Item 3

A Joint Report of the: Environmental Scrutiny Committee and the

Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee

Control of Dangerous Dogs in

January 2014

Cardiff Council

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ...... 2 CHAIR’S FOREWORD...... 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE...... 4 KEY FINDINGS...... 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 19 EVIDENCE...... 24 Overview……………………………..………...... 24 Public Views………………………………………….35 New Legislation…………………………...... 38 Legislative Concerns………………………...... 45 Breed Specific Legislation…………………………..53 Micro Chipping…………………………………...... 54 ……………………….. .………...... 56 Responsible Ownership……………………………..60 Initiatives……………………………………...... 64 INQUIRY METHODOLOGY ...... 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 71 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS ...... 73 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS ...... 73 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 74 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ... 75 COMMUNITY AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE...... 76 COMMUNITY AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ...... 77 APPENDIX A – Scottish Local Authority Experiences ...... 78

2

CHAIR’S FOREWORD

I was approached by Cllr Dilwar, an ardent campaigner for greater powers to deal with dangerous dogs, and it was agreed to sanction a task and finish investigation into the shortcomings of the Dangerous 1991. Scrutiny had a rare opportunity to contribute to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (ASBC&P Bill) which, by a fortunate coincidence, was going through the stages in the Commons and subsequently in the .

I and Cllr Lomax joined Cllr Ali and Julie Morgan and a representative of the CWU to brief Baroness Gale and Baroness Smith on the 25th November 2013 of our draft findings and recommendations which favoured Dog Control Notices (DCNs) over the government preferences for Community Protection Notices (CPNs) or CPNs linked to some form of unacceptable behaviour contract to be defined by the new Act.

This briefing was then referred to in the proceedings of the Lords Committee dealing with the Dog Control section of the ASBC&P Bill on Dec 2nd 2013. This is a rare first for Cardiff Scrutiny where the deliberations of one of its Task and Finish Groups has contributed to Parliamentary of a major piece of primary legislation.

I would like to thank Members and contributors who have helped to shape this report and its key findings and recommendations which I hope the Cabinet and Council will endorse. I hope that Parliament (or the Welsh Assembly Government should the Bill fail) will recognise the logic and preventative nature of Dog Control Notices and provide the resources needed for their effective implementation.

Councillor Paul Mitchell Chairperson of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee

3 INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE

This Inquiry was established to review the potential impact that the ‘Anti- Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill’ will have on managing dangerous dogs in Cardiff and the implications this will have on . In doing this the Inquiry should review and evaluate:

• Who holds the responsibility for managing dangerous dogs in Cardiff. • The resources allocated to manage dangerous dogs in Cardiff. • The current legislation used to manage dangerous dogs in Cardiff. • The proposed legislation being created to manage dangerous dogs. • The scale of the dangerous dogs problem in Cardiff. • The merits of the recently shelved ‘Control of Dogs () Bill’ compared with those of the ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Crime & Policing Bill’. • Best practice for dealing with dangerous dogs. • Educational and partnership approaches for managing dangerous dogs.

Members of the Task & Finish Group from the Environmental Scrutiny Committee were: • Councillor Paul Mitchell (Chair) • Councillor Keith Hyde • Councillor Chris Lomax.

Members of the Task & Finish Group from the Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee were: • Councillor Mary McGarry • Councillor Graham Thomas.

4

KEY FINDINGS

Having received evidence from nine witnesses over four meetings and a number of written reports, the Members identified the following key findings for the Inquiry:

Overview and Current Practice

KF1. Statistics provided by Cardiff Council on the number of recorded incidents relating to dangerous dogs in Cardiff’s parks would suggest that dangerous dogs do not present a significant issue within the city, as no incidents of dangerously out of control dogs had been officially logged. Members heard from witnesses that figures are under reported, with many incidents going unrecorded as dog owners appear unwilling to incriminate other owners and their dogs. It is also evident that ad hoc dog fights do take place in some of Cardiff’s smaller parks, which are not monitored by Council park rangers. 1

KF2. Statistics on the number of incidents Cardiff dogs wardens deal with in relation to dangerous or out of control dogs show that there were 111 recorded complaints in 2012/13, and for the first six months of 2013/14 there have been 81 complaints recorded in Cardiff.

KF3. Figures provided by the Communication Workers Union (CWU) show that across the UK, roughly 5,000 postal workers are attacked every year, with a small proportion of these attacks taking place in Cardiff. Representatives of the CWU indicated that these figures are only a fraction of the number of ‘near misses’ that occur on a daily basis. It was estimated that these incidents cost the UK taxpayer £9.5m a year in NHS costs. A major concern for the CWU is that current legislation does not provide any protection for postal workers (or other legitimate visitors to private homes) who are attacked by an out of control dog, as legislation and police powers do not extend to private property.

1 It should be noted that, having completed the scheduled evidence collection for this inquiry, a dog attack took place in Victoria Park, Cardiff and was reported in the local media. 5

KF4. Guide Dogs Cymru provided statistics that indicated that across the UK there are on average 8.2 dog attacks per month on ‘assistance’ or guide dogs. In Wales the figure is around one attack per month, meaning that one in 22 guide dog owners in Wales will be the victim of a dog attack each year. An attack on a guide dog has serious implications for the person affected and as such, Guide Dogs Cymru support an increase in the maximum penalties for an attack on a person or assistance dog, so that they better reflect the harm caused by attacks on assistance dogs resulting in injury or death to the dog.

KF5. Academic research recognises that news, media and political discourse are the driving force behind the public perception of a ‘’ problem across the UK, rather than the findings of academic commentary. While figures are available on the number of incidents occurring from a number of organisations, there are no accurate and comprehensive qualitative data sets available on a national level.

KF6. Street level research sponsored by the RSPCA has been undertaken in recent years in a number of UK cities, including Cardiff. This research found that there is an issue with status dog ownership in certain parts of the city, with status breeds being bought, sold and bred in Cardiff. Research identified that there is a need for targeted education on responsible ownership, with status dog owners who tend to be marginalised from society.

KF7. In terms of resources, the Council has 14 urban park rangers and two dedicated dog wardens, who, as part of their responsibilities deal with dangerous/out of control dog incidents, and provide advice to irresponsible dog owners in Cardiff. Urban park rangers are deployed proportionately on the level of footfall in Cardiff parks, and with 1,600 hectares of public open space within the city it is inevitable that many parks and green spaces will not be monitored. The Council’s dog wardens fulfil the Council’s statutory responsibilities relating to stray

6 dogs, and work alongside the in incidents relating to dangerous or out of control dogs. There are concerns that the proposed changes in legislation will require additional staff training and that additional resources may be needed to meet the new demand.

KF8. The working practices of the Council’s dog wardens and Cardiff Dogs Home was commended by a number of organisations, including representatives of South Wales Police, who felt that other local authorities in South Wales could take a lead from Cardiff in how the Dogs Home work in partnership with the Police.

KF9. A Memorandum of Understanding is in place between the four police forces and 22 local authorities in Wales to facilitate co-operation and co-ordination regarding the control of dogs. This Memorandum states that local authorities have responsibility for stray dogs and have a duty to employ at least one dog warden. The police have primary responsibility for enforcing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and take the lead on reported ownership of banned breeds and incidents involving dogs suspected of being of these breeds, and the kennelling of these dogs. Both South Wales Police and Cardiff Council work closely on incidents involving dangerous and out of control dogs in a public place.

KF10. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 restricts the ownership of four breeds of dog in the UK. These are Terriers, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brazilieros. The Act prohibits the breeding, sale, exchange, advertising, or gift of these dogs, and prohibits these dogs from being in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead. Members recognise that other breeds of dog can be equally dangerous, and support the view that dogs should be judged on ‘deed not breed’. The likelihood of a dog becoming dangerously out of control is very much determined by a combination of its breed, owners and home environment, and how it has been trained.

7 Public Views

KF11. Members asked local residents to contribute their views to this Inquiry, and a small number of individuals responded with their thoughts on the problem in Cardiff and how to address it. The views given include: • Irresponsible dog owners being deterred and punished by a proactive Council response. • All dogs should be micro chipped and insured. • Byelaws should be passed where dogs are kept on a lead in parks. • Restrictions must not be breed specific. • It should be mandatory for dogs to be taught to socialise with people and other dogs and have licenses attached to this.

Micro chipping

KF12. The is committed to micro chipping of dogs in Wales, and has made it compulsory for all dogs in Wales to be micro chipped by March 2015. This is a year ahead of where compulsory micro chipping will not come into force until April 2016. The anticipated benefits of compulsory micro chipping are that it will make it easier to return a stray dog to its owners; develop responsible dog ownership by ensuring greater traceability of owners; help to establish liability and prove ownership; and deter dog theft. In Cardiff, dogs can be micro chipped for free through the Dogs Trust or at Cardiff Council Dogs Home (where a voluntary donation can be made).

KF13. Concerns were raised about the practical workings of the micro chipping databases used in the . Instead of having one universal data base for recording micro chipped dogs several different options are available; the two most commonly used being Petlog and Anibase. Relying on a diverse range of data bases can potentially create difficulties in terms of information monitoring, maintenance and governance. Importantly this fragmented data management approach

8 could make it difficult to obtain the correct information when it is most needed, i.e. at the time when the dog is out of control. Member discussion suggested that the Council and Welsh Government should work with the owners of the respective micro chipping databases to ensure that access to information is consistent and easy. They also felt that there were commercial and social opportunities which could be explored in conjunction with the database providers to help fund and develop the efficiency of the system.

New Legislation

KF14. All individuals participating in this Inquiry agreed that dog owners should be responsible for the actions and behaviour of their animals, and it is widely regarded that current legislation does not hold owners to account. The home environment and training a dog receives will play an essential role in the way a dog will act, and dog owners should be targeted by the Council and partner organisations with guidance on what responsible dog ownership looks like.

KF15. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has been criticised as it is perceived to have resulted in a large number of dogs being needlessly destroyed. It is seen by many as a knee jerk reaction, primarily for symbolic reasons, rather than legislation that was carefully thought out and considered. Members heard that breed-specific legislation punishes certain dogs for the way they look, and does not place any emphasis on an individual dog’s behaviour or temperament. A number of European countries have reviewed and removed their breed-specific legislation when it was identified that it has had no impact on the number of bite incidents. It is felt that legislation should focus on punishing irresponsible owners and should focus on ‘deed not breed’, but it was widely accepted that the removal of breed-specific legislation in the UK is very unlikely.

9 KF16. In February 2012, the Welsh Government announced it was proceeding with the introduction of legislation on out of control dogs and responsible dog ownership in Wales. A consultation exercise was carried out by the Welsh Government and a number of organisations were involved in developing the Draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill. This Bill proposed the introduction of bespoke Dog Control Notices (DCNs) that would equip authorised officers with proactive tools to encourage responsible dog ownership prior to a dog becoming out of control, with the power to serve on the spot notices. In May 2013, it was announced by the Minister for Natural Resources and Food that the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill was being suspended and that the Welsh Government would work with the UK Government on the draft Anti- Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill, which has a section dedicated to dangerous dog legislation.

KF17. A number of individuals indicated that they were disappointed that the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill has been stopped, with significant amounts of work going into this proposed legislation, and stated that they had concerns over the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill. It is felt that the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill is a ‘one size fits all’ approach, with dangerous dogs contributing to a small element of the Bill, rather than a dog-specific piece of legislation. It is noted that the Welsh Government has indicated that the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill would be resurrected if the Home Office Bill does not meet the requirements and demands of the Welsh Government.

KF18. The main area of concern regarding the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill centres around the introduction of Community Protection Orders (CPN), which are seen as a generic tool, as opposed to Dog Control Notices, which are regarded as an effective, preventative measure for tackling dogs which are not being properly controlled by their owners. Support exists for other elements of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill, namely the extension of legislation onto private property; proposals to increase the maximum penalties for

10 injury and/or death to a person; and proposals to increase the maximum penalties for injury and/or death to an assistance dog.

KF19. Having passed through the House of Commons, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill moved to the House of Lords in October 2013, where a number of Peers raised concerns over Part 7 – Dangerous Dogs. Again it was stated that specific DCNs were preferable to CPNs, and that it was important for any legislation to focus on the responsibility of owners rather than the dog itself.

