Written evidence submitted by Deborah Etches (DDL0156)

I wish to log my concerns about this Act and the lack of qualified data that was used to inform and implement it.

The Act itself is time consuming and inefficient to enforce

It is not best use of public monies against a background of reduced funding into public services at a time when there are greater priorities that could benefit from the abolition of this act (financially)

If it not considered appropriate to abolish the act the licence option is currently not mandatory but there is no evidence why not. This should be mandatory if the legislation is upheld and court should be a last resort.

Vexatious allegations should be challenged by the court and appropriate recompense of tax payers’ monies pursued. Not reliant on the owner of the dog to pursue. Where these occur and the complainant is in contempt eg not attending court the dog should not be penalised for this and automatically this should mean the case is dismissed. Not carried over for months whilst the dog is detained costing tax payers’ monies that could be avoided

An expert (suggest Victoria Stillman) be consulted on her highly regarded work about bite related deaths and the causes of such to inform legislation that would actually prevent or reduce these occurring.

Any dog thought to be of pit bull type, that poses no danger to the public, should be able to be registered to any fit and proper person via court order if no owner can be found or for any other reason.  At present dogs that pose no danger and could be responsibly rehomed to suitable people are being needlessly destroyed. There is no protection to the public in destroying dogs that pose no danger when a fit and proper person to care for them can be found to care for them."

Lack of academic data, professional evidence the main reason this doesn’t work – it was flawed from inception. legislation should be informed, appropriate and fit for purpose which in itself would mean best use of public monies.

June 2018