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the Countryside Alliance

Introduction

1. The Countryside Alliance welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the EFRA Committee’s inquiry into the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill. The Alliance submitted evidence to the Committee’s 2012 inquiry into dog control and welfare and is supportive of action to address the menace of dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. We also believe that dog welfare with respect to breeding is of the utmost importance. Responsible ownership, proper training of dogs and socialisation of puppies are vital, not just in terms of public safety but also to ensure a dog’s welfare.

Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Extension of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to Private Property

2. We welcome the Government’s proposal in the draft Bill to extend the offence of a dog being “dangerously out of control” to private places where the dog is permitted to be.

3. It should be noted that it is already an offence where a dog is dangerously out of control in a private place where that dog is not permitted to be. Moreover, under the 1871 Act action can be taken against any dog in a private place under civil, and not criminal, law.

4. We agree that the law should not be capable of being used against an owner in circumstances where a person was on land or in a building without any implied licence or permission, and as such we welcome the inclusion in the draft Bill of what has been called “a householder case”. We would, however, note that the draft Bill limits the exemption to dwellings. We would strongly suggest that this exemption is extended to include outbuildings and possibly the curtilage of such buildings. This would take account of a situation where a dog is kept outside the dwelling house, such as barn, and someone entering as a trespasser. Otherwise a person climbing into a farmhouse at night would not be able to argue a dog was dangerously out of control while someone breaking into a barn to steal machinery could do so.

5. The draft Bill does not indicate any repeals and it may be that it is not the Government’s intention to repeal other existing offences. We would however suggest that there is a good argument that the 1871 Dogs Act offence should be retained so that there remains an option for dangerous dogs to be dealt with under the civil as well as the criminal law in respect of private places. While we accept there are disadvantages to proceeding under the 1871 Act, it is important to note that a civil offence may be preferable where a successful criminal prosecution may not succeed given the higher evidential standard which must be met in criminal cases.

Attacks on Assistance Dogs

6. We understand why the Efra Committee recommended that an attack on an assistance dog should be equated with an attack on a person and treated as an aggravated offence. As such we welcome the extension of the definition of “dangerously out of control” to include assistance dogs.

7. However, we would take this opportunity to reiterate the dangers of any further extension of the offence to cover animals generally or “protected animals” as defined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. There are a large number of scenarios where extending the definition of “dangerously out of control” to other “protected animals” could create huge problems for dog owners, especially with the extension of the offence to private places such as gardens or homes. A dog chasing a neighbour’s cat, a family dog killing a pet hamster, a sheep dog nipping a sheep, could all fall foul of the law were it to be extended, as has been suggest by some organisations and is currently being consulted on in Wales.

Power of the Courts

8. We welcome the proposed changes which make clear that the court can look at the character of the owner and not just the dog’s behaviour in reaching decisions with respect to destruction and disqualification orders. This is an important recognition that responsible owners are vital to tackling the problems associated with dangerous dogs.

Compulsory Microchipping

9. We understand that this requirement will be brought in by regulations and does not form part of the draft Bill. We are supportive of the Government’s decision to introduce compulsory microchipping. However, we remain concerned that while the responsible dog owner will comply, compliance is likely to be less among those at whom the measures are principally aimed, namely irresponsible owners.

10. Microchipping may encourage more responsible ownership and will undoubtedly enable stray, lost or stolen dogs to be returned to their owners more quickly. However, microchipping will only be as effective as the database(s) on which the associated information is stored. We are not convinced that sufficient thought has been given as to how to ensure the databases are accurate and up-to-date. The responsible owner will provide accurate information and keep the record updated. This is less likely amongst those who wish to have a status dog, often of a type which the law already prohibits.

11. The Efra Committee have indicated that responsibility for the accuracy of data held on a dog microchipping database be placed with the owner of the dog being sold or transferred. It is unclear as to how the seller is to verify the information provided by the purchaser. It would seem more sensible to put the responsibility for keeping the information on the database up-to-date on the owner/purchaser, with whom responsibility for the dog will rest.

12. There is also a lack of clarity as to who will be able to microchip dogs. The current Government proposal is that dogs would be microchipped for free by various dog charities. It is hard to see this being a permanent state of affairs. It is vital that suitably trained persons can microchip and that it is not restricted to vets.

Databases

13. Compulsory microchipping will only be effective if the associated databases are properly managed and the information accurate and up to date. We are concerned about the level of access to databases, which will be available to local authorities, veterinarians, and re-homing centres as well as, we assume, the RSPCA and others. Access should be strictly limited to enable the identification of an individual dog. It cannot be open to being searched in general. Pedigree dogs are of considerable value and being able to search addresses of owners of certain dog breeds or who owns a dog in a given area etc. should not be possible.

14. There is also the issue of cost. We understand that to update a record on the existing, privately owned, databases can cost upwards of £15 each time a record is amended. There is a danger that once microchipping is compulsory there will be many more databases established run by private companies for profit. The costs associated with keeping records up to date should not act as a disincentive to compliance.

Dog Control Notices

15. While these do not form part of the current draft Bill the Efra Committee has recommended the introduction of Dog Control Notices (DCNs). These have already been introduced in Scotland. The real concern over Dog Control Notices is the question of who will be responsible for issuing them. If they are to be applied properly then there must be proper training for persons appointed. Judgements as to when a dog is, or is not, “dangerously out of control” must be based on an objective assessment of a situation and not just subjective opinion. The fact that someone is frightened by a dog does not mean that dog was “dangerously out of control”. We welcome the Efra Committee’s call for the training of staff enforcing dog control legislation.

16. We are, however, concerned by the apparent assumption by the Efra Committee that the enforcement of the law in this area will be undertaken by agencies other than the police and local authorities. Similarly we are opposed to the suggestion that Defra should assess the cost-benefits of funding dog welfare charities to provide greater support to local authority anti-social behaviour teams and other bodies working at a local level. There is, in our view, a worrying trend towards the use of non-public bodies, who are unaccountable, to act as law enforcers.

April 2013