COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 20 March 1997)

The Viscount of Falkland
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. With the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 11.
There will be few in your Lordships' House who will not be familiar with the general principles of the original dangerous dogs legislation; and few noble Lords will not remember the powerful speeches made over a number of years in your Lordships' House by the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Sadly—I think that it would be a happy day for him—he is not here to see enacted at least part of what he sought to amend in the original legislation.
I do not intend this evening to be critical of that legislation. Many years have now passed. I am perfectly prepared to accept the findings of the Home Affairs Committee, which had a great influence on the noble Baroness's department—I hope that she will support that view—in bringing about the acceptance in principle that some amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act was required. The amendments introduced by the Government go at least two-thirds of the way to meet the concerns which prompted the introduction of the Bill which I had the honour to present to your Lordships.
The principal changes wrought by the Commons amendments fall into four groups. First, they limit the courts' discretion—we sought that total discretion should be given back to the courts—in relation to destruction to ensure a presumption in favour of destruction unless exceptional circumstances could be 1140 demonstrated. As I said, the Bill as originally drafted gave unlimited discretion. I believe that most noble Lords would agree that that is a fair compromise in the traditions of British parliamentary democracy. I am personally happy with that.
Secondly, the court needs to be satisfied that an owner of a pit bull terrier that was born before 30th November 1991 had good reason for not registering the dog originally. The Bill that I introduced in this House did not include a "good reason" test.
The third major amendment lifts the mandatory destruction provisions contained in Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act. The original Bill that I introduced left the mandatory destruction provision intact.
Finally, Clause 3 also provides for cases where a dog is in custody but no further proceedings are envisaged to be considered by the courts. Those cases could not have been addressed by the Bill as originally drafted.
To go into a little more detail, Clause 1 of the Bill as it now stands provides the courts with a limited discretion in favour of destroying a dog for a Section 1 offence—that is, an offence that involves a pit bull terrier to all intents and purposes—or a Section 3 offence, which involves aggravated attack by any dog, unless the court considers it safe not to order destruction. That reflects the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that the court shall order the destruction of the dog unless it is satisfied that in the circumstances it would he safe not to do so. Therefore there is a change of emphasis. However, I do not believe that any of us would quarrel with that change of emphasis.
The Bill requires owners of Section 1 dogs born before November 1991 to show that they had good reason for not complying with the registration scheme. In effect, there would be a judgment before they could be registered. The court would need to be satisfied that the dog would not be a danger to the public. For those dogs born before 30th November 1991 there would be a second test. The court would need to be satisfied that there was a good reason why the owner failed to register the dog in 1991. I should have thought that any court in our land, using its discretion, should be able to establish what was a good reason for an owner failing to register a dog.
Clause 2 is essentially a matter of tidying up the drafting of the original Bill. It addresses two unrelated issues concerning, first, unregistered pit bulls and, secondly, dogs of any type which are out of control. The first part of the clause amends the 1991 Act to allow a court to order that an owner of an unexempted pit bull terrier can register the dog. That is an important change.
At present, the Index of Exempted Dogs, as it is known, is closed, and has been since 30th November 1991. This clause is a consequence of Clause 1. Clause 1 allows a court in certain circumstances not to order the destruction of an unregistered pit bull. It follows, therefore, that if ownership of the dog is to be legitimised, the Index of Exempted Dogs must be re-opened in order to allow the dog to be registered.
1141 Owners will have two months to comply with the requirements of registration. They are: that a dog shall be neutered, tattooed and microchipped; that third party insurance shall be obtained; and that the appropriate fee shall be paid to the Index of Exempted Dogs.
Where an owner fails to comply with a court order to register the dog, the court has the power to order the destruction of the dog or, in its discretion, to extend the period of two months to complete the registration process. The second part of this clause relates to any type or breed of dog, not merely to pit bull terriers.
In cases where a person is convicted of an offence under Section 3 of the 1991 Act, which relates to any dog which is dangerously out of control, the court may specify the measures to be taken by the owner for keeping the dog under proper control, such as muzzling, keeping it on a lead or, in some cases, both. If the owner of the dog fails to keep it under control, the court may in future order the destruction of the dog. There is no change to the substance of proposals in the Bill that I introduced into this House. It is essentially a matter of tidying up the drafting.
Clause 3 amends the Bill to address two quite important issues. First, it lifts the mandatory destruction provisions contained in Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act; and, secondly, it provides an opportunity in certain cases where there is an impasse for dogs to be registered.
On the first point, Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act provides that where a Section 1 dog—perhaps I may remind noble Lords that that is a pit bull terrier to all intents and purposes—is seized by the police and no person has been, or is to be, prosecuted for an offence under the Act, either because he or she cannot be found or for any other reason, the court must order the destruction of the dog. The amendment gives the magistrate limited discretion as to whether to order the destruction of the dog, to be consistent with the proposed discretionary provisions contained elsewhere in the Bill.
The second matter that the clause seeks to address is that of cases where proceedings have been either dismissed or discontinued and the dogs have not been returned to the owners, either because a court has decided that the dog is a pit bull terrier or the police believe it to be an unregistered pit bull terrier. Ownership of such dogs is already an offence under the 1991 Act.
The amended Bill will ensure that where no person has been convicted of an offence under the 1991 Act but the dog cannot be released to the owner because it is in effect an unregistered pit bull terrier, the court can order, subject to certain safeguards regarding public safety, that the dog be registered. In the case of a dog born before 30th November 1991, the owner would also need to satisfy the court that he had good reason for the dog not being registered in 1991.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 essentially tidy up the original Bill and no changes of substance have been made. Clause 4 relates to providing a power to make regulations in connection with re-opening the register for pit bull terriers.
1142 I am personally very happy, and I hope that my colleagues who have assisted on the Bill are happy, now that we have improved the dangerous dogs legislation to the extent that it will be less onerous, cause less distress to owners and their pets and, quite importantly, result in less money being wasted unnecessarily in keeping pit bull terriers and other dogs in kennels for long periods of time awaiting appeals and other matters. I congratulate the Government on their prompt action after the findings of the Home Affairs Committee. I, at least, at the end of this Parliament end on a high note. I hope that Lord Houghton of Sowerby, although he might have spoken for somewhat longer than I have to your Lordships this evening, would be as satisfied as I am. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)