KF20. ‘Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership’, the DEFRA draft practitioners’ manual, points to the use of CPNs as a statutory tool to tackle irresponsible dog ownership, to be used where a voluntary agreement, such as an Acceptable Behaviour Contract has not been successful. Guidance states that CPNs can be used to address behaviour that has a negative impact on anyone in the community, and in relation to dogs this includes causing alarm to visitors to the home, being out of control in parks and public places, and straying and causing damage. A number of witnesses to the Inquiry expressed concerns that guidance does not explicitly state what constitutes an out of control dog, and this could lead to disputes over responsibility of enforcement between authorised officers of the police and the local authority.

KF21. Guidance states that a number of requirements can be enforced through a CPN, including: • Keeping the dog on lead in certain areas (e.g. built up areas, some park areas) • Muzzling the dog at certain times (e.g. near children / other dogs) • Neutering the dog • Micro chipping the dog • Attending dog training classes, or seeking advice on behavioural modification and/or management • Fixing fences and securing their property to prevent dogs straying and other dogs accessing property

11 • Installing a letter cage to protect postal workers delivering post • Prohibiting dog and owner from entering certain areas • Not allowing a dog to be exercised in certain areas at certain times • Prohibiting certain types of people from having charge of the dog.

KF22. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) regard the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Part 7) as a missed opportunity to consolidate all the current legislation relating to dog control into one specific Dog Control Bill. In supporting the development of the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill, the CWU strongly supported the introduction of DCNs, and despite Government Minister assurances, they are yet to be convinced that generic CPNs will fulfil the same purpose. However, the CWU in particular welcome the extension of legislation to cover private property, given that 23,000 postal workers have been attacked by dogs in the last five years, and current legislation provides limited scope for legal action in the majority of these cases.

KF23. Through its ‘Bite Back Campaign’, the Communication Workers Union has highlighted a number of issues that they feel the Government must include when drawing up guidance for the new legislation. These include: • no requirement for enforcement officers to have issued a 'written warning' before a CPN can be issued • no ‘one free bite’ rule • Issuing a CPN must be simple and not resource intensive • no requirement for a court order to be issued by a Magistrate or Judge in order to be able to serve a CPN • The issuing of a CPN on a dog owner should not require the consent or authorisation of a senior officer • A CPN must be able to be issued instantly if required to bring a dog under control • The CPN must be placed on the owner/keeper and not on the dog • Any owner served with a CPN must be required to fulfil the following minimum commitments:-

12 a. Have the dog micro chipped (if not already done) b. Obtain third party liability insurance c. The dog will not be allowed to leave the owner’s property without a leash and muzzle.

KF24. Proposed legislation will allow local authorities to introduce Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) that will enable local authorities to control how dog owners can use public land, replacing the Dog Control Orders currently used. PSPOs can be used to: • exclude dogs from designated areas (e.g. a children’s play area in a park); • require dog faeces to be picked up by owners; • require dogs to be kept on leads; • restrict the number of dogs that can be walked by one person at any one time; and • put in place other restrictions or requirements to tackle or prevent any other activity that is considered to have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or is likely to have such an effect.

KF25. Discussion took place amongst the Members around whether legislation could be applicable to communal hallways, spaces, courtyards and driveways in Council properties. In their experience as Ward Members, some were aware of times that dogs had been allowed to roam free with no supervision within shared communal spaces and that this caused distress and alarm to other residents of the property.

KF26. A number of parties providing evidence to the Inquiry expressed their concerns surrounding the introduction of CPNs rather than DCNs. It was felt that local authorities need to be able to take a proactive and preventative approach, responding to warning signs, rather than acting once an incident has taken place. If CPNs are to be successful they: • must be able to be issued instantly, similar to a parking ticket

13 • must allow officers to act before an out of control dog attacks an individual • must take one-off incidents into account • must work alongside the promotion of responsible dog ownership.

KF27. In November 2013, Cardiff Council’s Cabinet endorsed the increase of fixed penalty notices issued under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to their maximum level, including fines for dog fouling. Members felt strongly that any penalties associated with issuing of CPNs, breaches of CPNs, or any other dog-related legislation introduced, should similarly be set at the maximum penalty levels.

Lessons from Scotland

KF28. In February 2011 the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act came into force, which introduced DCNs as part of Scottish legislation. In May 2013, a Cross Party Group on Animal Welfare in the Scottish Parliament considered an update on the implementation, enforcement and related issues from this legislation. A number of issues were identified with the new legislation by the Cross Party Group, and Members of this Inquiry feel it is important that these issues are addressed and not replicated when developing guidance for the dog specific elements of Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. While it is recognised that differences exist between Scottish DCNs and the CPNs proposed by the UK Government, Members of the Inquiry feel the lessons are still relevant.

KF29. In relation to implementation and enforcement of DCNs across Scotland, it was noted that: • additional burdens had been placed on local authorities, and funding for local authorities had not been made available within the 2010 Act;

14 • some local authorities stated that their resource requirements had doubled and funds had to be moved to implement the legislation; • each DCN requires ongoing statutory monitoring, so the more DCNs that are served, the greater the resource implications in the long term; • authorised officers required additional training; • the legislation was enforced in an inconsistent manner between local authorities.

KF30. In relation to issues with training and compliance with DCNs, it was noted that: • the capacity of some local authority authorised officers to deal with dogs was questionable, as it is a specialised skill; • it is necessary for local authorities issuing DCNs to also be providing suitable dog training; • there was a lack of training available for authorised officers; • dogs on DCNs were being turned away by training providers as ‘untrainable’ and some local authorities prevented school or community facilities from being used for dog training classes; • there was no set standard of qualification required to open a dog training class; • not all enforcement agencies were being made aware of owners who were subject to DCNs.

Education

KF31. Encouraging responsible dog ownership will not be achieved through legislation alone, but will also be down to complementary education and awareness training. Academic research found that owners of status dogs are typically individuals who are marginalised from society. They will typically not be attending school or youth groups, and will not be seen out with their dog during daylight hours. Engagement programmes and individuals with a presence in the community must be

15 used to reach these individuals, and encourage attendance at bespoke ‘bring your dog’ events, where hands-on advice can be given. Often owners of status dogs that have been trained responsibly are effective at breaking down barriers with other owners of status dogs that haven’t been trained in the same way, and can provide a good route of access to these individuals.

KF32. Academic research identified that successful educational policies and practice must: • focus on the positive nature of the relationship between dog and owner as a way to engage with individuals; • attempt to expand the care and concern for own dog to other dogs and creatures; • establish presence on Facebook and other social media; developing information and advice - especially information and vouchers on neutering; • be ‘hands-on’ with educational programmes for new dog owners and provide a free advice line; • provide welfare and educational information on the impact that negative and aggressive training could have on the dog; and • address the changing public opinion and legislation on dog types: in particular, the need to focus on ‘deeds’ and the actions/inactions of the owners.

KF33. The use of organisations such as Park Guard Ltd was highlighted as an effective way to reach individuals who own status dogs. As trained police or military dog handlers they can demonstrate simple ways to improve dogs’ behaviour, address individuals on their level rather than using an oppressive manner, and can encourage dogs to be micro chipped. The use of social media outlets are also utilised by status dog owners to obtain advice, and organisations such as the Council can use this to share messages of responsible dog ownership and to direct dog owners to suitable training and advice.

16 KF34. A number of London Borough Councils were identified as undertaking good practice in promoting responsible dog ownership. Through partnership projects, including the local authority, police services, charities and local politicians, education programmes have been developed that promote responsible ownership and have developed educational packs and DVDs.

Other Initiatives

KF35. Yellow Dogs UK is a nationwide campaign which promotes the use of yellow ribbons clearly attached to a dog’s lead to identify that, for whatever reason, this dog needs to be given additional space, and should not be approached by other dogs or their owners.

KF36. An initiative has been undertaken by the Cardiff North Royal Mail Delivery Office in which maps all hazards encountered on a postal worker’s round, including properties which contain a dog. These ‘walk logs’ are then available to any postal worker who is going on a round that is unfamiliar to them. It was highlighted that these ‘walk logs’ could also be beneficial for public service workers to use, as these individuals are also likely to access properties without knowledge of whether dogs are present, and could also be a valuable data set to support the issuing of CPNs/DCNs where required.

KF37. The CWU and other individuals support the view that all dog owners should be legally required to obtain third party liability insurance. This would offer protection for owners should their dog cause an accident or injury, and they would be in a position to compensate victims. This idea has, however, been repeatedly rejected by the UK Government. One suggestion identified was annual membership of the Dogs Trust, which is available for £25 and includes third party insurance with cover up to £1,000,000 per claim.

17 KF38. An academic from identified the opportunity for the Council and University to work together on a number of initiatives to address out of control dogs in the city. This was identified from the success of partnership arrangements recommended in a previous Cardiff Scrutiny Inquiry in relation to Anti Social Behaviour arrangements in Cardiff. It was suggested that university academics and researchers could work with the Council and other partners to develop training for authorised officers, training for dog owners, to undertake research on behalf of the Council, and to give practitioners within the city opportunities to contribute to academic research.

18

RECOMMENDATIONS

Following the completion of this Inquiry, an analysis of the evidence gathered and an assessment of the key findings was undertaken.

Having considered the changes in legislation in Scotland, and the introduction of Dog Control Notices, the Committee recognises that that there are valuable lessons that can be learnt for any legislation and guidance introduced by the Home Office and Welsh Government. The Environmental Scrutiny Committee and the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee therefore recommend that the Cabinet does all in its power to persuade the Welsh Government and Home Office to ensure that:

R1. Legislation and DEFRA guidance clearly defines what constitutes a dog that is dangerously out of control, allowing for the development of clear responsibilities for local authorities and the police to work to. Supported by Key Findings 20 and 29

R2. Guidance on the application of any new legislation promotes consistency in the way it is adopted and applied across local authorities. Supported by Key Findings 28, 29 and 30

R3. Legislation and guidance clearly states who can be regarded as an authorised officer, and supports the development of appropriate training to enable authorised officers to carry out additional duties. Supported by Key Findings 28 and 30

R4. Additional funding is identified and provided to local authorities to support the additional training requirements that will enable authorised officers to enforce new legislation and to promote responsible pet ownership. Supported by Key Finding 7 and 29

19

R5. Where training is required as part of a Community Protection Notice (or any other dog related statutory order), owners are required to pay the fees to cover its cost. Supported by Key Findings 29 and 7

The Committee notes the commitment of the Welsh Government to addressing the issue of dangerous and out of control dogs, demonstrated through the consideration of the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill, and its commitment to compulsory micro chipping. The Environmental Scrutiny Committee and the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee recommend that the Cabinet does all in its power to persuade the Welsh Government:

R6. To ensure that legislation relating to compulsory micro chipping also states that a dog’s current owner is responsible for updating micro chipping information and can be held accountable if this has not been adhered to. Supported by Key Findings 12 and 13

R7. To undertake cost benefit analysis on the savings that the NHS, and organisations such as Guide Dogs Cymru would achieve, and the reduction in dog related attacks that would result from active enforcement of Community Protection Notices (or any other dog related statutory order). This could support the identification of resources that could be allocated to training for authorised officers, promotion of responsible ownership and training for those who breach a Community Protection Notice. Supported by Key Findings 7, 29 and 30

The Committee also noted opportunities for the Council to make improvements that would assist in promoting responsible dog ownership in

20 Cardiff. The Environmental Scrutiny Committee and the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee recommend that the Cabinet ensures that the Council:

R8. Proactively promotes free micro chipping to dog owners in Cardiff in line with the Welsh Government commitment to compulsory micro chipping. Supported by Key Finding 12

R9. Publicly supports the view that specific measures need to be available for dogs, rather than generic Community Protection Notices, and therefore apply pressure to the Welsh Government to reintroduce the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill should Home Office legislation not meet this requirement. Supported by Key Finding 17, 18 and 26

R10. Publicly supports the Communication Workers Union Bite Back campaign and the issues it has with proposed Home Office legislation. Supported by Key Finding 22, 23 and 37

R11. Explores the extension of public areas and parks where Public Space Protection Orders can be applied in relation to the control of dogs. Supported by Key Finding 24

R12. Explores the application of any existing and new legislative powers to cover the control of dogs within communal hallways, spaces and driveways within Council properties. Supported by Key Finding 25

R13. Increases the number of responsible dog ownership community events held in Cardiff, focussed in areas known to have status dog ownership issues. These should be run in a partnership approach to include the police, charities and commercial organisations; utilising community outreach workers; and taking advantage of social media networks to promote events and reach marginalised individuals.

