Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by RSPCA

1. Executive Summary

1.1 The RSPCA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft Bill and the issues it raises. Due to the limited time period for commenting, this is a preliminary response only. The following bullet points provide a short executive summary of our key concerns:

The RSPCA remains unconvinced that a piecemeal, reactive and breed-specific approach to issues of irresponsible dog ownership protects public safety and animal welfare. The draft legislation proposed is not preventative, does not have an educational approach and so offers no better protection.

Specifically, we believe some of these amendments could detrimentally affect the wider dog owning public, dog welfare and potentially see more dogs euthanased unnecessarily.

There is a need for better protection for all “protected animals”1 and not just assistance dogs.

We urge the Government to consolidate and reform current legislation to introduce genuine early intervention and prevention measures such as Dog Control Notices and to include clear, up to date, targeted education and awareness raising programmes about safety around dogs.

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

2.1 In short, no we do not believe they do. We do not feel that the clauses (either individually or as a package) better protect people, animal safety, dog welfare or provide a proportionate approach. Reactive legislation on its own will not reduce dog bites/attacks and the proposals lack any early intervention or prevention (also recently identified by EFRA2). Effective legislation must be preventative and coupled with a coordinated and targeted education and engagement programme about safety around dogs.

2.2 While some of the clauses, in principle, may be a step in the right direction, we remain concerned about their lack of clarity and the potential impact on the wider dog owning public and dog welfare. The following bullet points set out our specific concerns:

Clause 1(2)

2.3 We would like to seek clarification of the term “keeping dogs under proper control” as this could lead to the use of techniques or methods to control dogs which may amount to potential offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) for example, those which are punitive based.

2.4 In principle, we welcome the approach to extend current legislation as we believe an owner has a duty to ensure their dog does not pose a threat to people and animals regardless of where it is; however its execution appears very confusing and could be difficult to apply in practice.

2.5 Extending the law on its own will not protect the public any further or achieve a reduction in bites, but merely provide the mechanisms for prosecution of owners of dogs which have bitten. Further, we have serious concerns about the potential impact of the outlined approach on the “average” dog owner, and animal welfare.

2.6 Clause 1(2) limits the defence to an owner of a dog subject to an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), only if they are in a building that is a dwelling or part of it at the same time as a trespasser. A definition of dwelling is required. For example, is there a defence if the owner is in the garden and the dog attacks an intruder in the house?

2.7 It is in the absence of the householder that trespass is most likely to occur. As the actual offence follows the doctrine of absolute liability this means that it could impact unfairly and disproportionately on many well-meaning dog owners.

2.8 The limited approach of this defence is unfair to both the dog and owner. When a dog is using aggression it is almost invariably because he thinks he is undergoing some form of threat. For example, to his personal safety or a resource he values highly. In such situations, it is unrealistic to expect a dog to know when aggression is and isn’t acceptable and to whom.

2.9 As the proposed defence is so limited in scope, we are extremely concerned that owners may attempt to avoid situations where incidents could arise ie dogs are separated from visitors or owners. In the case of puppies and juvenile dogs, this would in fact be counter intuitive as a lack of socialisation is highly likely to lead to the development of specific fears and thus increases the likelihood of a future aggressive incident. Such attempts to avoid incidents may also compromise dog welfare. For example, owners may withhold access to the garden or decide to contain their dog alone for prolonged periods either whilst they go out or when visitors are present. At worst, we fear that prospective owners may be deterred from dog ownership whilst present owners of dogs which display aggression may relinquish, abandon or euthanase them.

2.10 The RSPCA would like to see a more flexible and proportionate approach where the defence focuses not only on whether the victim was a trespasser or not, but also requires the Court to consider a number of factors surrounding the incident, for example whether the owner (or person in charge of the dog) took reasonable steps, in all the circumstances, to keep their dog under proper control. The current approach is too rigid and draconian to be effective for the range of circumstances in which a dog bite or attack may occur.

Clause 1(6)

2.11 We welcome the principle of this clause but feel it should go further to address the trauma inflicted on farmers, horse and pet owners when their animals are attacked, injured or even killed. The acceptance by Government for assistance dogs appears largely due to the impact of the attack on the person as well as the dog but we feel the same is true for those who are not reliant on their animals in the same way as owners of assistance dogs, but for which the financial, ethical and personal impact of a loss can be just as significant.