§ Baroness Wharton
My Lords, I wish to pay tribute to my friend in another place, Mr. Roger Gale, who has persevered with this Bill for a number of years. He has never lost faith. This morning, at 2.15, there he was on his feet pushing through these amendments. On that note, I also thank the Minister for her quiet encouragement and support over time and other noble Lords who have also lent us their support.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I merely wish to thank my noble friend Lord Falkland for having persevered with this measure, and for eventually, with Mr. Gale in the House of Commons, having brought it very near to the statute book. That reflects credit on a large number of people, including the Home Office—given the fact that it was faced with the undoubted embarrassment of this excessively foolish Bill, passed in 1991. Belatedly, we now have a significant improvement to the 1991 Act. As I say, that reflects great credit on all concerned.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, if noble Lords, like me, believe in the life hereafter, then it is possible to believe that the doughty animal-lover, the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be looking down on our proceedings today.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords—

§ Baroness Blatch
I know that the noble Lord is not a believer in these matters. I speak personally; I did make that point. He may be looking down on our proceedings, perhaps—if I know him well enough—with a characteristic, impish scowl for me, perhaps even for my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and for my ministerial colleague, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, all of whom have represented the Government on this issue over the seven years.
1143 I understand, as a result of a whisper in my ear, that it was in fact my noble friend Lord Ferrers who introduced this Bill in the first place.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Before the Minister leaves Lord Houghton of Sowerby, it is not my beliefs that matter; Lord Houghton was to his dying day a devoted atheist.

§ Baroness Blatch
You have spoilt my line, my Lord! He was too saintly to be that. I think something else will have happened since he passed from this House.
Perhaps I could say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the Act was passed at that time in rather difficult circumstances with all-party support.
If I may continue my reference to Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I also think that he may be looking down with a rather warmer satisfaction on the Home Affairs Select Committee, on Mr. Roger Gale, of course, and on the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who have arrived at this happy position.
I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on all his work in relation to the Bill, which will amend the 1991 Act. He set out clearly what the Bill does. I should confirm that, in amending the Bill in another place, the Government sought to follow the key recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in giving the courts discretion on the outcome of the proceedings about individual dogs, allowing something other than a destruction order to be made. The discretion will apply only when it is clear that the dog would not give rise to a danger to public safety.
The Government have a responsibility for public safety and to take account of public concern about dangerous dogs and dogs that are out of control. Additionally, the Government introduced an amendment to address those cases where no proceedings are contemplated but the dog has not been returned to its owners under current law. The Bill as amended will allow the courts to consider such cases and to make a decision about whether a dog can be released under certain conditions or whether a destruction order should be made.
Those are the two main areas in which the new Bill before us differs from how it left your Lordships' House. Other changes take account of drafting problems, such as lack of a commencement date. With these amendments, the Bill now has the support of the Government and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill is improved by the changes.