UK Parliament / Open data

Dog Control and Welfare

My hon. Friend reinforces the Select Committee’s point that the microchip is a tool but not the whole answer. We fear that we will only find out the unmicrochipped dogs when they are left abandoned as strays on the street, when it is impossible to bear down on the irresponsible dog owner. Each and every one of us has a role to play if we see dubious breeding activities or dubious behavioural activities in dogs. I hope that goes some way to answering my hon. Friend’s point.

The Committee agreed with the Government’s proposed amendment of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which makes attacks on private land the same as attacks on public land, and we welcome the fact that that loophole will be closed. It will go some way to reassuring people, such as the parents of Jade Anderson, that such horrendous attacks will not happen in the future. However, we warned that police and prosecutors must distinguish between intruders and those who are lawfully on a person’s property when enforcing the law. That is reflected in the representations we received for today’s debate from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust and other such charities.

Having seen the details of how the measure would be enacted, we recommended in our pre-legislative scrutiny report of May a number of changes to the proposed clauses. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the key recommendations that the proposed clauses be amended to enable the exemption from prosecution for someone whose dog attacked an intruder to apply to sheds and other enclosed buildings associated with the

home and not just to the main home. That relates to the vexatious argument of curtilage and other appendages. Perhaps the Minister can update us today on that matter.

The Government give assurances that mitigating circumstances for dog attacks in gardens and other open spaces around the home will be taken into account by the courts and enforcement agencies. To safeguard legitimate visitors to a property, such as postal and health workers, we thought it reasonable for the householder exemption from prosecution to apply only to buildings, not to open spaces around the home. The briefing we have had from the Communication Workers Union highlights the staggering number of attacks on postal workers in any one month, and in any one year.

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
564 cc124-5WH 
Session
2013-14
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Back to top