2.12 Our recommendation is to amend the offence under section 3 DDA to cover “protected animals” as per the definition in the AWA and only make it aggravated for assistance dogs. This definition would exclude incidents whereby a dog attacks or even kills a wild animal.

Clause 2

2.13 While the RSPCA supports the principle of requiring Courts to consider whether an owner is a “fit and proper person” and the “temperament and previous behaviour” of the animal we feel the approach set out is unbalanced. We believe that two separate approaches should be provided, for prohibited types of dogs and dogs seized as a result of an offence under section 3.

2.14 For both we feel an objective assessment looking at the owner’s suitability and dog’s behaviour is a welcome step forward, rather than the reliance on breed specific legislation for section 1 dogs which is unfair and unscientific.

2.15 Clause 2(3)(b) should become one of the mandatory factors in 2(3)(a). For example, a section 1 dog may be seized simply because of what it looks like rather than any behavioural concerns. Although clause 2 provides for the Courts to “consider any other relevant circumstances” this is not mandatory and we are concerned this tips the balance unfairly against dogs and owners, especially those concerning section 3 offences. Due to the complexity of the circumstances of such cases it is essential that Courts are required (not just have discretion) to consider these very relevant points.

2.16 We would welcome clarification on the definition of “fit and proper”. How will the Courts be asked to determine this and what information and advice will be sought from the police and others on this front? We strongly recommend this should be amended to allow the Courts to consider not only the conduct and behaviour of the individual but also their ability to meet the welfare needs of their animal to the extent required by good practice.

2.17 We would also like clarification on how the Courts will determine the dog’s temperament and previous behaviour to ensure that the evidence is accurate and representative of the dog. It is important that an evidence-based and consistent approach is used by persons suitably trained and competent to do so to avoid falsely identifying a dog as dangerous or safe. For example, the temperament of many dogs is likely to be assessed in a kennel environment (following seizure). Whether or not the welfare needs of the dog are being met is likely to influence the dog’s “normal” behaviour as are the ways in which the dog is assessed and so must be considered.

2.18 We remain unclear what impact this has on the Sandhu3 ruling. Does the principle behind this case of allowing courts discretion to give a dog that does not pose a threat to human safety to an alternative and temporary “keeper” remain? If not then the RSPCA does not believe this is a fair or just approach. Without this option more dogs, could be euthanased unnecessarily. To try to limit the ability to do this seems draconian and against public opinion.

Clause 2(4)(a)

2.19 Currently where dogs are seized under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rather than under DDA powers there are no options for lawfully returning animals to the owner leading to extended periods of kennelling, poor welfare and euthanasia. So this amendment is welcome in principle as long as it is applied appropriately and proportionately.

3. Do the proposed measures provide a sufficient legislative base to tackle irresponsible dog ownership?

3.1 We do not believe the measures proposed here are appropriate or likely to reduce the number of dog bites, attacks on animals or other issues often linked with irresponsible ownership.

3.2 Similar concerns extend to the Home Office’s proposals for tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB) Bill. See Appendix A for a copy of a joint letter to the Home Office.

4. If not, which additional measures should be brought into law?

4.1 The RSPCA strongly believes that instead of introducing additional measures or amending current dangerous dog legislation there should be consolidation and reform.

4.2 We specifically want reform to include a provision for Dog Control Notices providing enforcers with proportionate, targeted and effective tools to tackle problems at a much earlier stage and prevent serious incidents from occurring. In addition, reform should include education and engagement about safety around dogs for the wider population.

4.3 There are however, measures which could better protect dog welfare which have failed to be included:

The Government has proposed greater discretion for the police over seizure of some section 1 dogs, yet the Bill is silent on this point. This has the potential to be good for dog welfare, albeit in potentially very limited circumstances. We are extremely concerned this has been left out and furthermore we feel this should apply to all suitable dogs not just section 1.

Where dogs have to be seized and kennelled, measures should be introduced which ensure the expediency of cases to better protect welfare.

Opportunities for re-homing suitable section 1 dogs from animal centres via the exemption process should be provided.

5. Are any of the proposed measures unnecessary or counterproductive?

5.1 To conclude, we are extremely disappointed with the approach set out in the draft Bill. While we support the principles we remain concerned at the impact of its implementation on dog welfare, ownership and public safety. This is a missed opportunity and we cannot understand why the Government has ignored the majority of the public, politicians and organisations who suggested a comprehensive reform and consolidation of legislation which is preventative and with a focus on responsible dog ownership.

April 2013