21 Supported by Key Findings 31, 32 and 33

R14. Publicly supports Yellow Dog UK as an initiative to promote responsible dog ownership. Supported by Key Finding 35

R15. Links with Royal Mail Cardiff to obtain and contribute to the ‘Walk Log’ that has been developed, and seek to share this amongst all relevant partner organisations who undertake visits to private properties (subject to data protection legislative requirements). The Council work with the Royal Mail to capture information on properties across the City. Supported by Key Finding 36

R16. Works with the Welsh Government and owners of the micro chipping databases to ensure that access to information is consistent and easy. When doing this they should explore the commercial and social opportunities provided by micro chipping databases in conjunction with the database providers. This work could help fund and develop the efficiency of the overall system. Supported by Key Finding 13

R17. Publicly supports the introduction of letter guards on all properties where a dog resides, and looks to make them mandatory within Council properties. Supported by Key Finding 21

R18. Reviews the penalties available for breaches of Community Protection Notices, and/or any other legislation that is introduced by the Anti- Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill in relation to dogs and their owners, and looks to enforce the maximum level of penalty available. Supported by Key Finding 27

R19. Explores opportunities to work with Cardiff University and other universities within the city to develop and deliver training, support

22 research being carried out within the city relating to dog ownership; and identify opportunities to utilise academic research expertise on Council projects. Supported by Key Findings 38 and 6

R20. Promotes the benefits of third-party liability insurance to dog owners in Cardiff, using opportunities at the point of micro-chipping or when authorised officers are interacting with dog owners, to share relevant promotional material. Supported by Key Findings 37

The Environmental Scrutiny Committee and the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee request that the Cabinet accepts these recommendations and in its response, identifies an action plan, including timescales, for the implementation of the accepted recommendations.

23

EVIDENCE

Overview

Existing Legislation

1. According to UK legislation, a dog is considered to be dangerously out of control, if it injures someone, or makes someone worried that it might injure them. This law applies everywhere the general public is allowed to go, and in any private place where the dog isn’t allowed to be (such as a neighbour’s house or garden without permission). This law applies to all dogs. A court could also decide that a dog is dangerously out of control if it injures someone’s animal or if the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop a dog attacking their animal.

2. Council officers giving evidence to the Inquiry identified that the powers that enable local authorities and the police to deal with dangerously out of control dogs in Cardiff are contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA 1991) and the (DA 1871). Under this legislation, the Council has the power to intervene in cases where it is believed that the public have been placed at risk by a dog, and in all cases where an actual attack has occurred.

3. The DDA 1991 prohibits the ownership of four types of dog in the UK. These are Pit Bull Terriers (PBTs), Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brazilieros. The Act prohibits the breeding, sale, exchange, advertising, or gift of any of these dogs and also prohibits such dogs from being in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead. It is important to note that the legislation refers to a ‘type’ of dog, rather than a ‘breed’, meaning that whether a dog is a banned type depends on what it looks like and its characteristics, rather than its breed or name.

24 4. Individuals may be allowed to keep a dog of a banned type if a court decides it is not a danger to the public. The owner must register the dog on the Index of Exempted Dogs and abide by a number of rules. The dog must be neutered, micro chipped, kept on a lead and muzzled at all times when in public and must be kept securely so it can’t escape at home. The owner must also take out insurance against the dog injuring other members of the public.

Memorandum of Understanding

5. In order to facilitate cooperation and coordination regarding the control of dogs in Wales, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is in place between the four police forces in Wales and the 22 Welsh local authorities. This sets out the roles and responsibilities for Cardiff Council officers and South Wales Police officers in addressing incidents involving dogs in the city.

6. According to this MoU, and also under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA 2005), local authorities are responsible for stray dogs and have a duty to employ at least one dog warden. Local authorities must also provide at least one acceptance point for stray dogs. Local authorities also have a duty to enforce the Control of Dogs Order 1992 (CDO 1992) which provides that dogs must wear a collar and tag, giving details of the owners name and address, whenever it is in a public place.

7. Local authorities also have responsibility for controlling dogs on public land. They may make Dog Control Orders (DCO) in respect of any land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled to have access. DCOs can be made in relation to the following matters: • Banning dogs from land • Requiring that dog faeces is cleared up • Requiring that dogs are kept on a lead • Restricting the number of dogs that can be taken onto land.

25

8. The MoU states that the police have primary responsibility for enforcement of the DDA 1991. Where police suspect and allege that a dog is a prohibited type, then it is assumed that it is such a dog unless the owner can prove otherwise. Under this Act, a police constable, or authorised officer of the local authority can seize a dog of the prohibited type, and any type or breed of dog if it appears to be dangerously out of control. Each police force should have at least one point of contact specifically for dog related issues.

9. The MoU sets out a number working arrangements whereby local authority officers and police officers will work together. Local authority dog wardens may be asked to support the police in respect of dangerous dogs, and both should work together on incidents involving a dangerous dog in a public place. Both agencies have responsibilities to pass on relevant information on dangerous or allegedly dangerous dogs to each other in a timely fashion. Both agencies must also work together, and with other organisations such as Dogs Trust and RSPCA on education of dog owners.

Incidents in Cardiff

10. To gain an understanding of how serious an issue there is with regards to dangerous and out of control dogs in Cardiff, Members of the Inquiry met with Council officers who have a responsibility to deal with dogs as part of their daily duties. Members were informed by the Council’s Dog Warden that for the financial year 2012/13 there were 111 recorded complaints in relation to dangerous or out of control dogs. For 2013/14 a monthly breakdown was provided ( Table 1 ) that shows there have been 81 complaints recorded for the first six month period.

26 TABLE 1 - Complaints recorded in Cardiff – 2013/14 Month Incidents Month Incidents April 18 July 13 May 1 Aug 14 June 16 Sept 19

11. Members were given examples of incidents that have occurred in Cardiff in the past few years, where the Council’s dog wardens have been involved. These include: • An incident where an 80 year old man was knocked over by two Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Their gate had been left open, and it was unfortunate they had escaped – but they were out of control. The individual involved, a dog owner himself, didn’t want to pursue the incident or make any formal complaint. • An incident in private flats where two dog owners happened to leave their flats to walk their dogs at the same time. The owners were not prepared and the dogs set upon each other. While it was a small incident it highlights how easily these things can happen. • An individual was cycling through the park, and a dog off its lead chased them and pulled them off their bike by the ankle, although it didn’t attack any further. • A dog walker opened the boot of their car but missed their dogs’ leads as they jumped out. One dog went for another individual’s puppy. • A lady recently witnessed her cat being killed by a dog off its lead outside in her front garden.

12. Cardiff Council Park Rangers have a presence in a number of parks in Cardiff and are distributed according to the parks with the greatest levels of footfall. Part of their responsibility is to ensure that dog owners are walking their dogs in a responsible manner and to ensure dog faeces are cleared up by owners. The Operational Manager – Parks and Sport undertook an analysis of correspondence and complaints received by the parks service over the past few years. This analysis showed that,

27 formally, there have been no complaints in relation to dangerous dogs in Cardiff’s parks ( Table 2 ).

TABLE 2 - Complaints recorded in Cardiff parks Year Complaints

11/12 9 complaints (mainly dog fouling – none dangerous dogs) 12/13 25 complaints (none dangerous) 13/14 13 complaints to date (none dangerous)

13. Members also met with one of Cardiff Council’s Park Rangers, who provided figures from Victoria Park, chosen as one of Cardiff’s busiest parks in terms of public footfall. It was stated that in 2012, Park Rangers received just 11 complaints in this park, none of which related to incidents involving a dog and a member of the public. Complaints related to dogs on dog incidents or incidents where dogs have caused damage to trees.

14. It was commented by both the Council’s Dog Warden and Park Ranger that the number of incidents reported to the Council does not represent the full extent of incidents that happen across the city. Many dog owners are unwilling to report incidents where another individual’s dog has bitten them or their dog, as they would not wish the same to happen to them should their dog be involved in an incident.

15. South Wales Police’s Dog Liaison Officer informed the Members of the Inquiry that of the 148 warrants issued in South Wales last year in relation to dangerous dogs and banned breed of dogs, roughly 100 of these were issued in Cardiff. Not every warrant results in a dog being seized, however 122 dogs were seized in 2012, with 60 of these being subsequently destroyed.

16. Members met with representatives of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) to hear about incidents involving their members and out of control

28 dogs. The CWU is the biggest union for the UK communications industry with 204,500 members. CWU members work for organisations such as Royal Mail, the Post Office, BT and other telecommunications companies.

17. Members met with the CWU Wales Regional Secretary and CWU Area Safety Rep and were informed that the CWU represents 115,000 postal workers. There are approximately 5,000 attacks on postal workers by out of control dogs each year and it is estimated that this costs the tax payer £9.5m a year in NHS costs. The cost to the Royal Mail in terms of sickness absence as a result of dog incidents is around £500,000.

18. Specifically in relation to Cardiff, Members of the Inquiry were given the statistics on the number of postal workers attacked in the city in recent years, as shown in Table 3 . It was stressed that the figures captured as formal incidents involving dogs show only a fraction of the ‘near misses’ that occur on a daily basis.

TABLE 3 – Number of Postal Workers attacked by Dogs Year Postal Workers Attacked

2011 16 2012 19 2013 7 (to August)

19. Members were provided with a copy of ‘Children & People Injured & Killed in Dog Attacks’, a report compiled by the CWU as part of their ‘Bite Back’ Campaign. This report catalogues all the incidents recorded of serious dogs attacks in the UK in recent years, and also states that since 2005, 16 people have been killed in dog attacks (nine adults and seven children). Since the production of this report there has been a further death in the UK, where a four year old girl in Leicester was mauled to death by the family pet bulldog in November 2013.

29 20. This report proved to be quite ‘hard hitting’ with the Members as it provides graphic details and images of the serious damage dogs can inflict on children and adults.

21. The Inquiry received evidence from a lecturer at the University of South Wales Centre for Criminology, who had undertaken street level research in Cardiff when working on an RSPCA commissioned research report on status dog ownership amongst young people – ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’.

22. A status dog is in general terms a dog that is perceived to be rough or tough looking, and is owned to improve their owner’s perceived social status. Status dogs are often trained and encouraged to display aggressive behaviour towards other dogs and other individuals. A Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) definition states that: “The term ‘status dog’ describes the ownership of certain types of dogs which are used by individuals to intimidate and harass members of public. These dogs are traditionally, but not exclusively, associated with young people on inner city estates and those involved in criminal activity” 2

23. Case studies within the RSPCA research report focus on young owners of status dogs in London and Manchester, however Members were informed that research was also undertaken in Cardiff. Members were informed that Cardiff was looked at as part of this research report because there is an issue with status dog ownership in the city. In areas such as Ely and Rumney there is buying, selling and breeding of status dogs taking place, and money is being made in this market.

24. Conversations with young people in Cardiff revealed that owners of status dogs were actively looking into how to make their dog appear more dangerous and fearsome. Some stated that they were aware their

2 ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’, Hughes, Maher and Lawson, 2011 (page 8) 30 dogs would cause alarm if they went out during the day, so they would wait until late at night to walk or exercise their dog.

25. Councillor Dilwar Ali – Elected Member for North, gave evidence to the Inquiry, outlining his campaign for tougher legislation to be passed that will encourage responsible dog ownership and allow irresponsible dog owners to be held to account for their dog’s actions. Councillor Ali has been very heavily involved in a campaign urging the Welsh Government to introduce a Bill that would give Welsh authorities a comprehensive and tailored set of powers for tackling issues caused by irresponsible dog owners.

26. Councillor Ali’s campaign began following a dog attack involving his six year old son Erfan in September 2011. The neighbour’s dog, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, came through the garden fence while Councillor Ali’s wife and Erfan were putting the washing out. The dog bit Erfan on both sides of his face, taking a chunk out of his right cheek and hand. Erfan was rushed to rushed to the University Hospital of Wales, then to the Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery at Morriston for emergency surgery. He is scarred for life and will have to undergo several operations on his face over the next 10 years.

