Dog Control Bill passed its second stage

[Shakka-Staffs]

Dog Control Bill passed its second stage.

New Bill To Tackle Irresponsible Dog Owners Passes Next Stage
Submitted by Jennifer White on July 12, 2010 – 2:32 pmNo Comment.A new Dog Control Bill designed to deal with the other end of the lead, the dog owners themselves, has successfully passed its second stage in the House of Lords today.
Liberal Democrat Peer Rupert Redesdale outlined before the Lords his intention to introduce major changes to current dangerous dog legislation, which is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force.

These changes include:

· More emphasis on the owner’s responsibilities – the Bill supports the principle that it is the owner who has the potential to make a dog either well-behaved or badly-behaved. It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression.

· Legislation will no longer be breed specific – since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, public money and resources have been wasted by already overstretched police authorities seizing dogs simply for being of a particular breed or type. Research now overwhelmingly supports the principle of ‘deed not breed’, and proves that genetics (breed) play only a limited part in the temperament of an individual dog, with environment and training having a far greater effect.

· Attacks which take place on private property would also become a criminal offence – a large number of dog attack incidents occur within the home and on private property. The Bill includes various exemptions such as being attacked by another animal, provocation, and attacks on individuals committing an offence for which they could be imprisoned.

Regarding the second reading, Lord Redesdale commented: “The Control of Dogs Bill has had a successful second stage and is now going to Committee in the House of Lords. A number of issues were raised which will have to be dealt with in Committee but all contributions in the debate stressed the need for responsibility on the other end of the lead – with owners”.

Lord Redesdale’s work on the Bill has been supported by the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, which is made up of animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and local authorities. The DDASG has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and believes that current legislation has failed to protect the public and instead caused a significant welfare issue whilst creating the problem of status dogs.

DDASG Chairman and Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, Chris Laurence said “Contrary to the comments of Lord Grantchester in this afternoon’s speech, Dogs Trust wholeheartedly supports the work of the DDASG, at which we Chair, and Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill.

The Bill focuses on prevention rather than cure, better protects the public and emphasises responsible dog ownership and all members of DDASG are delighted that it has passed its next stage through Parliament”.

Existing legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog bite incidents in the UK, which have risen in the past five years by 79% in London and 43% nationally*. Meanwhile costs have continued to rise; it was revealed that 10 million pounds has been spent by the Metropolitan Police alone in the past 3 years simply to implement Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, relating to the seizure, kennelling and euthanasia of banned breeds.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group has also launched a petition supporting Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill which already has almost 10,000 signatures. The petition can be found at www.gopetition.com/petitions/repeal-and-replace-the-dangerous-dogs-act.html

For more information on DDASG, Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill and current ‘dangerous dog’ legislation visit www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/928


source: www.dogmagazine.net

[dog]

This is really good news but there are issues.

As someone else pointed out on another forum...

"It looks like s59 for dogs. I'm really not convinced this is going to be a good idea - there seems to be a total lack of judical oversight.

"It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression. "

Authorised officers? Police, or council officials, just on the word of someone who said the dog barked at them a bit..?"

They've got a point.

[Shakka-Staffs]

yes owen i would like to see how it will work out. not convinced.

[sehalani]

"It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression. "

Not convinced and not much clarity to it.
What would constitute a reasonable case for dog aggression?

Getting wound up whilst on a lead i.e dog v dog aggression?

Going mental at the postie coming every day?

Don't really like the sound of this

[dog]

This still has to go through the House of Lords and they're usually more rigorous than than House of Commons so I'm hoping that there will be either some judicial oversight, refferal to an expert and/or a simple right of appeal. With the right checks and balances in place this would be a reasonable peice of legislation.

[marloes]

Jul 14, 2010 18:54:35 GMT sehalani said:

"It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression. "

Not convinced and not much clarity to it.
What would constitute a reasonable case for dog aggression?

Getting wound up whilst on a lead i.e dog v dog aggression?

Going mental at the postie coming every day?

Don't really like the sound of this

wenn the dda in holland was banned, people were also afraid here, that such things would get out of hand. but that turned out not to be..

