Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

1. Introduction

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home is one of the oldest and best-known animal welfare organisations in the World. Our expertise has been developed over 150 years due to our work on the front line of animal welfare and our non-selective animal intake policy.

Battersea welcomes EFRA’s decision to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny on the Defra’s Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill. Whilst recent events have shown the need to take swift action and extend the law to private places, Battersea believes that scrutiny is correct given past mistakes undertaken with the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991.

2. Extending the law to Private Property

As stated in our Written Evidence to the EFRA Committee on 11 June 2012, Battersea believes that Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) must be extended to all places including where the dog has a right to be (inside and outside of a private dwelling) and on privately owned land. We believe that owners should always control and have responsibility for their dogs in public and private places.

The proposal to extend current law to cover private property1 is welcome and has the potential to provide enforcement bodies with a tool to tackle irresponsible dog ownership across all places.

According to the Communications Workers Union, 70% of attacks take place on private property, where a dog is permitted to be.2 NHS statistics show that the age group 0–9 years are at significant risk of being attacked, injured or killed within domestic premises, more than any other age group.3

It is important to note that extending the legislation in this way will not prevent dog attacks from taking place on private property, as the law will apply after an incident has taken place.

Battersea would prefer any legislation be extended and include Dog Control Notices, which may mean that a suspected dog with control problems will need to be controlled in a private place as well as public places. The owner would be served a notice to ensure this is the case, overseen by the Local Authority.

3. Battersea’s General Comments on Draft-Bill Clauses

Clause 1

Subsection 2 (a): We agree that the law be extended to all places, including private property. We understand that this will include all dwellings, gardens and associated land.

Subsection (2) (b): Battersea agrees that there must be suitable defences for responsible dog owners, eg where a person who is trespassing with intent is attacked by a dog; if it is proven that the dog was legitimately defending the householder/property. However, Battersea has concerns how this could operate in practice, further information on this is found below.

Subsection (5): We agree that enforcement officers (such as Local Authority dog warden) should have the power to seize dogs from both public and private places if it appears to such an officer that the dog is dangerously out of control.

Subsection (6): We are content about the extension of the law to cover assistance dogs and that this would be an aggravated offence under Section 3. However, we have concerns about how this law would work in practice; more information on this aspect is below.

Clause 2

This Clause aims to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act following a judgement in the High Court “The Queen on the Application of Sandhu v Isleworth Crown Court and Defra”.

Battersea is opposed to breed specific legislation as it predicts a dogs behaviour based upon its appearance; however we accept that the Sandhu judgement does not provide the necessary solutions to the current problems with Breed Specific Legislation.

Sandhu does not provide a long-term solution for dogs that do not present a risk to public safety and that could be re-homed responsibly.

We agree that dogs that pose no danger to public safety should remain with an owner of good character, whilst an application for an exemption to the Court takes place. This amendment seeks to clarify this aim.

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

Battersea would like to raise our initial concerns with regard to each or the respective Clauses:

Clause 1:

Subsection (2)(a):

Battersea welcomes the extension of the law to all places. However, we believe it will not reduce the number of dog attacks on people or other animals.

If an incident occurs, there will be no opportunity for preventative approaches. At present, action will only be taken once an incident has occurred.

For prevention of dog attacks to be effective, there needs to be a sustained education and engagement campaign to advise people on how to be safe around dogs and to keep dogs under control around people in both public and private places.

Subsection (2) (b):

Battersea accepts the need for householders to defend themselves against intruders in a home.

At present, the drafting of this Clause raises questions over who is a “trespasser”. It is not defined what constitutes a trespasser in the guidance. It appears that the householder has the power to determine trespass.

There is no mention of “trespass with intent” and it does not include potential mitigating circumstances eg “a young child kicks a football across a garden fence and seeks to retrieve it from a neighbouring property and then is attacked by a dog”.

It raises questions on the legitimacy of visitors to private property and whether they are trespassing or not, ie a family member or a friend with a verbal agreement to be within the property at the time, but later this visit could be deemed by householder as a “trespasser” to try and avoid prosecution when the dog attacked. We would expect in such cases that the police would investigate them thoroughly.

There is no guidance as to any extent a dog could be used reasonably against intruders. Guidance should be required on this, particularly in cases whereby a trespasser is killed by the dog.

Subsection (5):

We agree that the rights of enforcement officers should be extended to seize dogs from both public and private places.

More early intervention powers should be extended to these enforcement officers, to intervene before an incident takes place on private property. We would urge the Government to introduce Dog Control Notices in England, which can provide authorisation to intervene to prevent dog control problems on private property.

Battersea is concerned that if any police constable, PCSO or local authority officer could undertake this work without some basic (and suitable) training and demonstrable competency in dog welfare and behaviour. We believe that the results could lead to compromises in animal welfare or even make dog behaviour worse due to lack of understanding in these areas.