27. The aim of Councillor Ali’s campaign is to raise awareness on the issue of irresponsible dog ownership; to highlight the impact irresponsible ownership can have on others; to promote responsible ownership; and highlight the importance of education and training for dogs and their owners. Following the announcement that the Welsh Government was deferring its Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill (see paragraphs 39 to 47), Councillor Ali’s campaign presented a petition to the Assembly Members, containing 1,119 signatures, calling on the Welsh Government to proceed rather than defer to the UK Government. As shown in Figure A, Councillor Ali has been a prominent figure in the local media promoting the views and aims of his campaign.

31 FIGURE A – press cuttings of Councillor Dilwar Ali’s Campaign

28. Members felt that, while statistics show a small number of incidents involving dangerous and out of control dogs in Cardiff, the impact and damage that is resultant from any incident is enough for the issue for responsible dog ownership to be taken very seriously. As demonstrated through the attack on Councillor Ali’s son, one incident can mean years of operations and permanent scars, while the CWU ‘Bite Back’ Campaign shows that people can and have been killed in dog attacks in the UK in recent years.

29. It should be noted that, after the scheduled evidence gathering meetings for this Inquiry had concluded, and while developing this report, a dog attack incident took place in Cardiff. While walking her 20-week-old Jack Russell terrier in Victoria Park, a woman was confronted by a large pitbull dog which appeared without its owner. The pitbull went for the puppy, and in trying to intervene, the individual sustained severe bite wounds from her fingers down her forearm, despite wearing a coat, jumper and gloves. The attack took place just yards away from a busy

32 children’s play area and unfortunately the puppy died as a result of its injuries.

Existing Resources

30. In terms of the resources the Council has in place for dealing with dog incidents in the city, there are two dedicated dog wardens, 14 urban park rangers and the Council also operates Cardiff Dog’s Home. It was stressed to Members that the primary role of dog wardens is to meet the Council’s statutory responsibility to deal with stray dogs in the city, and that dealing with dog related incidents is just a small element of a park ranger’s role.

31. Park Rangers are not present in all of the Council’s parks and green spaces. Rangers are deployed in parks with the largest public footfall. Roath Park, Bute Park and Victoria Park were highlighted as parks that have permanent, static Park Rangers, with other Rangers rotating around other popular parks in the city. There are approximately 1,600 hectares of public open space in Cardiff, and not every park or green space in the city can be monitored by the Council.

32. The Council’s two dog wardens deal with over 1,000 stray dogs every year, with these stray dogs being housed in Cardiff Dog’s Home until their owners can be identified and located. Members were informed that stray dog cases can be time consuming, as it is not always straightforward to identify a dog’s owner, especially when they are not micro chipped, and so time is allocated to this work rather than undertaking proactive and preventative work, which could include the promotion of micro chipping and responsible dog ownership. It was commented that one neighbouring local authority has the same number of full time dog wardens but deals with 10% of the caseload that the wardens in Cardiff have.

33 33. A concern raised by the Operational Manager – Environment (who is responsible for pollution control, including stray dogs) was that any changes in legislation regarding how the Council should address dangerous and out of control dogs will require additional training for enforcement officers and active enforcement could require additional resources for the service in Cardiff.

34. South Wales Police have a dedicated Dog Liaison Officer who is responsible for enforcement of enforcement of the DDA 1991, and will respond to all incidents involving dogs suspected to be of a banned breed. This officer is responsible for the whole of South Wales, covering the seven local authority areas of Bridgend, Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil, Neath Port Talbot, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Swansea and the Vale of .

35. Members were informed that the Dog Liaison Officer will contact the owners involved in every dog incident, providing them with advice and guidance. It was commented that approximately £76,000 was spent by South Wales Police on kennelling fees in Cardiff, almost 70% of the kennelling costs for all areas covered by South Wales Police. Again it was commented that any new legislation will require additional training for officers, and whoever else is regarded as a ‘responsible person’ or ‘authorised officer’, and could also have resource implications should enforcement requirements increase.

36. As outlined previously, a Memorandum of Understanding is in place between the police forces and local authorities in Wales, which outlines officers’ responsibilities. It was commented by the Police Dog Liaison Officer that the relationship he has with Cardiff Dog Home and the Council’s dog wardens is very good, and he wished other local authorities would take a lead from Cardiff in terms of how they work with the Police.

34 Public Views

37. The Members of the Inquiry felt it would be important to capture the views of the general public in relation to dangerous and out of control dogs in Cardiff. A press release was circulated by the Council’s Communication & Media team, and the Council’s Twitter account was used to tweet requesting public views. An example of this can be seen in Figure B

FIGURE B – Cardiff Council Twitter Snapshot

38. A small number of individuals responded to the opportunity to provide views on this issue. Many of these responses included reference to the problem of dog fouling, and while this is clearly an example of irresponsible dog ownership, it falls outside the remit of this Inquiry. Figure C provides an overview of the responses relating to dangerous and out of control dogs.

35 FIGURE C – Public Opinions

“We need to see that something is being done to deter and punish irresponsible dog-owners. It appears that it's currently left to members of the public to take these people to task, and there are two realities: (1) not everyone feels comfortable doing this (and why should they?); and (2) quite often the dog-owners completely ignore you. Many just couldn't care less.

My perception, shared by many others, is that the authorities are doing nothing to improve the situation.”

“Dangerous dogs serve no positive purpose to those other than farmers, military and police. I don't know why the public should be in ownership of such a weapon regardless how cuddly it may seem. All dogs bought should come with chip. All buyers should apply for licence. All potential owners should be scrutinised first. It seems the criminal fraternity own the majority of dangerous dogs. Others have just followed the fashion.”

“Responsible dog ownership goes far beyond insuring/chipping a dog ‘in case anything happens’ it starts from the moment you introduce the animal to its home. It should be MANDATORY that the dogs are taught to socialise with people and other dogs as early as possible. Licensing dogs that have passed certain levels of training/socialising would be excellent and those owners that do it should see a benefit reflected in their insurance costs for the animal.

We license/train/qualify people to drive, own certain things such as firearms and dangerous machinery. Why should an animal be any different?”

36 “I am the owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier mixed breed dog […] I would consider myself a responsible, professional person who takes dog ownership very seriously. […] I have invested time and money (dog training) into making him a sociable animal. That said, I am also very aware of the public perception of staffies and I find that other peoples behaviour with their dogs and children, frequently impacts on my actions as a dog owner.

Frequently when walking, my dog will be on a lead, and other dog owners dogs will approach my dog - off the lead, growling and snapping - but somehow the opinion of the other dog owner is that my dog should be muzzled.

1. What ever changes are considered by Cardiff Council/Government in relation to dogs, must not be breed specific. Any dog, no matter how large or small, can be dangerous and cause injury if the animal is not properly trained and the owner does not know the capabilities of their animal. I would urge that any legislative changes supports responsible ownership which could include microchipping, neutering, and insurance covering 3rd party risks. 2. I would like to see legislation which insists on neutering of all dogs by the age of 12 months. 3. I would like to see parks within Cardiff Council area have byelaws passed where dogs have to be kept on a lead. The benefits of this are: • a dog could still be exercised but in controlled fashion • Everyone (including non dog owners) could enjoy the area without having to worry about being bowled over by an out of control dog

37 New Legislation

Welsh Government Legislation – Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill

39. Julie Morgan AM – Cardiff North met with the Inquiry members to discuss her support of the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill, and the campaign undertaken by Councillor Dilwar Ali. Members were informed that the incident involving Councillor Ali’s son highlighted to Julie the inadequacy of current legislation and the need for changes to be made. It was stated that in late 2011 Julie was intending to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to cover this issue, with support from other Assembly Members, however the Minister for Natural Resources and Food came forwards with the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill and provided assurances that everything Julie was looking to be introduced would be covered within it.

40. In February 2012 it was announced that the Welsh Government would proceed with plans to introduce legislation on the subject of out of control dogs as part of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy which aimed to deliver improvements in dog welfare. From November 2012 to March 2013 the Welsh Government ran a consultation on ‘Proposals for a draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill’. This consultation aimed to engage with the people of Wales who may or may not be dog owners as well as key stakeholders involved in the business of dog welfare.

41. The aim of the Bill was to encourage responsible ownership and ensure that dogs that are out of control are prevented from becoming dangerously out of control. The Welsh Government’s proposals focused on the action and behaviour of a dog and not the breed. It was intended to increase awareness around the importance of the proper care of dogs in areas such as socialisation and training.

42. A key element of the Welsh Government Bill was the introduction of Dog Control Notices (DCNs) for use by authorised officers within the police

38 and local authority, to be served on any owner whose dog has been found to be out of control. A DCN can also be served where, as a result of failure to keep a dog under control, a dog’s behaviour has caused anyone to feel apprehension about their own safety, the safety of someone else or the safety of another animal that is a protected animal.

43. The consultation documents stated that the Welsh Government believed that DCNs issued by a local authority (or a body or person authorised by the local authority) would be a far more efficient and effective method for dealing with out of control dogs. 3 A clear advantage of a DCN over all existing legislation is that a court may never become involved; thereby reducing the burden on public finance.

44. It was also recognised that there is “a critical link between training and the welfare of a dog” 4. The Bill looked to capitalise on this association by including a premise within the legislation whereby any DCN served on an owner of a dog that has been identified as being out of control must also specify an appropriate type of training to be undertaken by the dog and/or its owner.

45. Under Welsh Government proposals, a DCN could also impose additional requirements on an individual if necessary to keep the dog in question under consistent and effective control. This includes: • keeping the dog away from particular places or a particular kind of places, and restricting the dog’s access to such places; • keeping the dog on a lead; • keeping the dog muzzled; • if the dog is male, neutering it.

46. Additional provisions made within the Welsh Government Bill were to: • focus on the action and behaviour of an individual dog and not on the breed or type of dog;

3 Welsh Government Consultation Document, Proposals for a draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill (page 14) 4 Welsh Government Consultation Document, Proposals for a draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill (page 15) 39 • introduce criminal sanctions (a fine of up to £1,000), as appropriate in order to encourage dog owners to become more responsible; • provide greater flexibility for authorised persons to assess the appropriate action when considering the issue of a DCN; • amend the provisions of the 1991 Act to make it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control anywhere in Wales, including on private property; • amend the DDA 1991 to make it an offence for a dog to attack another animal, particularly in recognition of the fact that the life of the owner of an assistance dog which is attacked could be devastated, or at the very least greatly inconvenienced.

47. In May 2013, the Minister for Natural Resources and Food published a summary of the consultation responses, and thanked the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, the police and local authorities for their work with the Welsh Government to develop the approach contained within the Draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill. However, it was announced that despite the work that had gone into this Bill, the decision was made to suspend work on the Bill, and to instead work with the UK Government to develop legislation. A written statement from the Minister states that;

“It has become clear to me as I have reviewed this work and have listened to the consultation responses that there may be benefits to working with the UK Government to take forward our proposals on a Wales and England basis. I have reviewed the provisions of the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill published by the Home Office and, whilst I accept many of the criticisms made of this draft bill, I nevertheless believe that it may provide a useful vehicle to fulfill our ambitions. To this end I will seek agreement with the Home Office that, if this bill is taken forward, then I will seek regulation-making powers for Wales which will allow us to shape the proposed legislation in such a way as to meet both our objectives and also the wider aims of the Home Office. Therefore I

40 have, for the moment, suspended further work on the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill.” 5

Home Office Bill - Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

48. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 9 May 2013. Its passage through the House of Commons was completed on 15 th October 2013 and is now subject to parliamentary scrutiny by the House of Lords. The Bill contains a variety of measures aimed at protecting the public from crime, serious disorder and anti-social behaviour by giving local police forces the ability to take decisions that fit the needs of the area they serve and to ensure that they are accountable to local people for these decisions.

49. Part 7 of the Bill focuses on dangerous dogs, and is intended to strengthen the powers available to authorities to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. This includes extending legislation to cover private places, where it currently only applies to dangerously out of control dogs in a public place. The Bill also provides that an attack on an assistance dog constitutes an aggravated offence and allows for courts to take account of an owner’s character, alongside that of the dog, in assessing whether the dog is a risk to the public.

