Dog Control Bill [HL]

My Lords, at the outset, I should declare that I am a dog owner and either am or have been a member of the RSPCA and the Countryside Alliance. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on slipping his leash this morning and bringing the Bill to the House. His intentions must be applauded and I agree with much of what he says. I start with the existing legislation. The Dogs Act 1871 allows for a civil remedy when a criminal offence has not been committed. One advantage of that Act is that it can be applied everywhere—on private property, not just in public places. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was hastily introduced following two horrific incidents of attacks on small children. If I remember correctly, one child died. Prior to that Act, there were no criminal offences to protect people from attacks or fear of injury from dogs. Section 1 of the Act prohibits the ownership of certain types of dogs and specifically names four breeds, the pit bull and the toser among them. It is important to remember that the intention behind the legislation was to protect people. One criticism of the Dangerous Dogs Act is that criminal proceedings can be brought only if an offence took place in a public place. However, it should be remembered that if the offence took place on private property, civil proceedings can still be brought under the Dogs Act 1871. One problem with the Dangerous Dogs Act is that of unintended consequences, the way in which the wording of the Act has been interpreted so widely. Section 1 deals with the type of breed or breed types that might be dangerous or appear to have dangerous characteristics. Obviously, a great deal of ambiguity and subjectivity can creep in—and indeed has. If the dog fits the type, it can be seized and/or destroyed. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, that has led to thousands of dogs being seized based on someone's opinion. Banning a type of dog breed is impossible to get right. Without change, dogs will continue to be seized, owners persecuted and dogs registered as dangerous based solely on their looks. We certainly would not arrest humans based solely on their looks, so why dogs? Surely a dog should be judged on its temperament, its disposition and its behaviour. The Dangerous Dogs Act has also been criticised because there is no appeal system for owners to regain their dog. The Bill does not address that. With the best of intentions, the Dangerous Dogs Act is not working as intended. Since that Act, I understand that dog attacks have not diminished. If anything, they have increased. Thousands of dogs have been seized or destroyed because of their looks, not their behaviour, and at a cost of millions of pounds and to the distress of thousands of families. There is a need to put something more concrete in its place, so I welcome the introduction of this Bill, which puts the onus on the owner, or rather the irresponsible owner, rather than on what a dog looks like. It is essential that the Bill achieves what is intended, that the wording is not open to a broad interpretation, and that there are no unintended consequences as a result of the Dangerous Dogs Act. With this in mind, I want to discuss various parts of the Bill to seek clarification. At this stage, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury on his excellent speech. His points were well made. To some extent, he has stolen my thunder. Clause 1(4) says that, ""a person shall be treated as responsible for any dog for which a person under the age of 16 years in their care and control is responsible"." If a 15 year-old meets a friend in the high street, who asks him to hold on to his dog while he whips into the stop to buy a packet of fags or whatever, the dog then slips its leash and attacks a passer-by, does the clause mean that the 15 year-old’s parents are treated as responsible, even though they were nowhere near the scene, or have I misinterpreted the meaning? Clause 2(a) and (c) seem to be fairly straightforward, but Clause 2(b) says: ""No person shall … encourage a dog to be aggressive or to intimidate people or other animals"." On the question of intimidating people, if someone makes a house call—they might be a postman—and if the door is open and three Chihuahuas rush out yapping, this might be considered rather cute. However, if three Alsatians rush out barking, they might be seen as aggressive. By allowing the dogs to rush out, it could be argued that the owner was encouraging their behaviour and would therefore fall foul of this Bill, even though, in my example, neither the Chihuahuas nor the Alsatians caused any actual harm. On the question of being aggressive or intimidating other animals, this seems to be a minefield of unintended consequences. First, if a dog chases a rabbit, a cat, a rat or indeed a grey squirrel, is the dog being aggressive or intimidating towards other animals? Under Clause 2(b), the answer will probably be yes. However, no harm has been done and I really cannot believe that it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the dog and the owner in these circumstances should become criminals. I am tempted to say, "For goodness’ sake, let the dog chase the rabbit". Secondly, what if the dog was kept specifically to kill rats and mice? The owner and the dog would most certainly fall foul of Clause 7(4) in that, ""a dog shall be regarded as having been in an attack if it has bitten, mauled or injured … another animal"." It seems that it is all right for a cat to kill a mouse or a rat, but not for a dog. What about dogs that are used to flush out game or vermin? To do so requires intimidating the game and vermin, otherwise they would not flush them out. What about sheep dogs moving sheep? The sheep would not move unless there was an element of intimidation, but anyone who has watched "One Man and His Dog" will know that no harm comes to the sheep. Clause 2(d) says: ""No person shall … keep a dog that has been used for fighting"." Does this mean that it is an offence for a person to give a good home to any dog that has been involved in a dog fight? What is a dog fight? Clearly, two dogs scrapping in a back alley over a bone would fall foul of this Bill, but I do not believe that that is the sort of dog fight which the noble Lord envisages. Surely he means organised dog fights, which I believe is covered under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. What does the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mean by a service dog in Clause 4(3)? Does he mean a dog that has been specifically trained to carry out a particular function, for example a police crowd-control dog or a drug-detection dog? Does the clause include the sheep dog, the gun dog, the rat catcher: in other words, dogs that have been specifically trained to carry out a perfectly lawful activity? Clause 7(3) says that this does not include, ""any case in which the dog has been used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown"," but this clause does not make it obvious what the definition of service dog is. If someone could prove that his dog was a service dog and it then attacked a child while off-duty, so to speak, it would seem, as subsection (4) is currently written, that being a service dog is a sufficient defence. That is surely not the noble Lord’s intention. Clause 2(e) says: ""No person shall … keep a dog that has attacked a person or another animal"." On the question of attacking a person, the noble Lord’s intention is no doubt obvious, but let me give noble Lords a scenario. A child tries to take a bone away from her Chihuahua and the little pooch bites his hand. The child cries, is given a cuddle and is told that he should not do it again because it is a natural reaction for the dog to protect his bone, but what if the dog had been an Alsatian? Might that not be classed as an attack? It would under Clause 7(4); or is it a defence that the dog was provoked into an attack? Finally, Clause 6 repeals the existing dogs Acts. If we do this, there is a grave danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. By repealing the Dogs Act 1871, people will lose the ability to bring civil proceedings against the owners of aggressive dogs. It might be desirable to do so if, for instance, the authorities refused to bring criminal proceedings for one reason or another. By repealing that Act, it would then become legal to import, own and breed the four named breeds that are currently in the Act. I am not sure that this would be seen as a desirable outcome. I am afraid that I may well have irritated the noble Lord by nitpicking my way through this Bill. I genuinely applaud his intention to bring changes to Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. It cannot be right that dogs are seized because of how they look rather than how they behave. The Bill quite rightly puts the onus of responsibility for a dog’s behaviour fairly and squarely on the owner. One of the criticisms of the Dangerous Dogs Act is the unforeseen consequences due to the authorities’ wide interpretation of the wording of the Act. We certainly do not want to make the same mistake with this Bill, whereby the natural, legitimate, and in some cases central activities of dogs throughout the country are criminalised because of the wording of the Bill and the wide interpretation of it. I have no doubt that we shall return to some of the issues raised today when the Bill goes through the House.