Clarity within the legislative guidance is required who will be undertaking this work, as dangerous dogs are currently a matter for the police, but the guidance mentions Local Authorities only.

Subsection (6):

We agree with the Government’s intention to make it an offence under Section 3 for a dog to be dangerously out of control when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure an assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so.

Whilst extending the legislation to what are essentially dog-on-dog attacks on assistance dogs, we are disappointed the Government could not have included measures to allow Section 3 to cover deliberate dog-on-dog attacks or attacks on protected animals.

Battersea frequently sees dogs that have deliberately been used for fighting and dogs that have deliberately been goaded by their owners to attack other dogs in a public place. We believe further consideration should be given to tackle these issues.

Clause 2

Aforementioned, Battersea is opposed to breed specific legislation as it predicts a dogs behaviour based upon its appearance.

We would welcome further clarification on the definition of “fit and proper”. We would expect this to include a person of good character but also that the owner could care for the animal responsibility and follow the criteria set by the DDA.

We do not agree with the EFRA committee’s suggestion that the Secretary of State should have the power to add more breeds to the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) of breeds. The Secretary of State already has the power to increase the numbers of breeds should he/she wish to do so. Battersea opposes these powers.

In 2012, 155 dogs arrived at Battersea, which were later deemed by the Metropolitan Police Service to be Section 1 Dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991). Battersea has no right of appeal against any decision to section a dog under the law.

In 2012, 94% of the dogs that were deemed by the Police for being a banned type at Battersea we believed as a result of our observational and behavioural assessments posed no risk to public safety. These dogs could have been re-homed had it not been a banned breed of dog.

Clause 2 does not provide a long-term solution for these dogs that do not present a risk to public safety that could be re-homed. Clause 2 does not help to eradicate breed specific legislation.

Clause 2 gives no long-term solution to the welfare of stray/abandoned dogs deemed Section 1.

5. Do the proposed measures provide a sufficient legislative base to tackle irresponsible dog ownership? If not, which additional measures should be brought into law?

The powers contained with the Amending Bill are a helpful step, but more preventative approaches need to be brought forward. This is a key recommendation of the EFRA Select Committee report (para 17) where the Committee raises concerns on the failure to provide for adequate early intervention or prevention.

We welcome the move to extend the Dangerous Dogs Act to cover private property. This sends out a clear signal that every owner is responsible for their dog’s behaviour be it in the family home or out on the street.

Battersea also welcomes the Government’s announcement on 6 February of compulsory microchipping in England by April 2016. Battersea cares for around six thousand of the nation’s stray, unwanted and abused dogs every year, no matter what their circumstances, condition or breed.

Less than one third of all dogs arriving at the Home’s three centres are chipped and the charity that all dogs will need to be chipped, can go a long way towards reducing the problem of strays.

Battersea believes whilst these proposals do provide a good legislative base for tackling irresponsible ownership, they are not enough as more preventative approaches are required.

6. Additional Measures that should be brought forward

Battersea believe that the additional measures should be brought forward into legislation:

6.1 Dog Control Notices (DCNs)

Battersea believes in effective early intervention and prevention in cases where there are dog control problems. The main strength of DCNs is that they are attached to an owner, similar to an improvement notice.

We believe that DCNs provide an opportunity to tackle basic problems with dogs on private property, before they escalate. Our understanding is that basic responses, eg requirement to rebuild a fence, etc can be directed by a local authority or police officer, however anything more complex will need to be directed by a Magistrates Court. At present, the Government is amending the law to cover private places, but is not putting into place any prevention approaches.

In Scotland, there is evidence to suggest that Local Authorities are increasing their use, with 1,236 investigations in 2011/12, and 1,992 investigations 2012/13. Some Local Authorities, such as Glasgow have invested in authorised officers for this work.

6.2 Additional support for Dog Warden Services

The Government has not included in its legislation support for dog warden services, which are statutory services in the local area.

Whilst the Environmental Protection Act (1990) places statutory responsibilities on Local Authorities to have an officer who deals with stray dogs, in practice the services provided by Local Authorities in this regard is inconsistent.

In practice the Environmental Protection Act (1990) and the Clean Neighbourhoods Act (2005) legislation is too weak to separate the lines of responsibility and lacks proper resource. Stray dogs are still received daily by Battersea, directly from members of the public or the police, without any Local Authority involvement.

Battersea believes that the stark reality of the workings of Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act for stray dog services has created inconsistent funding for stray dog services. Central Government provided in the region of £4m; this equates to approximately £12,000 per Local Authority (although the money was distributed proportionately) but it was not ring-fenced.