50. Other legislative provisions covered within this Bill include anti-social behaviour, firearms, protection from sexual harm and violence, forced marriage and extradition.

51. Draft Guidance on the implementation of Part 7 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill has been developed by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). ‘Tackling irresponsible dog ownership’ – Draft Practitioners’ Manual is intended to

5 Welsh Government Cabinet Statements - The Draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill, May 2013 41 assist front line staff in local authorities and the police in dealing with irresponsible dog ownership using the powers contained within the Bill.

52. The DEFRA Guidance states that “a proactive approach to addressing irresponsible dog ownership can lead to considerable benefits: reduced costs for local authorities in handling of stray dogs, police, councils and housing associations in investigating nuisance reports, the NHS in treating dog bites, and the court system in processing prosecutions for the most serious offences” 6. Guidance points to the use of early intervention using non-statutory instruments such as warning letters, meetings and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) prior to issuing a formal notice.

53. An ABC is a non-binding, non-statutory agreement allowing local authorities, the police and social landlords to engage with an individual about their inappropriate behaviour by initiating a dialogue and offering appropriate advice, as well as insight into the consequences of the individual’s actions. ABCs can be used in cases where the behaviour could escalate into more serious incidents but does not currently meet the threshold for a statutory notice or where an officer does not believe a statutory notice is appropriate, for instance in a first offence situation or where the owner/keeper of the dog is willing to work with the appropriate authority.

54. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill points to the use of Community Protection Notices (CPNs) as the tool to be used in order to tackle anti-social behaviour including irresponsible dog ownership, where non-statutory options fail, or a statutory measure is deemed more appropriate. CPNs are a low level statutory notice that can require an individual to stop and address the cause of their anti-social behaviour. Guidance states that “CPNs can address behaviour that has a negative effect on anyone in the community. For example, in cases of dogs out of

6 DEFRA - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership, Draft practitioners’ manual (page 7) 42 control in a park, alarming visitors to the home, or even a dog that strays and causes damage.” 7

55. A CPN can be issued to individuals aged 16 or over who are seen to be engaging in behaviour that is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality, or where their conduct is unreasonable. There is no prescribed form for issuing a CPN, which is intended to allow local authorities to adapt the CPN as required. It is recommended however that authorities provide clear information on the behaviour that is deemed to be having a detrimental effect and is considered unreasonable.

56. A CPN can be used where it is seen as necessary to prevent a dog owner from doing certain things. Prohibitions could include: 8 • Prohibiting dog and owner from entering certain areas – perhaps near a school or designated (often open-plan) children’s play areas • Not allowing a dog to be exercised in certain areas at certain times eg immediately before schools start and immediately after schools finish for the day • Prohibiting certain types of people from having charge of the dog - eg it may not be appropriate for a small child to take charge of a large dog.

57. A CPN can also be used to place requirements on an individual or dog in order to address the behaviour of an owner and potentially their animal. Requirements include: 9 • Keeping the dog on lead in certain areas (eg built up areas, some park areas) • Muzzling the dog at certain times (eg near children / other dogs) • Neutering the dog

• Micro chipping the dog (micro chipping is soon to be compulsory)

7 DEFRA - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership, Draft practitioners’ manual (page 13) 8 DEFRA - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership, Draft practitioners’ manual (page 18) 9 DEFRA - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership, Draft practitioners’ manual (page 19) 43 • Attending dog training classes, or seeking advice on behavioural modification and/or management

• Fixing fences and securing their property to prevent dogs straying and other dogs accessing property

• Installing a letter cage to protect postal workers delivering post

• Cleaning kennels that are emitting odours and disposing properly of the dog related waste, where statutory nuisance thresholds are not met.

58. Under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, local authorities will also have the power to make Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs). They will replace the Dog Control Orders currently used and will allow wider restrictions to be placed on public spaces to tackle anti- social behaviour that adversely affects other users using the same public space. PSPOs can prohibit certain activities taking place in a restricted area and require specified things to be done by individuals using an area. PSPOs can: • exclude dogs from designated areas (eg a children’s play area in a park); • require dog faeces to be picked up by owners; • require dogs to be kept on leads; • restrict the number of dogs that can be walked by one person at any one time; and • put in place other restrictions or requirements to tackle or prevent any other activity that is considered to have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or is likely to have such an effect.

59. Again, PSPOs can be adapted to meet the needs of a local authority, meaning they can apply to certain categories of people, or at specified times during the day.

60. Discussion took place amongst the Members of the Inquiry around whether legislation could, or should, be extended so that it applies to communal hallways, communal spaces, courtyards and driveways in

44 Council Properties. As Ward Councillors, some Members knew of instances where dogs had been allowed to roam free with no supervision in shared communal spaces. This had caused alarm and distress to other residents who had no way to know what the dog’s nature was, or whether they were safe to approach it.

Legislative Concerns

61. A number of witnesses expressed disappointment to Members of the Inquiry regarding the decision of the Welsh Government to suspend the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill and commented that the provisions within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill did not provide the same legislative tools that the Welsh Government Bill would. A main area of concern centred around the introduction of Community Protection Notices to tackle irresponsible dog owners, rather than the Dog Control Notices proposed within the Welsh Government Bill.

62. Councillor Ali highlighted that he had presented a petition to the Assembly Members, containing 1,119 signatures, calling on the Welsh Government to proceed with the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill rather than defer to the UK Government. The petition stated that:

“We, the undersigned, residents of Wales, call on the Welsh Government to proceed with its Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill in tackling the issue of dangerous and menacing dogs and not rely on the piecemeal proposals of the UK Government set out in its draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill […].

We agree with the Welsh Government’s statement “The clear advantage of a Dog Control Notice (DCN) over all existing legislation is that a court may never become involved thereby reducing the burden on public finance” and we believe that the UK Governments proposals […] are unduly complicated, cumbersome, bureaucratic and will lead to delay.”

45 63. Julie Morgan AM commented that the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill seemed to be a one-size fits all approach, which includes dangerous dogs as a small element, rather than a focused piece of legislation that the Welsh Bill would have been. It was also commented that she remains to be convinced that proposed CPNs provide the instant and proactive response to out of control dogs that DCNs would. Julie Morgan also stated that she had received assurances that, if the UK Government legislation did not achieve what the Welsh Government wanted, the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill would be resurrected.

64. This was a view supported by the Council’s Operational Manager – Pollution, who informed Members that a lot of time and effort had gone into developing the Welsh legislation, and there is disappointment that this has been shelved in favour of UK Government legislation that only contains dog specific legislation as a small element. That said, Members were informed that Council officers would adapt to work with whatever legislative powers were approved and implemented.

65. The RSPCA provided a written statement to the Inquiry Members which also commented that they were disappointed when the Control of Dogs Bill was suspended. RSPCA Cymru were very positive about the proposed DCNs in the Welsh legislation as they place emphasis on education and awareness raising for dog owners. It was commented that DCNs allow people to refer concerns about the behaviour of an individual dog and its owner, to which a practitioner can then provide advice and guidance specific to a situation’s particular circumstances. This would allow for early intervention, protect public safety and provide for the animal’s long term welfare by ensuring action is taken before a serious incident has taken place.

66. RSPCA Cymru indicated that they are continuing to work with the UK Government in relation to the proposed Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill, and hope to see that the proposed CPNs will focus on

46 educating and supporting the individual rather than merely being punitive towards the owner or dog.

67. An RSPCA submission to the National Assembly for Wales Environment & Sustainability Committee in July 2013 stated that:

“RSPCA Cymru has significant concerns about the principles and approach of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill with regards to the way it proposes to deal with tackling dog control and, broadly, its potential impact on dog welfare and ownership we are concerned that the process involved in the use and application of some of the dog related powers contained within the Bill will prove overly bureaucratic, hinder efficiencies and place unnecessary strain on the agencies involved.”

The submission goes on to say:

“RSPCA Cymru regards CPNs as an inappropriate mechanism for individuals to address concerns they may have about the behaviour of individual dogs and their owners. It is our belief that bespoke Dog Control Notices (DCNs) would prove far more effective in tackling these cases. DCNs allow people to refer concerns about the behaviour of an individual dog and its owner, to which a practitioner can then provide advice and guidance specific to a situation’s particular circumstances. This would allow for early intervention, protect public safety and provide for the animal’s long term welfare by ensuring action is taken before a serious incident has taken place .”10

68. RSPCA Cymru also stated that they have concerns surrounding the size of the Home Office Bill, and fear it will mean that the legislation surrounding dog control will not receive due attention:

10 RSPCA evidence to National Assembly for Wales Environment & Sustainability Committee, July 2013 47 “[…] the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill is exceptionally wide in scope; covering a plethora of deeply important and diverse issues. Given this, RSPCA Cymru is concerned that dog control issues will not receive the in-depth scrutiny they require during the Bill’s progression through the Parliamentary process. Comparatively, the Welsh Government was proposing legislation which dealt specifically with the issue of dog control - thus ensuring this issue would have had the dedicated scrutiny it deserves.” 11

69. Concerns were also voiced to the Members of the Inquiry by representatives of the CWU, who wanted to see specific legislation introduced in relation to dogs, which the Welsh Bill would have done. It was commented that assurances are still needed to convince the CWU that CPNs will be as effective as the proposed DCNs.

70. Members were provided with a CWU document, which was produced as a briefing for MPs considering the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill. It states that:

“[…] Part 7 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill ("Dangerous Dogs" Section) is a missed opportunity to consolidate the myriad of dog control legislation into one specific Dog Control Bill which in our opinion would have been the most straight forward route to achieve the government’s intentions and a more effective deployment of the new legislation.” 12

71. This briefing for MPs goes on give its support for DCNs over CPNs as an effective, preventative measure for tackling dogs which are not properly controlled by their owners. It states that:

“Government Ministers have argued that the new Community Protection Notices (CPNs), introduced under the new so called 'flexible-tools package' of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders will be as effective if not more

11 RSPCA evidence to Environment & Sustainability Committee, July 2013 12 Communication Workers Union – Dangerous Dogs Briefing for MPs, October 2013 48 effective than the Dog Control Notices (DCNs) introduced in Scotland and . However we are yet to be convinced that 'Generic' CPNs will fulfil the same crucially important purpose as Dog Control Notices (DCNs). A 'Specific' Control Notice would be more effective in helping to establish the measure and raise the profile and awareness amongst the target audience.”13

72. If the UK Government is to push ahead with the introduction of CPNs, the CWU stress a number of points that must be addressed when drawing up legislation and guidance. 14 • There must be no requirement for Enforcement Officers to have issued a 'written warning' to a Dog Owner before a Dog Control Notice/Community Protection Notice (DCN/CPN) can be issued. • There must be no "one free bite rule" whereby no action is taken on the first occasion before issuing a DCN/CPN or prosecuting a dog owner on the subsequent occasion. • Issuing a DCN/CPN must be simple and not resource intensive. The Enforcement Officer should simply be able to write out a DCN/CPN on a duplicate Pro-Former pad or print out from a hand-held computer and issue it and for it to take immediate effect. • A DCN/CPN must be available to be issued by both Police Officers and Local Authority Dog Wardens or other appointed, authorised Officials 24/7. This would be advantageous in comparison to Scotland and Northern Ireland where restricting Dog Control Notices to Local Authorities has been a disadvantage due to (a) Lack of Resources, (b) Inconsistent Enforcement between Local Authorities and (c) Dog Warden Services only operating limited hours e.g. 9am - 5pm. • There must be no requirement for a 'Court Order' to be issued by a Magistrate or Judge in order to be able to serve a DCN/CPN on a Dog Owner. • The issuing a DCN/CPN on a Dog Owner must not require the consent or authorisation of a Senior Officer in the Police or Local Authority.

