Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the Kennel Club

1. Introduction

1.1 Given the Minister’s commitment to push the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill through Parliament at the earliest opportunity, the Kennel Club very much welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to this inquiry. To this end, it hopes that the Committee will share the Kennel Club’s views and concerns with Defra in their report in order to ensure that this proposed amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will strengthen and improve current provisions to better protect the public and improve the welfare of dogs.

1.2 The original Dangerous Dogs Act was drafted as an urgent response to a perceived political and social crisis and is cited by many as one of the worst pieces of legislation because it has failed in its attempt to control dangerous dogs and it has made the welfare of dogs worse. This is now the second amendment Bill to the Act and it also appears to continue the theme of legislation drafted with undue haste and the Kennel Club is concerned that if the new proposals are not properly considered, the result would be to compound the original error and continue with ineffective legislation which fails to provide adequate safeguards for the public, responsible owners and innocent dogs.

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

2.1 The Kennel Club welcomes the general principles contained within the Government’s draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill which is intended to deliver their commitment to extending legislation to provide adequate dog control to private property.

2.2 Introducing penalties for keepers of dogs who allow their dog to harm lawful visitors to their home is a positive step in curbing irresponsible dog ownership and encouraging better control of dogs which in turn should go some way towards preventing more serious incidents from occurring. Postal workers, health care assistants, social workers, utility inspectors and other bone fide people regularly visit private properties without necessarily being personally known to the dog or landowner, and each should be able to do so safely.

2.3 At the same time the Kennel Club does not wish to see such protection extended to anyone trespassing or involved in criminal activity. It is important that the emphasis is on the owner’s responsibility to avoid injury to anybody carrying out their lawful activities. To this end, the Kennel Club has some serious concerns regarding the exemptions stated within the Bill protecting homeowners from prosecution should their dogs bite or show aggression towards a trespasser.

2.4 The Kennel Club would stress the need to define a trespasser within the Bill in order to correctly define an unlawful visitor and ensure clear, proportionate, and effective legislation. As such, the Kennel Club would suggest the following definition:

A trespasser is defined as someone who is present on private land without lawful authority.

2.5 In this regard, the Kennel Club would stress the need to ensure that the dog owners should only be penalised and their dogs seized/destroyed where they are established as acting irresponsibly and certainly not where they and their dog are victims of another’s irresponsibility. Questions must be raised, for example whether an owner would be culpable if a child trespasses in a well fenced and signed property.

2.6 Further concerns the Kennel Club would wish to highlight include the lack of provisions within the Bill to provide an exemption from prosecution if the owner is not present at the time a dog injures a trespasser. This fails to protect responsible owners and their dogs in such events as a burglar being bitten inside a property whilst the homeowner is quite reasonably no present in the home The Kennel Club firmly believes that there should never be a criminal liability for an owner if a dog should injure someone who is in their property without lawful authority. Furthermore, current provisions only apply inside a dwelling, therefore leaving landowners whose dogs injure a burglar, for example, whilst stealing property from a garden or farmyard without protection from prosecution or criminal conviction.

2.7 The Minister Lord de Mauley referred to the Crime and Courts Bill and Defra’s intention to provide a similar level of protection within the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill in his accompanying introductory letter to the Bill. The Kennel Club would suggest extreme caution in drawing comparisons between self-defence (and as such the necessary use of force or weapons) by a homeowner and dog bite incidents against an intruder. This could suggest that the Government defines a dog as a weapon which is directly contrary to other pieces of legislation such as the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill currently under consideration from the Home Office. It also ignores the principle that a dog may act instinctively rather than await direction to be used as a weapon. A dog is a companion animal and a sentient being and as such the Kennel Club feels it is misguided to develop the proposed Bill in accordance with such legislation as the Crime and Courts Bill.

2.8 As an alternative to the proposed wording the Kennel Club would suggest the following amendment under Section 1(2)(b):

after subsection (1) insert –

“(1A) A person (‘D’) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case which is a householder case.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) ‘a householder case’ is a case where at the time –

The person in relation to whom the dog is dangerously out of control (‘V’) is a trespasser”.

2.9 Such an amendment in addition to the definition of a trespasser would indeed uphold the Minister’s commitment that “a householder will not be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 should their dog attack a trespasser that has entered or is in the process of entering the home” without the oversight that this would only apply if the householder is at home at the time of the incident. The amendment would also remove the definition that a building must be a “dwelling or forces accommodation” in order for there to be a defence, as the Kennel Club believes that commercial premises such as a place of work or indeed a boarding kennels should be included within the provisions.

3. Do the proposed measures provide a sufficient legislative base to tackle irresponsible dog ownership?
(a) If not, which additional measures should be brought into law?
(b) Are any of the proposed measures unnecessary or counterproductive?

3.1 As previously stated, the Kennel Club welcomes the principle of a Bill to extend the law to private property to promote responsible dog ownership and the principle that owners should ensure that their dogs are not dangerously out of control in any place. Whilst this may go some way towards encouraging better control of dogs in order to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution should a dog bite a lawful visitor to the home, the Kennel Club does not believe this will have a significant effect on preventing incidents from occurring.

3.2(a) In regards to pre-emptive measures, the Kennel Club has expressed serious concerns regarding the provisions for dogs and their owners within the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. It feels that the suggested proposals fail to adequately address irresponsible dog ownership or introduce genuine preventative measures to effectively reduce the number of dog related incidents and prevent more serious attacks from occurring. Dog Control Notices, as currently enforced in Scotland and under consideration in Wales, would fulfil this role much more appropriately and as such the Kennel Club would recommend that such provisions be considered within the proposed Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill in order to be much more “dog specific” rather than lost within much larger measures relating to general anti-social behaviour. The Kennel Club, together with the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, British Veterinary Association, Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home have written to the Minister of State for Crime Prevention, Jeremy Browne MP to highlight our concerns and our letter is attached to this response.

3.3 Within Defra’s announcement on 6th February 2013, the Minister made a commitment to allow the police discretion to release a suspected prohibited dog where they are completely satisfied that it is in the care of a responsible owner. Such a provision has not been included within this Amendment Bill to the Dangerous Dogs Act which the Kennel Club believes would be the most appropriate place. We regard this as a serious omission that could otherwise lead to much better enforcement and an improvement in the welfare of the dogs at risk of being seized by the police

3.4(b) The Kennel Club has raised concerns regarding unnecessary or counterproductive measures within its responses to the previous questions.

3.5 The Kennel Club would seek to clarify Section 2, in which it is proposed that the suitability of the owner of the dog and the consideration of the person as a fit and proper person be considered when determining whether a dog should be destroyed. It would have serious concerns, for example, if the proposed amendment could lead to dogs that are considered to be of good temperament and therefore not a risk to the public being destroyed simply due to the unsuitability of the owner. In such a case, the Kennel Club would strongly recommend the introduction of an ability for a separate “keeper” to be appointed for the dog and details kept on the Index of Exempted Dogs (IED). The same consideration of suitability of the keeper as a fit and proper person would still apply to this new keeper. Where relevant, such an amendment would also allow rescue centres to appoint “keepership” of a dog to a suitable individual, after completing the Court process.

April 2013