From an animal welfare perspective, the poor funding was met with weak guidance, issued by Defra in October 2007. It explained that: “…in short the minimum requirement of the extended duty is that where practicable Local Authorities provide a place to which dogs can be taken outside normal office hours.”4

Battersea believes the phrase “where practicable” has created a situation where in some areas, post-April 2008, Local Authorities no longer provided an out of hours service, stating that it was not “practicable” to provide any kind of services beyond the normal office hours.

6.3 Tackling Backstreet Breeding

No legislative approaches have been brought forward to tackle the sources of dogs that are backstreet bred, then passed on to individuals for their misuse.

Battersea has made representations to Defra regarding dog breeding, particularly the inability of Local Authorities to be able to tackle overbreeding of dogs in their communities. However, in a response to the Home, Defra informed us that it believed current legislation is sufficient to tackle overbreeding of dogs.

The Breeding and Sales of Dogs (Welfare) Act (1999) regulates breeding (and the intention to breed); more than five litters per year and sell dogs constitutes a business which must be licensed. Battersea firmly believes that this legislation is unenforced and contains many loop-holes that allow overbreeding within local communities.5 We would wish to see the amount of litters a “hobby” breeder can legitimately produce, reduced to two litters per year.

Local Authority partners have informed Battersea of their inability to tackle overbreeding in domestic properties as they do not have sufficient trained officers and they lack legislative powers to do so. Defra have informed us that they believe the best way forward is non-governmental self-regulatory controls and better education, not legislation for backstreet breeding.

6.4 Increased support for Community Engagement Services

We were very pleased to be offered £20k of funding for our community engagement initiatives, but believe that Defra needs to make a long-term commitment to these initiatives.

Local Authorities do not have any statutory responsibilities to undertake educational work in the community, and often it can be at the goodwill of the Local Authority to a) undertake these initiatives themselves or b) work in partnership with a voluntary organisation, like Battersea.

While an effective legal framework is needed, without a targeted and effective education and engagement programme little can be achieved in preventing serious incidents. Dog owners, the wider public, service providers, and enforcement bodies need good quality and up to date information on how to stay safe around dogs, in particular about dog behaviour, health and welfare.

A number of the animal welfare organisations already provide such information but this needs a coordinated approach and central government is best placed to achieve this.

Such education should start from pre-school age to ensure those most at risk are taught basic safety. There is also a timely opportunity with the review of the National Curriculum in England currently taking place to ensure relevant information is provided as part of this.

7. Counterproductive Measures

Home Office proposals on anti-social behaviour:

Battersea is very concerned about the publication of the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and the consequences this has for dog control, which we believe will be deprioritised.

Battersea believes that the draft proposals as set out will not improve dog control and may cause more problems than they will actually solve. In particular we are concerned about the following areas.

7.1 Labelling dog owners as anti-social

We firmly believe that the majority of dog owners are well meaning and try to do the right thing but could accidentally be caught up in these proposals because they are unable to keep their dog sufficiently under control.

In our view those owners may be irresponsible with a lack of understanding of their responsibilities, but are not necessarily anti-social and to label them in this way appears to be unfair and a disproportionate response to the problem.

We believe a different, more positive approach using education and advice (more akin to the concept of advice notices) about the needs of their pet and their duties as a responsible owner should be followed in order to break the cycle of irresponsible or undesirable behaviour.

7.2 Potential to localised Breed Specific Legislation

Battersea is concerned that these proposals could result in some Local Authorities and others using these powers to respond to perceived problems or fears about specific dogs or even breeds/types of dogs in the community rather than dogs and owners whose behaviour is genuinely problematic and requiring intervention. This could lead to instances of Breed Specific Legislation by the backdoor.

7.3 Effects on Canine Welfare

Battersea is concerned that those enforcement officers (any police constable, PCSO or Local Authority officer) could issue these orders without some basic (and suitable) training and demonstrable competency in dog welfare and behaviour. Indeed we believe that the results could lead to compromises in animal welfare or even make dog behaviour worse due to lack of understanding in these areas.

7.4 Abolition of DCOs

We understand that Public Spaces Protection Orders will replace Dog Control Orders (DCOs). Local authorities have informed us that they have found DCOs useful as a prevention tool, and we support the current powers to restrict owners from visiting certain locations with their dogs providing that the orders are consulted upon appropriately, used proportionately and enforced consistently and effectively.

Battersea is very concerned about the proposed replacement of DCOs with PSPOs, as the new orders will not be dog specific. We do not believe that dog control should be included within powers that are designed to tackle such a wide range of anti-social activities, as this may ignore or impact upon the welfare of dogs.

We understand that the powers proposed will be used for a variety of anti-social behaviour problems and very serious dog control problems. However, upon reading through these proposals we cannot see how the new measures will provide for effective early intervention and prevention.

It remains unclear, how these proposals will effectively tackle irresponsible dog ownership, how enforcers will be able to prioritise dog control over other serious anti-social behaviour and how they will identify the most appropriate power in each case.

April 2013