Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Pauline Jackson
With reference to the proposed Draft Dangerous Dogs Legislation:
1.I am pleased to see that Assistance dogs are to be given some protection from being attacked by out of control dogs, although the downside that I can see is that it will be difficult to trace the owners of such dogs. Even when microchipping becomes mandatory, the people that are irresponsible enough to set a dog onto an Assistance dog are unlikely to have it chipped.
2.Although I have no real issues with providing protection to Postal workers and other visitors to our private dwellings; I do feel that the use of Dog Control Orders on particular dogs/owners would be a much better way forward than just a blanket policy on dogs in private dwellings/areas being guilty of being out of control. Can you clarify what an “injury” is going to be classed as, and whether the duty of proof is going to be on the alleged injured party or on the owner of the accused dog? This is an area of the DDA that has always concerned me, that the dog and owner are guilty and must proof guilt and opens the dog owner open to a whole host of malicious accusations, which many cannot afford to defend (especially with cuts in Legal Aid Services).
(a)Clarification is required to define injury (scratch, bite, causing anxiety etc).
(b)Clarification is required to define a scale of offenses; a dog that accidently scratches someone is not a dangerous dog, but could, under this proposed legislation, be found guilty of such an offense. A dog that is provoked by a visitor to bite should not be punished the same as a dog that bites unprovoked. Clarification is needed.
(c)Clarification is also required to define “a trespasser”; an adult is aware of being in a private area without permission, but there have been numerous cases of children entering gardens without permission. Dog owners can do their best to protect their dogs in their own homes and gardens, but even locked gates and high fences do not deter some children, and I am concerned about what will happen if a child climbs into someone’s garden (for whatever reason) and a dog then scratches a child. The dog and owner will then find themselves being found guilty of an offense under this Act despite having taken precautions to ensure that the dog is kept safe (6ft fences are no barrier to children, nor are bolted and locked gates). In this instance a dog Control order would be the better option as in each individual case, a management plan could be implemented. Say the child had got in over a fence, then perhaps the householder could be asked to increase the height of the fence, ensure that the dog is not left unattended when in the garden etc. To sentence the dog to death for such an offense would be unfair and unjust.
3.A Dog Control Order would provide much more flexibility regarding the constraints on an offending dog; such as requiring that the dog is securely restrained (such as in a crate or another locked room) when persons need to enter the home (carers, electricians, plumbers etc.) and that an external postal box must be provided in instances when a postal person is worried about their safety. It could also be specified that this postal box has to be fitted on the boundary of the property.
4.Dog Control Orders provide so much more flexibility than the Proposed Draft Legislation and measures could include specifying that a particular dog (and owner) must attend training classes and achieve a certain standard, and that if they do, they can have their restrictions relaxed/removed.
5.Removal of the Mandatory death sentence for dogs that are of the “type” and the re-opening of the Register would be positive moves. We all know that there are still Pitbulls and their crosses in the UK, but this does not necessarily make them dangerous. These dogs need to be assessed and then admitted to the register rather than seized and destroyed. The use of Dog Control Orders could help here as well.
6.It is distressing to hear of dogs that have been picked up as strays or handed to rescue that are then destroyed because an expert has deemed them to be “of type” even if they are friendly sociable dogs. This needs to be rectified and again a Dog Control Order could be made to put restrictions on a dog such as it must go to training classes and pass a test in order to have those restrictions lifted. The determination of type using a tape measure is unfair and unjust; the characters of the dog and potential owner are the factors that need to be assessed to ensure public safety.
April 2013