13 Communication Workers Union – Dangerous Dogs Briefing for MPs, October 2013 14 Communication Workers Union – Dangerous Dogs Briefing for MPs, October 2013 49 • A DCN/CPN must be able to be issued instantly if required to bring a dog under control. • A DCN/CPN must be able to be issued on a dog that is out of control or has been out of control as it may have been calmed down between the time of the incident and the arrival of the enforcing Officer. • The DCN/CPN must be placed on the Owner/Keeper and not on the Dog and therefore the Owner/Keeper cannot remove their DCN/CPN requirements simply by transferring or getting rid of the Dog as they can with DCNs in Scotland for example which has been highlighted as a 'loophole' by Enforcing Officers. • Transferring or getting rid of the dog without notifying the Enforcing Authority must be treated as a breach of the DCN/CPN . It is important that the Owner does not simply move the dog to a 'Keeper' without permission to do so, or move the dog from a 'Keeper' to another 'Keeper' etc. • Failure to comply with a DCN/CPN or breach of a DCN/CPN must both be a criminal offence and lead to prosecution and fine. • A DCN/CPN must be able to contain the same menu of requirements as can be contained in a Dog Control Notice as provided for in Scottish and Northern Ireland Legislation. • The issuing of a DCN/CPN must not be based on police and local authority enforcement resources and there must be a requirement for police and local authorities to provide an enforcement service and trained Enforcing Officers to be able to issue the Notices as a "Law not Enforced is No Law At All". • For minor offences in relation to a DCN/CPN breaches - £100 Fixed Penalty Notices should be available to enforcers. • Any owner served with a DCN/CPN must be imposed with the following minimum requirements:- (a) Have the dog micro chipped (if not already done) (b) Obtain third party liability insurance. (c) The dog will not be allowed to leave the owner’s property without a leash and muzzle.

73. Guide Dogs UK representatives commented that it will important for the authorised officers can issue DCN/CPNs as a preventative measure,

50 where a dog is showing signs of being out of control, rather than waiting for an incident to happen before action can be taken. The Guide Dogs website states that “ Guide Dogs support Control of Dogs Notices as introduced in Scotland and would welcome a similar tool introduced in England, so that individual dogs who pose a threat to other dogs and their owners can be controlled by legal means. It should be noted that some of the measures in the proposed Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill do the same thing .” 15

74. At the time of writing, the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill was going through Committee Stage in the House of Lords. During the Second Reading of the Bill, which took place on 29 th October 2013, a number of members of the House of Lords voiced their concerns over Part 7, and the issue of irresponsible dog ownership.

75. Baroness Gale stated that: “The Bill introduces community protection notices for general use in containing anti-social behaviour, including irresponsible behaviour by dog owners. All the experts agree that specific dog control notices are the better tool to give to local authorities to enable them to take steps to prevent dogs going out of control and to bring dogs back under control. There are differences between a community protection notice and a dog control notice. First, a community protection notice can be issued only after multiple incidents have occurred in practice, after a written notice has already been given to the dog owner and after someone has complained about the owner’s failure to prevent persistently aggressive behaviour on the part of the dog. Secondly, the criteria for issuing a CPN are broad. They focus on a threat to the quality of life for whole communities and do not take into account one-off, isolated attacks that threaten the quality of life of an individual.

“A dog control notice would in effect be an early warning system allowing dog owners to address their dog’s behaviour before multiple incidents occur and punishments are handed out. Intervening early may also

15 http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/supportus/campaigns/dog-attacks/dog-attacks-faqs/#c8056 51 improve dog welfare because DCNs would ensure that dogs are retrained and owners re-educated in conjunction with the advice of local authorities. This makes a DCN more specific to an incident and therefore much more effective. A DCN looks at the warning signs and puts preventive measures in place. It takes action before an out-of-control dog attacks and it promotes responsible ownership. Dog control notices lay greater responsibility on the dog and its owner by providing a fairer and more balanced law that prevents the need for punitive measures, and it can save money. Enforcers do not need to resort to costly court proceedings, notices and prosecutions, thereby making better use of limited resources and time by nipping the problem in the bud.” 16

76. Lord Trees commented that: “With dog-related aggression, our key objectives should be to prevent apprehension, injury or death. It is little comfort after a serious dog attack to know that one can prosecute the owner. There is a view widely held by those most interested in this subject that low-threshold, prophylactic intervention, as provided by dog control notices, would specifically and more effectively prevent problems than the proposed generic community protection notices, which would be served after problems of a “persistent or continuing nature”. Dog control notices can be used in a constructive way as improvement notices and of course they have been adopted in the Scottish legislation on the control of dogs in 2010. Moreover, community protection notices relate to various non-specific threats and the seizure of a dog, for example, requires rather more specific knowledge and experience than the seizure of some inanimate object. I do, however, appreciate that dog control notices require dedicated, trained personnel to serve and enforce them effectively.” 17

77. The Inquiry Members were encouraged to see that the Committee Stage and the key debate on the Anti-Social Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Lords had not yet taken place, and felt there could be an opportunity for the Inquiry and its findings to inform individual Lords and

16 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14, House of Lords 2 nd Reading, October 2013 17 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14, House of Lords 2 nd Reading, October 2013 52 influence their views on the proposed legislation. A small group of Inquiry Members accompanied Julie Morgan AM and Councillor Dilwar Ali in a meeting with Baroness Gale to give support for pro-active dog control notices, and attempt to shape amendments to the Bill as it was debated in the House of Lords.

Breed Specific Legislation

78. A number of witnesses to the Inquiry commented that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which introduced banned breeds of dog in the UK, was a knee jerk reaction to a number of incidents that took place in the early 1990’s, with legislation being rushed through to show the government was responsive; however it was not carefully considered and thought out. As a result certain dogs were penalised for the way they look rather than taking into account an individual dog’s behaviour. It was also commented that as a result, the idea of owning a banned breed gained status, and the ownership of pitbull-type dogs increased.

79. Members were informed that a number of European countries were removing their breed specific legislation, having reviewed the statistics on the type of dog involved in incidents and having seen that legislation has not had an impact on the number of dog bite and injury incidents. However it was commented by a number of witnesses that the UK Government was unlikely to consider repealing its breed specific legislation at the current time.

80. A research paper by the National Canine Research Centre identified that Italy abolished its breed specific legislation in 2009: “In 2009, Italy abolished its breed-specific regulations, which applied to 17 breeds of dogs, in favour of legislation that holds individual dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. Italy’s Undersecretary

53 Francesca Martini reported, “The measures adopted in the previous laws had no scientific basis. Dangerous breeds do not exist.”” 18

81. The Dutch Government also removed a ban on ownership of pitbulls when it was identified that the ban had failed to decrease the number of incidents occurring: “Near the end of 2008, the Dutch government repealed a nationwide ban on pit bulls that had continued for 15 years. The government had commissioned a study of the ban’s effectiveness, which had revealed that banning a breed of dogs was not a successful dog bite mitigation strategy. Instead, the researchers recommended better education for children and adults on proper interactions with dogs.”19

Micro Chipping

82. As part of the Welsh Government Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, in April 2013, following consultation carried out in 2012, it was announced that it will become a legal requirement for all dogs in Wales to be micro chipped by 1 st March 2015. The Minister for Natural Resources and Food has stated that:

“It is increasingly important that we have a method of tracing dogs back to their owner. Dog owners already have a duty of care under the Animal Welfare Act but it can be difficult to ensure that this duty is being met without a reliable form of identification.

By microchipping all dogs in Wales we can formalise the relationship between an owner and pet and ensure an increased level of accountability.” 20

18 National Canine Research Centre, World-Wide Failure of Breed Specific Legislation 19 National Canine Research Centre, World-Wide Failure of Breed Specific Legislation 20 Welsh Government Cabinet Statements – Microchipping of Dogs, April 2013 54 83. A number of individuals who gave evidence to the Inquiry were very positive about this move by the Welsh Government, particularly as it a year before the deadline for compulsory micro chipping in England, which is set at April 2016. Councillor Dilwar Ali stated this was an important step towards linking dogs with their owners, and keeping records of whether dogs have been trained and where they have been involved in incidents previously.

84. The Wales Policy Officer of Guide Dogs UK also welcomed compulsory micro chipping as the way forwards, as it can be used to tackle irresponsible dog owners and ensure greater traceability of owners should a dog be involved in an incident, or a stray dog be picked up by local authorities.

85. Any dog owner in Cardiff wishing to have their dog micro chipped can do so, free of charge, via the Dogs Trust or Cardiff Dogs Home. Dogs Trust run a number of events throughout the year, or owners can make contact with their nearest centre to make an appointment. Cardiff Dogs Home also offers free micro chipping, with owners simply needing to take their dog to the Dogs Home anytime between 10.30 - 4pm Monday – Friday. Requests can be made to have a dog micro chipped on the weekend by contacting the Dogs Home in advance. While micro chipping at the Dogs Home is also free of charge, a discretionary donation of £5 is suggested. 21

86. Members were informed that there are a number of well established national databases holding micro-chipping data. The two main ones being Petlog and Anibase, and there are also various companies that sell micro-chips and scanners for detecting chips. Council officers expressed concerns that additional companies may be set up on the back of compulsory micro-chipping, making it more time consuming to get owners details and potentially increasing costs.

21 For further information see: http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2870,4059,4072&parent_directory_id=2865 55 87. Concerns were voiced by Council and Police representatives that the implications for monitoring and maintaining the micro chipping databases have not fully been considered and this could result in inaccurate information being available in instances when a dog in involved in an attack. Currently databases are not aligned and information is held by separate organisations. There was also uncertainty about the responsibility and resource implications that result from mandatory micro chipping of all dogs in Wales. Council officers commented that there needs to be strict governance on the operation of these databases and costs associated

88. Discussion took place amongst the Members around whether the Council and Welsh Government could legitimately explore commercial and social opportunities to share information gathered through microchip databases in an attempt to secure funding for the maintenance of the database and the wider promotion of responsible dog ownership.

Scotland

89. On 28 th February 2011 the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 came into force. The focus of the Act concentrates on the "deed not the breed" approach in tackling irresponsible dog ownership. The Act widened the scope for local authorities and the courts to take action against persons in charge of a dog where the dog's behaviour is deemed to be "out of control". This is achieved through the creation of a Dog Control Notice (DCN) regime that will permit (local authority appointed) authorised officers to issue DCNs to irresponsible owners of any dog that have been found to be out of control.

90. The DCN introduced in Scotland can be used to impose a number of conditions on a dog owner including: • muzzling the dog whenever it is in a place to which the public have access;

56 • keeping the dog on a lead whenever it is in a place to which the public have access; • if the dog is male, neutering it; and • the owner and their dog attending and completing a training course in the control of dogs.

91. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 also amended the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that a dog owner can be held criminally responsible where a dog is found to be dangerously out of control in any place, rather than only a public place or private place where a dog is not permitted to be.

92. Members of the Inquiry were keen to explore the impact of the introduction of DCNs in Scotland, whether they have been successful in reducing the number of dangerous dog attacks and how they have been implemented by local authorities. A request was submitted to the Information Services Division Scotland, to obtain NHS figures on the number of emergency hospital admissions in Scotland as a result of being bitten or struck by a dog. Unfortunately the figures that could be provided did not go past the calendar year of 2011, the same year as the Act came into force, and so were unable to provide an accurate reflection of the impact the legislation has had.

93. In May 2013, a Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Animal Welfare received an update on the implementation and enforcement of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. This included a paper from Scottish local authorities that highlighted the challenges experienced in enforcing the Act – which call be found in full at Appendix A . It was agreed by the Animal Welfare Group that teething troubles were to be expected when introducing this kind of legislation and that the introduction of DCNs through this Act had been worthwhile.

94. Members felt it is important that this kind of evidence, and information on how Dog Control Notices have been implemented in Scotland, was

57 considered when developing legislation and guidance for Part 7 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill. It was recognised that there are differences between these Scottish DCNs and the CPNs proposed in the Home Office legislation, however Members felt that the lessons identified are still relevant.

95. In relation to implementation and enforcement of DCNs across Scotland, it was noted that: • additional burdens have been placed on local authorities, and funding for local authorities had not been provided for within the 2010 Act; • West Lothian Council stated that their resource requirements had doubled and funds had to be moved to implement the legislation; • each DCN requires ongoing statutory monitoring, so the more DCNs served, the greater the resource implications long term; • authorised officers required additional training; • the legislation was enforced in an inconsistent manner between local authorities.

