HL Deb 12 June 1991 vol 529 cc1086-7

3.11 p.m.

Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether individuals who suffer serious injury as a result of an unprovoked attack by a dog or dogs are eligible for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme covers injuries caused by crimes of violence. Applications from victims of dog attacks can be entertained if a crime of violence has been committed; for example, where a dog has been deliberately set on the victim.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, which illustrates the capricious and thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the law as it stands. Will the noble Viscount agree that at present severely injured victims of dog attacks, such as the unfortunate girl in Bradford and the bakery worker in Lincoln, can obtain no effective redress unless the dog owner in question happens to be well-to-do, which is not very often the case? Will Her Majesty's Government take the opportunity offered by the Bill which is to come before us in 13 days time to rectify that state of affairs, and to do so retrospectively?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that a person had to be well-to-do. That is not the case. The important point is that compensation is payable only where there has been a crime of violence and there is proof of that. The financial position of the owner or the person in charge of the dog is not relevant. Noble Lords will be aware that we shall have an opportunity to debate the Dangerous Dogs Bill on 25th June.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the hint contained in that last remark. However, I believe that he misunderstood me. Theoretically, victims of attacks by dogs can take civil action against the dog owner, but that is no good if the dog owner has no money with which to reimburse the victim.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, that does not affect the question of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

Lord Richard

My Lords, is there not a real problem here? As I understand the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Bill, the Secretary of State has indicated that he will set up a third party insurance scheme in respect of pit bull terriers and those Japanese dogs. As the owner of a gentle and, indeed, very cowardly spaniel, I think perhaps it is going too far to have third party insurance for all dogs. However, since the Bill does not cover dobermans, rottweilers, alsatians, or some of the more vociferous mastiffs, will the Government consider that it would make sense to have a third party insurance scheme covering dangerous dogs?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, it is not for me to pre-empt the debate on the Bill when it arrives in this House. There will be an opportunity to discuss insurance matters in that debate.