Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Blue Cross

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

We do not feel that the proposed clauses will provide a clear, proportionate or effective response, and are in fact reactive and potentially counterproductive.

“The Coalition Programme for Government” included a commitment to “ensure that enforcement agencies target irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs”—we consider that the government has failed to achieve this aim with the proposed legislation, which does not provide enforcers with the tools they require to change behaviour in the longer term and prevent attacks.

The legislative outcome certainly doesn’t match the ambitions of the government to deal with the problem of poor dog control and welfare.

We are pleased to see the inclusion of “Assistance Dogs” but what about attacks on other “protected animals” such as horses and cats? We appreciate that an attack on an assistance animal can be particularly distressing for the person involved and consider that this should be a “aggravated offence”. This would provide for the inclusion of “protected animal” under clause 1(6), with a clear exception in the case of a dog injuring a wild animal.

This could be a relatively easy addition as “protected animal” is defined under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and this inclusion would acknowledge and address the increasing problem of dog attacks on livestock and horses and the resulting financial impact on farmers.

Adding “injures any protected animal” here after assistance dog would replace and update the outdated and ineffective Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

The proposed extension to private property is welcomed as it is unacceptable that legitimate visitors to private homes should have no protection under the law against dangerous and out of control dogs.

However clarification is needed on clause 1(2b), which limits the defence of the owner, that is subject to an offence under Section 3, to the following circumstance—where a dog attacks a trespasser in a dwelling, only when the owner is present in that dwelling. This doesn’t seem sufficient. For example if a home is burgled whilst the owner is at work, and the dog is threatened or attacked by the trespasser and the dog attacks in self-defence it appears as though the owner is still open to prosecution. This is unfair and disproportionate.

We consider this amendment could criminalise owners unnecessarily, or encourage owners to restrain their animals inside the home, which could impact negatively on welfare.

Both “trespasser” and “dwelling” in the circumstances detailed above need to be defined clearly to provide an adequate defence.

We do not wish to make a political point about self-defence and reasonable force here, but we do consider that this needs to be clarified, confusion could be caused, and explicit guidance including definitions should be produced.

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

We have concerns that the anti-social behaviour measures put forward by the Home Office in the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill don’t go far enough to make a significant difference to irresponsible dog ownership and crucially, are not dog specific. Along with this submission we attach a copy of a joint letter to the Home Office which articulates our concerns.

The proposed measures appear to concentrate on dealing with incidents after they have occurred, rather than looking at ways to educate owners and prevent the behaviour occurring in the first place.

The measures proposed by the Home Office could in fact make matters worse (community remedy and community trigger). Resulting in discrimination against some youngsters and the dogs they choose to own by local communities. It is our opinion that the most effective way to change behaviour in the longer term is through education and support combined with useful penalties. The new system proposed (with the victim at its heart) has the penalty but not necessarily the opportunity for support. It seems unlikely to us that those victims of dog related anti-social behaviour will, in every case, make a proportionate and useful judgment as to a penalty and as a result the outcomes across regions and across the UK could vary tremendously. This could lead to confusion and will not produce the consistent and long term improvements in dog ownership that we believe will ultimately reduce the incidents of dangerous and out of control dogs.

Government has taken steps forward with this draft legislation but there is still a long way to go to make a real impact on the problem.

Essentially this is a missed opportunity to consolidate legislation into one specific Dog Control Bill which in our opinion would have been the most straight forward route to achieve the government’s intentions.

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

Dog Control Notices (DCNs)—we are disappointed at the lack of preventative measures. Although DEFRA has argued that this will be covered by the latest home office proposals in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, we feel the proposals fail to provide an adequate early preventative strategy. DCN’s would provide a swift flexible and proportionate way to deal with irresponsible dog owners without labelling young people or certain types of dogs.

Breeding—tackle the problem at its source. Stop the hobby breeders who are flooding an already saturated market with puppies by decreasing the number of litters a year allowed before having to become a licensed breeder. We would wish to see existing dog breeding legislation updated to require all owners of two unneutered dogs required to register with the Local Authority as a breeder.

Support for Education programmes provided by the voluntary sector. To demonstrate that Education on animal welfare is something the government sees as a priority, central coordination and support is required. To begin to make the necessary social improvements the education of pet owners needs to begin at an early age.

Protection for Protected Animals from injury—attacks on cats, livestock and horses remains a particular problem. An out of control dog that is a danger to public safety is often known in the locality as a result of injurious attacks on other animals. To allow such behaviour without clear and definite sanctions is not acceptable and should not be tolerated. To omit this (when included in dog control legislation in NI and Scotland), but to protect assistance dogs sends out totally the wrong message about responsible pet ownership and is a massive disappointment.

Are any of the proposed measures unnecessary or counterproductive?

The proposal to amend legislation so that a court must consider if the owner is a “fit and proper” person to be in charge of the dog is welcomed in principle but requires additional clarification. What proportion of the decision will be based on the behaviour of the owner and what proportion on the behaviour or characteristics of the dog? This is particularly relevant for those dogs seized under Section 1, where the consideration of other “relevant circumstances” could be of vital importance. The courts should consider such factors in all circumstances. This must include kennelling time, and any other factors that may impact negatively on an animal’s behaviour and welfare.

The assessment of a dog’s temperament must also be evidence based and consistent.

We would not wish to see animals being euthanized unnecessarily as a result of these proposals, and we strongly agree that a court should be able to entrust a S1 dog into the care of a temporary keeper if necessary.

We consider that Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) has failed completely to both solve the problem of dangerous dogs and/or to eradicate the dog known as the Pit Bull Terrier in the UK. Any extension of BSL at this point would be disastrous for dog welfare and could result in the euthanasia of many animals and the criminalising of many owners.

There is much evidence that BSL is ineffective as a method of protecting the public from dangerous dogs but good dog welfare and education is effective, therefore we consider that any moves to increase, strengthen or extend BSL would serve no useful purpose, increase costs for enforcers and have a detrimental impact on dog welfare generally.

If BSL cannot be removed entirely then we would wish to see measures introduced which will ensure that cases are dealt with as quickly as possible therefore limiting the time spent kennelling the dogs.

We would also like to see some flexibility for rehoming organisations that are dealing with abandoned or straying dogs of a prohibited breed-type.

We were led to believe that the police would be given a degree of flexibility with regards to seizing dogs of a prohibited breed type however we are yet to see what such proposals consist of.

April 2013