96. In relation to issues with training and compliance with DCNs, it was noted that: • the capacity of some local authority authorised officers to deal with dogs was questionable, as it is a specialised skill; • it is necessary for local authorities issuing DCNs to also be providing suitable dog training; • there was a lack of training available for authorised officers; • dogs on DCNs were being turned away by training providers as ‘untrainable’ and some local authorities prevented school or community facilities from being used for dog training classes; • there was no set standard of qualification required to open a dog training class; • not all enforcement agencies were being made aware of owners who were subject to DCNs.

58 97. Members were concerned to hear that there was a lack of consistency in how the legislation was being enforced, with some local authorities choosing not to take action for example when a dog is attacked by another dog, while a neighbouring local authority would look to address the behaviour of the dog involved through DCNs. The Members of the Inquiry felt it was important that this was not repeated when enforcement powers are given through the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Police Bill, and that guidance should make clear the incidents that authorities must be acting upon.

98. A selection of Scottish Authorities 22 were contacted to explore the impact that the new legislation has had from a practitioner’s perspective. Responses were received from officers at Glasgow City Council and Edinburgh City Council, which both stated that the legislation does provide an additional tool for local authorities in dealing with problematic dogs, allows action to be taken against irresponsible dog owners and prevent further problems in the future. Both responses also identified that the Act and associated guidance does not create a clear distinction between a Dangerous Dog case and a Control of Dogs case, and discussions are ongoing between local authorities and Police Scotland to agree a protocol to clarify which type of incident falls within each organisation’s remit.

99. The Edinburgh response stated that the idea behind the new Act is very much preventative and addressing dogs before they become dangerously out of control. The Glasgow response indicated that DCNs have been served in cases where there is insufficient evidence for a court case, and are issued as a proactive means of securing improvements in the control of the animals involved.

22 Authorities were selected based on population size 59 Responsible Ownership

Education

100. Throughout the Inquiry, Members were informed that dogs alone are not to blame when incidents occur, and that owners should really be held responsible and accountable for the actions of their animals. This was highlighted as a weakness in current legislation, and in particular the DDA 1991 which introduced Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). A recurring message heard in the Inquiry was that dogs should be judged on their ‘deed not breed’.

101. In speaking with university academics, it was stressed that changes in legislation alone will not address the problem of irresponsible dog ownership in the UK; any changes in legislation must be accompanied by targeted and complementary education and training that emphasise how a dog should be trained and treated throughout its life. It was highlighted that beyond legislation on banned dog breeds, most people are unaware of legislation surrounding animal welfare, and that any changes in legislation must be promoted and the general public made aware of how the legislation affects them, whether they are a dog owner or not.

102. Members were informed that in Cardiff, any dog owner involved in an incident reported to the Council dog warden or to the South Wales Police dog liaison officer will be contacted with advice and guidance on responsible dog ownership. The Council’s park rangers also run education events in a number of parks across the city, where dog walkers are greeted as they enter the park and given advice and information on good practice use of Cardiff parks.

103. The RSPCA commissioned research report; ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’, highlights that most young people who own ‘status dogs’ are individuals who are marginalised from society. They will not be reached through in-school

60 initiatives or in local youth groups, but rather through targeted outreach events and through youth workers who have a strong presence in the community.

104. This research report highlighted that social media was used by status dogs owners to obtain advice on how to train and keep a ‘status dog’. Online forms are used as a source of advice, and online conversations are started through sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The academics who authored this report commented that organisations such as local authorities could develop an online presence to share messages of responsible dog ownership and to direct dog owners to suitable training, advice and events.

105. Organised events such as ‘bring your dog’ days can be a good way of providing hands on advice to young people, and can encourage them that the wider dog community includes them and their animal. Dog owners who own and have trained a ‘status dog’ to be a well behaved and friendly animal can be an effective tool for encouraging these young people to attend. A community engagement approach is important, rather than singling out young people and ‘status dogs’ and delivering an oppressive message.

106. Organisations such as Parkguard Ltd were identified as an effective way of engaging with young people and breaking down the barriers that exist. Parkguard provide a wide range of community safety services, predominantly on behalf of local authorities and police, as well as in partnership with various statutory services.

107. Through the use of trained police and military dog handlers, they actively look to engage in conversation with young people who are walking a status dog, and teach and demonstrate simple ways that the animal’s behaviour can be improved. Young people can be persuaded that it will look far better for them if this ‘status dog’ listens and obeys them rather than pulling them all over the place. This also provides opportunities for

61 promoting micro chipping the animal – “what if someone stole your dog. Surely you want to prove it belongs to you…”

108. The RSPCA research report identified a number of lessons for policy and practice that can used to develop targeted interventions to deal with ‘status dog’ ownership 23 . Lessons include: • Focus on the positive nature of the relationship between dog and owner as a way to engage with this youth on being a responsible owner. • Attempt to expand the care and concern for own dog to other dogs and creatures. • Establish a presence on Facebook and develop information and advice - especially information and vouchers on neutering. • Hands-on educational programmes for new dog owners - to ensure they know how to care for puppy and access early training advice (free advice line). • Welfare and educational information on the impact that negative people-aggressive training could have on the dog (i.e being put to sleep at the animal shelter). • Transparent and accessible information from the police when enforcing the DDA which permeates effectively to the young people involved. • Focus on changing public opinion and legislation on types. In particular, the need to focus on ‘deeds’ and the actions/inactions of the owners.

109. Members noted that while this advice on education and training is targeted at owners of ‘status dogs’, there are many lessons that can be applied to owners of dogs in general. They supported the view that dogs should be judged based on their actions, not what they look like.

110. A number of initiatives undertaken by other local authorities are highlighted within the RSPCA report, ‘Status dogs, young people and

23 ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’, Hughes, Maher and Lawson, 2011

62 criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’, and also in DEFRA’s Draft Practitioners Manual for the powers within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Police Bill: • BARK (Borough Action for Responsible K9s) - facilitated by the RSPCA, London Borough of Brent, Metropolitan Police Service, local housing associations and Mayhew Animals Home - focused on promoting responsible dog ownership as well as tackling anti-social behaviour linked to the use and abuse of dogs. This was achieved through a combination of educating and reassuring the community, increasing intelligence on the problem, and enforcement and intervention to reduce anti-social behaviour and animal abuse. 24 • People With Dogs Project - which includes the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, RSPCA, local Members of Parliament, the Greater London Authority, the Blue Cross and the London Borough of Wandsworth - developed an educational pack (i.e. DVD, workshop notes) for young people. The project addresses the issues of irresponsible dog ownership and breeding and of organised dog fighting, through education and intervention by challenging attitudes and behaviour.25 • Wandsworth Council runs a number of educational programmes including a touring road show promoting responsible dog ownership, school visits and a work experience programme. The benefits of this programme are strengthened ties with the community, education of a small number of pupils who will go back to their schools/colleges and act as ambassadors for the service and promote further consideration amongst their peers. 26

24 ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’, Hughes, Maher and Lawson, 2011 (page 17) 25 ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’, Hughes, Maher and Lawson, 2011 (page 7) 26 DEFRA - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership, Draft practitioners’ manual (page 8) 63 Local Initiatives

Cardiff Canine Citizens

111. Members met with the owner of Cardiff Canine Citizens, a Cardiff based canine behaviourist and dog trainer. She stressed that in her opinion, no dog is more dangerous than any other, and that certain dog characteristics and temperaments (coupled with irresponsible ownership) can make them into dangerous animals. As an owner of dogs that would be perceived as ‘status dogs’, she can demonstrate to owners that any dog can be trained through responsible ownership. They also help break down barriers with individuals who do own certain dogs as a status symbol, and help to start conversations with them.

112. Yellow Dog UK was highlighted as an effective campaign that can prevent incidents between dogs and can help prevent certain dogs acting in a manner that could be perceived as out of control. The campaign recognises that some dogs need space for a number of reasons, such as a dog recovering from an injury, a nervous dog, a dog in training etc. An owner of this kind of dog should be able to enjoy walking their dog and not worry about other dogs coming into their pet’s space. A yellow ribbon displayed on a dog’s lead is used to indicate that this dog needs some space, and that other owners should maintain a respectable distance. See Figure D for more details.

113. Members were very positive about this campaign and felt that this kind of initiative, which is very simple for owners to implement, could reduce the number of dog incidents occurring in Cardiff. It was stressed that it would be important for all owners to be aware of the meaning behind a yellow ribbon, rather than just the owners of a dog that needs space, and that the initiative could benefit from support from the Council.

64 FIGURE D – Yellow Dog UK Campaign

CWU Walk Logs

114. In meeting with representatives of the Communication Workers Union (CWU), Members were informed of an initiative that has been undertaken by Cardiff North Royal Mail Delivery Office called WRAP (Walk Risk Assessment Platform). Through this initiative postal workers log all the dangers and hazards they encounter during their rounds, including properties which have a dog. Each postal route has a ‘walk log’ which can be used by other postal workers who may be unfamiliar with

65 the route, so they are aware of and can prepare for all the hazards they may encounter.

115. Members felt that these ‘walk logs’ could be beneficial to a number of public services who access private properties, such as health care workers and social workers. It was identified that this could be an opportunity for the Council to work in partnership with the Royal Mail to contribute to and obtain this information (subject to data protection legislative requirements) and to explore opportunities to share them with other partner organisations.

116. Discussion also took place around whether the Council could contribute to data being captured for the whole city rather than just the Cardiff North area, and whether to explore how it could be used to support the issue of a CPN/DCN if and when required.

Insurance

117. Members were also supportive of a suggestion made by CWU representatives that third-party liability insurance should be a requirement for all dogs, and if this is seen as too extreme, it should at least be a requirement for all dogs who have been involved in an incident where it has been out of control. Members were informed that mandatory dog insurance would offer protection for dog owners should their animal cause accident or injury to another person, and would allow for victims to be compensated.

118. Members were informed that one of the benefits from an annual membership of the Dogs Trust is third-party insurance for your dog, covering up to £1,000,000 per claim if the dog causes damage or injury to another person, their property or pets. This membership costs just £25 per year and comes with other additional benefits such as magazine subscriptions and access to advice from veterinary professionals.

66

119. Members were, however, informed by the CWU that the UK Government has repeatedly rejected the idea of compulsory insurance.

Cardiff University

120. A professor from Cardiff University School of Social Sciences, who co- authored the RSPCA research report ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’, informed Members that he could see opportunities for the Council and University to work together on a number of initiatives in relation to out of control dogs in the city.

121. A recommendation from a 2013 Cardiff Council Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee Inquiry, ‘The Structure and Approach of Cardiff Council in Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour’, recommended that the Council should look to work in partnership with the University and explore opportunities to have research undertaken by postgraduate students. The Cardiff University academic was very positive about the relationship that had been developed as a result of this recommendation, and felt that similar work could be undertaken in the area of dangerous and out of control dogs.

122. It was suggested that university academics and researchers could work with the Council and other statutory partners such as the Police, to develop training for authorised officers and dog owners, to undertake research on behalf of the Council in relation to dog ownership and incidents in the city, and to give practitioners within the local authority and its partners the opportunity to contribute their expertise in academic research.

67 Level of Penalties

123. In discussing the level at which penalties should be fixed CPNs or any other dog related orders the local authority will be empowered to issue, Members highlighted that in November 2013 the Cardiff Council Cabinet endorsed the increase of fixed penalty notices issued under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to their maximum level, including fines for dog fouling. Members felt strongly that the same should be applied to any penalties associated with issuing of CPNs, breaches of CPNs, or any other dog-related legislation introduced through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill.

68

INQUIRY METHODOLOGY

124. The task group set out to examine the issue of dangerous and out of control dogs in Cardiff, the approach taken by Cardiff Council and its statutory partners in dealing with this issue, and the implications of proposed changes in legislation. Members heard evidence from a number of internal witnesses representing the Environment and Sports, Leisure & Culture Directorates.

125. Through the course of the inquiry Members received evidence from the following external witnesses:

Councillor Dilwar Ali Elected Member for

Julie Morgan AM Assembly Member, Cardiff North

Walter Pennell South Wales Police

Peter Jones Guide Dogs Cymru

Nathan Foy Guide Dogs Cymru

Gordon Hughes Cardiff University

Jenny Maher University of South Wales

Caroline Cowan Cardiff Canine Citizens

Gary Watkins Communication Workers Union

Mark Roach Communication Workers Union

Written submission RSPCA Cymru

69

126. Members also received evidence from the following internal witnesses:

Will Lane Operational Manager, Pollution

Sarah Brown Group Leader, Pollution Control

Kathryn Hubery Park Ranger

Jon Maidment Operation Manager, Parks & Sports

70 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14: House of Lords 2 nd Reading, October 2013. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131029- 0002.htm

Communication Workers Union: Dangerous Dogs Briefing for MPs, Anti- Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill – Part 7, Sections 98 and 99, October 2013.

