Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the Royal Mail Group

1. Summary

1.1 Royal Mail Group supports the proposed amendments to apply the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to private, as well as public, land. We believe that the Government should include the proposed amendments in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech and ensure that they are progressed as a matter of priority.

1.2 Royal Mail Group would, however, like to draw the attention of the Committee to some issues with the amendments, as currently, drafted. In particular, a potential issue with the “householder case” exemption exists.

1.3 Some of the matters raised in the amendments are complex and require careful legal consideration. We are continuing to deliberate these but wished to submit evidence detailing our current thinking. We will continue to provide additional information to the Committee as our views develop.

1.4 We firmly believe that the proposed amendments need to more effectively protect Royal Mail Group delivery personnel.

2. Royal Mail Group

2.1 Royal Mail Group (RMG) is the operator of universal postal service functions, through the Royal Mail letter post delivery and collection service handling letters, postal packets and high value (registered) packets. It also operates a parcels carrier, Parcelforce Worldwide.

2.2 RMG’s delivery personnel are required under the terms of the Postal Services Order 2012 made under the Postal Services Act 2011, to meet minimum requirements with regard to the frequency of deliveries to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom.

2.3 These obligations naturally involve RMG’s delivery personnel entering onto private property across England and Wales. In performing these functions, RMG estimates that its delivery personnel are currently subject to approximately 3,000 attacks per annum by dogs, despite the measures that RMG has taken to protect its delivery personnel, through training and issuing of protective equipment. RMG considers the vast majority of these attacks not to be the fault of the delivery officer involved and to have been difficult or impossible for staff members to avoid whilst performing their normal duties.

3. Do Defra’s draft clauses translate the Government’s intentions on dog control into clear, proportionate, and effective legislation?

3.1 RMG welcomes the extension of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (the Act) to all land in England and Wales. RMG takes the safety of its delivery personnel very seriously and recognises the potential in the 1991 Act, as amended, to increase the protection available under the law.

3.2 Clarity is a key consideration for the draft amendments and RMG notes that the creation of the “householder case” exemption creates a potential defence in cases where the victim of the attack is (or was believed to be) a trespasser on the private property.

3.3 RMG considers that, in the course of the usual operation of its business, delivery personnel are not trespassers and an attack on them would not be caught by the “householder case” in proposed new subsections (1A) and (1B).

3.4 This is, however, a potential loophole for dog owners which needs to be addressed if the proposed amendments are to translate into effective legislation.

3.5 For most households and businesses, the potential problem does not arise. Most properties have their letterboxes located on the exterior of the building. The issue we have identified arises where the delivery person has to enter a building (or part of it) in order to fulfil their delivery duties. This could happen, for instance, if they need to enter buildings containing flats or maisonettes. In those circumstances, the “householder case” could apply.

3.6 RMG is currently considering proposed wording of the amendments which would clarify the “householder case” so that it cannot be misused to protect irresponsible dog owners or “justify” dog attacks on our delivery personnel.

3.7 Any potential change would need to remove the potential for dog owners to:

(a)misunderstand the legal basis upon which the delivery person enters their land and believe them to be a trespasser; or

(b)be unaware of the identity of the “trespasser” as a delivery person and of their right to enter onto the land.

4. Proposed actions

4.1 RMG is currently taking advice on the “householder case”. However, we believe that two issues need to be addressed:

(a)How the exemption can be reasonably applied. We understand the value of the protection in some cases but remained concerned about the personal safety of our delivery personnel.

(b)The potential use of guidance from government on the extent of “entry” to buildings. For example, a delivery person’s fingers may enter a building in the course of posting mail through a letter box or their foot may cross the threshold while delivering a parcel requiring the occupier to open the door. Clarification is required on what is, and what is not, allowed.

5. Overall

5.1 RMG believes that this issue needs to be considered if responsible dog ownership is to be promoted.

5.2 We are giving additional consideration to these matters and will revert to the Committee as a matter of priority. We will also continue to feed into the policy-making process,

5.3 We are convinced that the necessary clarification can be provided and that a Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill should be promoted by government and included in the Queen’s Speech as a clear signal of intent and of its commitment to public protection.

April 2013