Member News
A Bill to make provision about the control of dogs; and for connected purposes.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was called "flawed" by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Redesdale in the second reading of the Dog Control Bill.
He said that in "2008-09 NHS costs in A&E were £2.7 million for dog attacks."
The Act created "status dogs," Lord Redesdale commented.
The first purpose of the Bill is about "owner responsibility."
The second "fundamental" aspect of the Bill is that "it is targeting behaviour."
The Bill ensures that "owners understand their responsibility for ensuring that dogs are well looked after and trained properly."
Lastly, Lord Redesdale said that the Bill "provides a better level of protection for the public."
The Bill "is not a covert way of introducing a hunting ban. This is focused on dogs attacking other dogs or people."
On dog licensing, Lord Redesdale commented that "it would be an extremely expensive measure, and I do not believe that many people would take it forward."
He spoke of the work of the Dogs Trust in carrying out a survey in Northern Ireland on dog licensing.
He also spoke of the support the Bill had by "the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Country Land and Business Association and many representatives from a number of local authorities throughout the country."
Lord Mancroft (Con) was "not entirely convinced that these attacks have increased in number."
He also said that there may have been "poor enforcement" of the 1991 Act.
He commented that "the implications for the use of dogs in connection with shooting, agriculture and pest control are extremely serious."
Lord Mancroft said that "we cannot legislate against nature-dogs bite-and we need to be careful about how we manage this issue."
The Earl of Shrewsbury said that "the Bill as currently drafted could well have unintended consequences for ordinary, responsible dog owners."
Lord Addington (Lib Dem) said that his "personal preference would be for a licence fee with some dedicated enforcement process."
Lord Grantchester (Lab) said that "the problem legislation has to contend with is that this is not a single issue. Dogs that show aggression in the home, dogs that present a danger to the public and other dogs in accessible places and dogs that are kept as a status symbol pose differing risk analyses and demand differing solutions."
He also said that "the RSPCA has written in its briefing that it cannot support the Bill before your Lordships as it believes that it would be a retrograde step for human safety and animal welfare."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Henley, said that "it is not necessary to remove breed-specific legislation."
The minister also commented that "making it an offence to own a dog that has attacked a person or a protected animal might criminalise a great deal of very minor incidents."
He said that he does "not agree with any legislation that would essentially legalise any dog being dangerously out of control and attacking somebody, albeit a burglar."
Closing, Lord Redesdale said that there were aspects that needed changing within the Bill, but he said that fundamentally the 1991 Act was not working.
He hoped that "many of the provisions in this Bill are part of the solution of making people safer and making dogs' welfare a priority."
Progress:
House of Lords
1st reading: 26 May 2010
2nd reading: 9 July 2010
Committee stage: 4 March 2011
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd