Written evidence submitted by The Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (DDL0056)

Dangerous Dogs - Breed Specific Legislation.

The Scottish SPCA welcomes the EFRA committee’s inquiry into the effectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Act applies to Scotland but control of the legislation is a matter reserved to Westminster and not devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Any changes to the Act would equally apply to Scotland.

The Scottish SPCA has been opposed to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Since its inception, the Act is fundamentally flawed and was rushed through Parliament in 1991 following a series of high profile incidents at the time.

Section 1 of the Act concentrates on three breeds of dog, the Japanese Tosa, the Fila Brasileiro and the Dogo Argentino. It also includes the ‘type’ of dog known as the Pit Bull Terrier.  When the Act was implemented there were only a very small number of individual animals from these named breeds and types living within the UK. Section 1 means owning one of the named breeds or type is illegal in its own right and no other factors, such as whether the dog is aggressive or not is taken into consideration, therefore leading to an owner of any of the listed breeds or types automatically being found guilty of an offence.

Section 3 deals with all breeds of dogs where if a dog is deemed dangerously out of control in a public place both the owner and the person who is with the dog (if the owner is absent) is deemed to have committed an offence. However, even if the dog has gone so far as actually injuring someone this is still retrospective in that the damage has already been done before any action has been taken to enforce Section 3 and prevent such attacks from occurring. It also does not cover any incidents that occur on private property.

The Pit Bull was classed as a “type of dog” by the Act, due to the fact that there was not a recognised breed standard for Pit Bulls in the UK, this has led to a very large number of dogs being wrongly seized throughout the UK as they were not properly identified.

The Act is fundamentally wrong as it implied that only these breeds or type posed a danger to the public however nothing could be further from the truth as recent studies have shown. The number of reported dog attacks has risen over the years since the Act came into force.

The cost to the public purse connected with the seizure of section 1 dogs has been enormous over the years and the problem has not been solved.

The Scottish SPCA firmly believes that no dog can be classed as dangerous simply due to its breed or type specification.

The Act was obviously written by people who did not know or understand dog physiology or behaviour.

There are specific problems with the Act as detailed below.

1)     Identification of dogs.

• There are very few people who have been formally trained and can confidently identify a Pit Bull terrier or other banned breeds.
• The DEFRA guidelines are open to interpretation and are measurement based which has no bearing to the temperament of the dog in question.
• The vast majority of Pit Bulls seized under section 1 of the Act have not presented any danger to the public whatsoever and were seized purely on identification.

2)     Following seizure.
 

• There are some circumstances whereby an owner can have their dog “out on bail” pending court proceedings, however, in the majority of cases, seized dogs are held at secure kennels. This is not ideal from a welfare perspective as some cases can take up to a year for the courts to conclude proceedings.
• The cost of kennelling a dog can range from £12 - £15 per dog per day which does not include any veterinary treatment that the dog may require whilst being held. All of this has to be paid from Police budgets and therefore from the public purse.
• Some of these dogs have been cared for by the Scottish SPCA on behalf of the Police as no other facilities have been available.
• None of these dogs have ever caused any concern to the staff caring for them and it has been heart-breaking for our staff who have cared for a perfectly healthy, non aggressive dog for months to then be served with a destruction notice for the dog by the court.

If the law is to continue in its current form where dogs are seized and held, a system must be put in place to expedite these cases faster through the court system. Keeping dogs for prolonged periods of time in secure kennels is contrary to good animal welfare and a waste of public money.

The Scottish SPCA would recommend that any amended legislation is based on the deed of the dog and not the breed of the dog.

The Scottish SPCA is an animal welfare organisation that fully accepts that public safety is paramount. The majority of serious attacks that have occurred can be traced back to irresponsible dog ownership with these kinds of attacks coming from a wide range of breeds.

The Pit Bull terrier is effectively banned, but there are breeds such as the American Bulldog and Mastiffs from various countries that are now commonplace in the UK. It is common sense that the larger and more powerful the breed is, the greater initial damage it can inflict. However it is important to note that dogs of all breeds can cause injury irrespective of size and strength. There have been some horrendous injuries inflicted on very small children by toy and small terrier breeds, whilst not fatal, some small children have been left facially disfigured for life as a consequence from these attacks.

In Scotland, there is The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. This is a preventative piece of legislation that in theory should be the answer to the problem that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has failed to resolve.

This Act allows a Local Authority to impose any reasonable demand on an owner of any breed of dog if it is believed that their dog may not be under proper control in any place including private premises. Many of the serious and fatal offences that have occurred over the years have happened within private areas and as stated above fall outside of the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

A notice can be served on the dog owner to ensure that the dog is always on a lead or muzzled, neutered if it is a male, undergoes proper training or any other reasonable demand short of humane destruction which can only be ordered by a court.

In theory this process could prevent the majority of dog incidents every year, which alone would save the National Health Service a massive amount of money. However, in practice The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 is not really effective as it is not robustly enforced. The Act is operated by the 32 Scottish local authorities, all of which have different criteria and priorities. Little or no training has been given to local authority staff that have been tasked to carry out this function and there have been several incidents where the enforcer could not even properly identify the breed of dog or recognise simple dog behavioural traits.

For a UK equivalent of The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 to work and be appropriately enforced, local authorities would require a ring fenced budget for this purpose, with full time, properly trained staff to carry out this function.

The Scottish SPCA seriously recommends abolishing breed specific legislation and replacing it with workable legislation that protects the public and responsible dog owners.

Any new legislation must include greater penalties for the irresponsible owners i.e. anyone who is convicted for their dog injuring another person should automatically be banned from owning a dog.

In Scotland the Scottish SPCA will continue to support Police Scotland and Local Authorities and we hope that any new legislation that is introduced will be fit for purpose and can be appropriately enforced.

Yours sincerely

Mike Flynn
Chief Superintendent

June 2018