DEFRA - Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership: Draft Practitioners’ Manual. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 248743/pb14038-tackling-irresponsible-dog-manual-20131008.pdf

National Canine Research Centre: World-Wide Failure of Breed Specific Legislation. Available at: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/World- wide%20Failure%20of%20BSL.pdf

RSPCA evidence to National Assembly for Wales Environment & Sustainability Committee: July 2013. Available at: http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/documents/g1652/Public%20reports% 20pack%20Thursday%2011-Jul- 2013%2009.30%20Environment%20and%20Sustainability%20Committee.pdf ?T=10

71

Scottish Parliament, Cross Party Group on Animal Welfare: Minutes from meeting held 21.05.13. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/CrossPartyGroups/Animal%20Welfare/Minu tes_20130521.pdf

Cardiff University: ‘Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: Towards a preventative strategy’ (Hughes, Maher and Lawson 2011). Available at: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/resources/wp139.pdf

Welsh Government Cabinet Statement: The Draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill, May 2013. Available at: http://wales.gov.uk/about/cabinet/cabinetstatements/2013/7353300/?lang=en

Welsh Government Cabinet Statement: Microchipping of Dogs, April 2013. Available at: http://wales.gov.uk/about/cabinet/cabinetstatements/2013/microchipping/?lan g=en

Welsh Government Consultation Document: Proposals for a draft Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill 2012. Available at: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/consultation/121122dangerousdogsconsultation en.pdf

72

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

127. The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire, consider, review and recommend but not to make policy decisions. As the recommendations in this report are to consider and review matters there are no direct legal implications. However, legal implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without modification. Any report with recommendations for decision that goes to Cabinet / Council will set out any legal implications arising from those recommendations. All decisions taken by or on behalf of the Council must (a) be within the legal power of the Council; (b) comply with any procedural requirement imposed by law; (c) be within the powers of the body or person exercising powers on behalf of the Council; (d) be undertaken in accordance with the procedural requirements imposed by the Council e.g. standing orders and financial regulations; (e) be fully and properly informed; (f) be properly motivated; (g) be taken having regard to the Council's fiduciary duty to its taxpayers; and (h) be reasonable and proper in all the circumstances.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

128. The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire, consider, review and recommend but not to make policy decisions. As the recommendations in this report are to consider and review matters there are no direct financial implications at this stage in relation to any of the work programme. However, financial implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without any modifications.

73

ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

To scrutinise, measure and actively promote improvement in the Council’s performance in the provision of services and compliance with Council policies, aims and objectives in the area of environmental sustainability, including:

• Strategic Planning Policy • Sustainability Policy • Environmental Health Policy • Public Protection Policy • Strategic Transportation Partnership • South East Wales Transport Alliance • Licensing Policy • Waste Management • Strategic Waste Projects • Street Cleansing • Cycling and Walking • Streetscape • Transport Policy and Development • Intelligent Transport Solutions • Public Transport • Parking Management

To assess the impact of external organisations including the Welsh Government, Welsh Government Sponsored Public Bodies and quasi departmental non-governmental bodies on the effectiveness of Council service delivery.

To report to an appropriate Cabinet or Council meeting on its findings and to make recommendations on measures, which may enhance Council performance in this area.

74 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Councillor Paul Mitchell (Chairperson)

Councillor Chris Lomax Councillor Elizabeth Clark

Councillor Keith Hyde Councillor Roderick McKerlich Councillor Bob Derbyshire

Councillor Sarah Merry Councillor Jacqueline Parry Councillor Monica Walsh

75 COMMUNITY AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

To scrutinise, measure and actively promote improvement in the Council’s performance in the provision of services and compliance with Council policies, aims and objectives in the area of community and adult services, including:

• Public and Private Housing • Adult Social Care • Disabled Facilities Grants • Community Care Services • Community Safety • Mental Health & Physical Disabilities • Neighbourhood Renewal and Communities Next • Commissioning Strategy • Health Partnership • Advice & Benefit • Local Service Board • Consumer Protection • Older Persons Strategy

To assess the impact of partnerships with and resources and services provided by external organisations, including the Welsh Government, Welsh Government sponsored public bodies, quasi- departmental non-governmental bodies and health services on the effectiveness of Council service delivery.

To report to an appropriate Executive or Council meeting on its findings and to make recommendations on measures which may enhance the Authority’s performance in this area.

To be the Council’s Crime and Disorder Committee as required by the Police and Justice Act 2006 and any re-enactment or modification thereof, and as full delegate of the Council to exercise all the powers and functions permitted under that Act.

76

COMMUNITY AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Councillor Daniel De’Ath (Chairperson)

Councillor Ali Ahmed Councillor Joseph Carter

Councillor Susan Goddard Councillor David Groves Councillor Mary McGarry

Vacant Councillor Eleanor Sanders Councillor Graham Thomas

77 APPENDIX A – SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITY EXPERIENCES

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT CROSS PARTY GROUP ON ANIMAL WELFARE MINUTES – 21.05.13 ANNEX 1

Local authority issues

Cross Party Group on Animal Welfare Meeting 21 May 2013 CONTROL OF DOGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 2010

The following comments have been provided to the Cross Party Group by local authorities, with the aim of highlighting the ongoing problems encountered whilst enforcing the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, and suggesting solutions to these problems.

ISSUE ENCOUNTERED POSSIBLE SOLUTION Resources The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act is a Local Authorities need funding from the positive step in the right direction. However Scottish Government so that sufficient the full resource implications were not resources are available to put the legislation considered when the Act was brought into to full use. force with regards to officer time, initial training etc. This has put a huge burden on the resources within Local Authorities. Enforcing the Act is very time consuming and cost intensive Each Dog Control Notice (DCN) requires Local Authorities need funding from the ongoing statutory monitoring. The more Scottish Government so that sufficient DCNs that are served, the greater the resources are available to put the legislation resource implications in terms of officers’ to full use. time. Monitoring of DCNs requires two officers as Local Authorities need funding from the the breach of a notice is a criminal offence. Scottish Government so that sufficient Provision of two witnesses is problematic in resources are available to put the legislation councils where there is only one authorised to full use. officer. Consistency of Delivery There is still a lack of consistency with the Updating of the existing guidance is needed. way the Act is being enforced. Some councils This should make explicit to Local Authorities are still not enforcing the Act and others are their responsibilities under the Act dealing with hundreds of complaints per annum. For example, if a member of the public’s dog is attacked by another dog, if you live in an area where the Local Authority is choosing not to use/enforce the legislation, the dog behaviour problem will not be dealt with. A postcode lottery therefore exists.

Many Local Authorities are becoming confused by the terms “out of control” & “dangerously out of control” with regards to who should deal with what. 78

Some Local Authorities are choosing not to act if the dog has already acted “out of control” viewing this as a matter for the Police under the Dangerous Dogs Act. However this is not how the legislation was written and intended to be used. There is a lack of consistency in the way National Dog Warden Association Scotland Local Authorities and the police are working and Scottish Government are endeavouring together to enforce aggressive dog to agree with the police a common Scottish legislation. This results in a perceived position. ‘postcode lottery’ (Local agreements were in place in some areas before the recent change to Police Scotland. A national document is now required) Training and Qualifications Concern exists regarding the qualifications / Clearer guidelines are needed from the experience of the Authorised Officers Scottish Government stating what enforcing the legislation within some knowledge / qualifications / experience the authorities. In particular: authorised officer should have. • Officers who have no knowledge or experience of dog behaviour are enforcing the legislation; and • Within some authorities people who are scared of dogs are enforcing the Act. Neither situation is appropriate.

Many staff have no formal enforcement experience. Lack of suitable training courses for National Dog Warden Association has run Authorised Officers two training courses for authorised officers. There is a limit on the available time to run more of these workshops as the officers involved in running the events are all employed within Local Authorities. Legislative Issues If the offending dog owner co-operates with Amend the legislation to make it similar to the Local Authority the Act is relative The Dog Fouling Scotland Act 2003 whereby straightforward to enforce. However if the it is an offence not to provide personal offender chooses not to co-operate the Act details to authorised officers when gives Authorised officers very limited requested. powers. Also allow authorised officers access to the DVLA database so that names and addresses of offenders using vehicles can be obtained. Under the Act owners need to microchip The Act needs to be amended to ensure their dogs within 14 days however the consistency with the appeal timescale. owner has 21 days to appeal the notice. If a dog is currently chipped, but the details The Act needs to be amended to take into need to be updated, the microchip consideration these timescales. companies make the new owner wait for 28 days before this change can take place. This is because they will write to the old owner 79 and give them the opportunity to contest the change in details. The 28 days does not tie in with the legislation as the legislation requires the dog to be chipped and the details up to date with 14 days. There is a requirement on the ‘proper The legislation needs to be amended to: person’ to advise the Local Authority if they • require the ‘proper person’ to notify change their name or address. However, the local authority of any re-homing there is no requirement for the ‘proper of dogs subject to a DCN; and person’ to advise the Local Authority if they • make it an offence to fail to do so have re-homed the dog to another owner and the new address of that owner. therefore, a potentially dangerous dog can easily appear in a different local authority area. Most problems arise from poor owners rather than inherently problematic dogs . The act fails to tackle repeat problem owners. It has been found that one ’responsible persons’ solution to the problem when served with a DCN is just to get rid of the dog. The owner then gets another dog. Where the owner has caused the problem in the first place with lack of training or poor husbandry, there is then the potential that they will re-create the problem with the new dog and the problem with the old dog has still not being solved. Formal Enforcement: General Compliance with DCNs is generally poor. The majority of people on whom a DCN is served do not have the money to undertake the requirements of a DCN. This is particularly where there are failures to get the dog chipped or attend effective training. However, the Procurator Fiscal is unlikely to view prosecution in such cases as being in the public interest. The Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service Scottish Government should discuss with (COPFS) has made many recommendations COPFS why these cases are not being taken. for DCNs to be served. However when these If it is due to the quality of the reports notices are breached, the COPFS does not submitted, further training in this field see the matter as important to progress. should be available. In many cases, staff have no formal enforcement experience. A DCN recipient can avoid prosecution simply by moving home. If someone moves and doesn’t let you know this is a breach of the notice. However if they cannot be traced, the case cannot be reported to the COPFS as the current address is needed in order to report case. Formal Enforcement : Gaps If the police are investigating a complaint Either: under Dangerous Dogs Act but have insufficient • the case should be passed to the 80 evidence to report the case to COPFS this Local Authority for consideration if a means no punishment has been given out DCN is required, o for the behaviour of the dog and no • the DDA or Control of Dogs Scotland restrictions are in place. Act should be amended to allow police officers to put a DCN on the owner to help prevent future attacks. Information sharing between LA and police would need to improve to ensure duplication does not exist. If the police are investigating case under Either: DDA but choose not to seize dog (this is • the case should be passed to the becoming more frequent due to resource Local Authority for consideration if a implications of seizing the dog) the owner DCN is required, or /dog are free to do what they want until the • the DDA or Control of Dogs Scotland case is heard in court. Act should be amended to allow police officers to put a DCN on the owner to help prevent future attacks. Information sharing between LA and police would need to improve to ensure duplication does not exist. Guidance The Act advises that the notices need to be Clearer guidance needs to be provided for monitored by the authorised officers but consistency. provides no guidelines as to what is appropriate. ie some councils may choose to monitor once a week others once a year! Information Sharing Information sharing between Local There legislation should be changed to Authorities and the police is a problem. Local permit information sharing should by the Authorities are required to share Police. information with the police under the legislation but there is no requirement for the police to share information. Members of the public are therefore having to provide two statements, which is time consuming for them and the authorities. Local interpretation of the data protection Act influences whether the Police are happy to share statements.

81

Cardiff Council Scrutiny Services, Room 243, County Hall, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff CF10 4UW

Tel: 029 2087 2296 Fax: 029 2087 2579 Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Cardiff Counci l

82