[southsidestaffords]

THE DOG Control Bill – the proposed piece of legislation to which many anti-Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) groups are pinning their hopes – will still be alive and kicking in the Houses of Parliament following the summer recess.
Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill has received its Second Reading in the House of Lords and will enter the committee stage on Parliament’s return, ahead of a Third Reading in the Lords.
If all these stages are completed successfully they will be repeated in the House of Commons before the Bill becomes law.
Members of the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), which includes the Kennel Club, are backing this Bill as a way to dispose of the hated DDA. It is generally accepted that the DDA is the most discredited piece of legislation on the Statute Book.
The Bill is based on the principle of ‘deed not breed’ as DDASG entirely accepts that a dog’s behaviour cannot be assessed simply by the way the dog looks. The Bill also seeks to ensure that owners behave responsibly and properly control their dogs while at the same time protecting dogs that behave as dogs. It seems to DDASG that dogs should be properly controlled wherever they are and that owners who fail to do so should be encouraged to do so.
In the Bill the primary requirements are that a dog is not allowed to be dangerously out of control, or encouraged to be aggressive to people or other animals, or to keep a dog who has actually attacked a person. That would all apply anywhere, not just in a public place. Other animals for those purposes are restricted to those protected by the Animal Welfare Act so a dog can still chase a rat. In many respects the Bill is similar to the new Dog Control (Scotland) Act which comes into effect next year.
Dogs are also protected from the over-zealous officer by writing into the Bill specific circumstances when a dog can be excused for being aggressive. A dog who bites a burglar or a mugger does not commit an offence as the burglar or mugger is the person in the wrong. Equally, police and service dogs are protected. If the dog is attacked by a person and bites back no offence is committed. These rules achieve a sensible balance between protecting the public from unwarranted dog attacks and allowing dogs to behave normally.
However, the Bill also expects an owner to behave responsibly. If a dog is known to be aggressive with strangers it is not unreasonable to expect an owner to ensure that visitors, such as the postman, can approach a property safely. Restricting the dog to the back garden is the responsible action to take.


Needs of the individual

The primary means of ensuring owners are responsible is the ability of appropriate authorised persons to issue a Dog Control Notice. Although the format of the notice would be set out by the Government, the content can be tailored to the needs of the individual dog. It might be as simple as the use of a muzzle at appropriate times, or the maintenance of a dog-proof fence round a garden, or a requirement to undertake some training and proof of competence such as the Kennel Club Good Dog Citizen Scheme. Councils authorising people to issue such notices are required to ensure they know what they’re talking about in relation to dog training and control.
Any dog who is the subject of a Dog Control Notice will have to be microchipped to ensure that it can be identified in future. That will ensure that the correct dog is dealt with. The local authority will be required to keep records of dogs that are subject to notices and so repeat ‘offenders’ can be easily identified. If the person on whom the notice is served fails to comply with it he will be liable to prosecution and could be fined or, in extreme cases, imprisoned.
A comparison between the Bill and existing legislation is below. This shows that, if the Bill is passed it will completely change the manner in which owners of dogs who are out of control will be dealt with. The emphasis in the Bill is on the prevention of dog bites rather than criminalising dog owners after the dog has bitten and another child has been injured:
What constitutes a dangerous dog? 1871 Dog Act – any dog out of control can be ordered to be kept under proper control or be destroyed. DDA – section one, breed specific – 1991 mandatory destruction; section three, any dog, presumption of destruction for aggravated case. Dog Control Bill – any dog dangerously out of control.
Is the Act breed specific? 1871 – no. DDA – yes. Dog Control Bill – no.
Permanent identification? – 1871 – none specified. DDA – microchip and tattoo. Dog Control Bill – microchip for dogs who are subject to a control order.
Does the Act apply on private property? 1871 – yes. DDA – no. Dog Control Bill – yes.
Who is expected to implement the controls? 1871 – not specified but assumed to be the police and courts. DDA – police, persons appointed by a local authority and courts. Dog Control Bill – the Secretary of State will state those organisations she feels should implement the Bill. Courts will only be involved if an order is refused or breached.
Destruction orders? 1871 – optional. DDA – 1991 optional. Dog Control Bill – optional.
Dog control notices? 1871 – optional. DDA – not specified. Dog Control Bill – optional.
Civil or criminal? 1871 – civil. DDA – criminal. Dog Control Bill – criminal.
Proceedings against? 1871 – owner only. DDA – owner or person in charge. Dog Control Bill – owner or person in charge.
Protection for domestic animals against unprovoked dog attacks? 1871 – no. DDA – no. Dog Control Bill – yes.
Is there a defence where the dog was provoked by another person or animals? 1871 – open to the court. DDA – no. Dog Control Bill – yes.
Is there a defence where the person injured or threatened was in the process of criminal activity? 1871 – open to the court. DDA – no. Dog Control Bill – yes