Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Supplementary written evidence submitted by RSPCA

This document is split into two parts. The first is an addendum to the written evidence submitted on 22nd April which we would like the Committee to also consider. The second part provides additional information to support the oral evidence submitted by the RSPCA to the Select Committee on 24 April 2013 and which we believe may assist the Committee with its pre-legislative scrutiny.

Part I

Implications of extending offence of section 3 to cover private property

1. With the extension of the law (s3 non-aggravated) to cover private property it is now plausible for an offence to be committed if the behaviour of the dog only frightens the person (and not actually bites them) or the dog injures the person accidentally which does not have to include aggression but could include jumping up or barking and which are likely behaviours in many dogs, especially on private property. The penalty here is extremely disproportionate to the offence and is an example of where a Dog Control Notice could be used very effectively ie the owner is required to attend training classes.

Part II

Dog breeding

2. Question 89 looked at what evidence there was of multiple litters from private homes. Sadly, this is something that occurs and an issue in which the RSPCA is involved. There is no overall picture of how many incidences as the majority of these litters fall below the “radar” of local government as a result of the dogs belonging to unlicensed breeders. However, our clinics and inspectors will often deal with such individuals when welfare problems arise including bitches which have been used to produce multiple litters and puppies, some of which may be ill and others which have not been homed.

3. The RSPCA believes that the issue of dog breeding, as a whole, needs addressing, from those licensed to breed through to backstreet breeders and puppy traders. This is another area of dog-related legislation that the RSPCA believes needs a major overhaul and update.

Stray dogs

4. Question 70 looked at the issue of stray dogs and what evidence there is for lack of services provided by local authorities. As we mentioned in our oral evidence, some local authorities are very good and provide a comprehensive service, others are not so.

5. As far as we are aware there is no information about the scale of the problem and no accurate figures, only anecdotal evidence. But an example, last year’s RSPCA Community Animal Welfare Footprints awards1 may assist. To secure a gold certificate in stray dog provision, the local authority must provide a “comprehensive out of hours collection service as well as kennelling”. We had around four local authorities who had previously secured this level of award in 2011 unable to meet the criteria in 2012 and as a result only secured a silver certificate. Whilst there could be a number of reasons for this, we believe the continuing tightening of local authority finances is important as is the lack of clear guidance from central government on what is expected/required from local authorities.

Re-homing of prohibited types of dogs

6. The issue of section 1 dogs (ie prohibited types such as pit bull terriers) was discussed in both panels and the RSPCA made its views very clear that it is opposed to breed specific legislation (BSL). Indeed we feel it is the wrong approach; neither adequately protecting public safety nor ensuring dog welfare.

7. If the Government remains reluctant to repeal BSL then we, along with other organisations, firmly believe that there should be the ability to re-home prohibited types of dogs where suitable. This was discussed briefly in the oral session. We accept that the police are only likely to agree to this approach whereby the animals and new potential owners go through the “exemption” process set out under s4B of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. However, if this is the only option, to balance this approach we feel there should an opportunity for an owner, in the future, to be able to apply to the Courts for variation or termination of such conditions where the circumstances have materially changed, for example, the owner and dog have attended dog training courses, etc and are likely to pose an even lower risk to public safety.

8. As our Chief Executive mentioned during the session this is something we had previously considered when we drafted a proposed Dog Control Bill with ACPO, the CIEH, the LGA, the National Dog Wardens Association and the Police Federation. Please see appendix 1 for the suggested text.

Offence of attacks on protected animals

9. Question 77 raised the issue of extending the law to cover other animals rather than just assistance dogs. If you refer to appendix 1 you will see the draft clause we produced with other enforcement colleagues a couple of years ago to address this issue.

10. In terms of the sanctions the Court can require of anyone convicted of such an offence, the focus should be shifted from the dog itself and instead to the owner. For example, the current sanctions may result in the dog being kept on a lead or muzzle and this might be appropriate. However, what may be more important is a deprivation or disqualification order so that the dog can be removed from the owner to prevent further problems and to ensure the dog’s welfare. The animal may be better behaved with another person more appropriate and able to look after it.

Use of preventative measures

11. Questions 91 and 92 looked at issues surrounding Dog Control Notices and as our Chief Executive made it clear we believe they are an extremely important tool in terms of a proportionate and genuinely preventative approach. While we do not have any experience of what has happened in Scotland we do have first hand experience of the use of a similar tool—non-statutory advice notices—that our Inspectors use under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Unfortunately the data for 2012 is not yet available but the following data covering 2007 to 2011 (table2) gives you an idea of the potential effectiveness of DCNs.

Table 1

NUMBER OF IS87S ISSUED ANNUALLY BY THE RSPCA AND THE PERCENTAGE OF IS87S COMPLIED WITH

Year	IS87 (warning)3	Total	Success rate
2007	26,978	27,706	97%
2008	30,996	32,210	96%
2009	14,846	15,806	94%
2010	12,013	12,407	97%
20114	9,984	10,728	93%

12. We firmly believe that where there are genuine preventative measures that allow for early intervention it can not only reduce the number of more serious incidents from occurring, but also save all enforcement bodies’ limited resources.

APPENDIX 1

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE DRAFT CLAUSES

Attacks on Protected Animals

We believe this should be an additional offence separate to any amendments to section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

If a person(s) who is responsible for a dog causes, encourages or allows a dog to be aggressive or uses it to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person, or attack a protected animal he shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection.

Ability to Re-home Section 1 Dogs5

We believe that sections 4A and 4B of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 should be amended as follows:

For those conviction following a prosecution (ie section 4A)

Where a person(s) is convicted of an offence under section 1 the Court by which he is convicted shall order the destruction of the dog but the court is not required to order the destruction of the dog if it is satisfied that:

(a) the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety, and,

(b) the person responsible, or prospective person responsible, for the dog is a suitable person to have responsible for an exempted dog; provided the dog is exempted from the prohibition within two months beginning with the date of the order.

For those using the exemption process without prosecution (ie section 4B)

Where it is alleged a dog is one to which section 1 applies and it appears on application to the court that no person has been, or is to be prosecuted for an offence under the Act, or that the dog cannot be in the possession of the person responsible for it without that person contravening the prohibition within section 1, the court shall:

(a) order the destruction of the dog, unless,

(b) it is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety and that the person responsible, or prospective person responsible, for the dog is a suitable person to be responsible for an exempted dog and that the dog is exempted from the prohibition within two months beginning with the date of the order.

To balance this approach we would also want to see a new clause inserted to allow for the conditions of exemption to be varied or terminated.

A person who is responsible for a dog that is subject to an order under sections 1 or 3 of this Act or a prosecuting authority may apply to the appropriate court for the variation or termination of the order where the circumstances for the order have materially changed.

April 2013