DOCSLIB.ORG

Controlling Dangerous Dogs: Government Response to the Committee’S Ninth Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Controlling Dangerous Dogs: Government Response to the Committee’S Ninth Report House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Controlling dangerous dogs: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report Fifteenth Special Report of Session 2017–19 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 January 2019 HC 1892 Published on 28 January 2019 by authority of the House of Commons The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and associated public bodies. Current membership Neil Parish MP (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) (Chair) Alan Brown MP (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) John Grogan MP (Labour, Keighley) Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham) Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour, Bristol East) Sandy Martin MP (Labour, Ipswich) Mrs Sheryll Murray MP (Conservative, South East Cornwall) David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist Party, Upper Bann) Angela Smith MP (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Julian Sturdy MP (Conservative, York Outer) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/efracom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Philip Aylett (Committee Clerk), Sian Woodward (Committee Clerk), Ben Street (Second Clerk), Xameerah Malik (Senior Committee Specialist), Andy French (Committee Specialist), James Hockaday (Senior Committee Assistant), Ian Blair (Committee Assistant), Annabel Russell (Committee Assistant) and Joe Williams (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 7341; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Controlling dangerous dogs: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report 3 Fifteenth Special Report The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its Ninth Report of Session 2017–19, Controlling dangerous dogs (HC 1040), on 17 October 2018. The Government response was received on 11 January 2019 and is appended to this report. Appendix: Government Response Introduction 1. The Government welcomes the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s (EFRA) Report on Controlling Dangerous Dogs. We note this review follows the EFRA Committee’s comprehensive Report on Dog Control and Welfare published in 2013 and the wider review of companion animal welfare in 2016. This reflects a keen interest of the Committee and Parliament more widely in animal welfare which is shared by the Government. 2. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is the principal law in relation to the control of dangerous dogs with the aim of protecting public safety. It has two main strands. First, it prohibits ownership of four types of fighting dogs: the pit bull terrier; the Japanese Tosa; the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero. This is consistent with the overall aim of the law to see a reduction and eventual elimination of the ownership of prohibited dogs in the UK. Secondly, it makes it an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control. This is the principal provision that deals with dog attacks and is separate from the prohibition on specific types of fighting dogs. The Act is supplemented by a Statutory Instrument1 which sets out the rules for people to be allowed to keep prohibited dogs. These rules are applied by the Court. Where the Court decides that a person may keep a prohibited type dog, the dog needs to be registered with the Index of Exempted Dogs and conditions that apply to its ownership and keeping, e.g. the dog must be kept on a leash and muzzled in public. 3. The law on dangerous dogs was revised by the Government as recently as 20152 which resulted in several improvements to the legislation. These changes included extending the offence of owning or being the person for the time being in charge of a dog which is dangerously out of control to all places and an increase in maximum penalties for dog attacks from 2 years to 14 years in the case of a fatality and to 5 years in the case of injury to a person. Additional protection was also given to assistance dogs. In 2014 new powers for police and local authorities to combat anti-social behaviour, including such behaviour involving dogs, were also introduced. 1 The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 (SI 2015/138). 2 For example, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, sections 106(1), 2(e) and s 107(1), and the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 (SI 2015/138). 4 Controlling dangerous dogs: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report Government Response to Recommendations Review of effectiveness of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Recommendation 1 To ensure the public receives the best possible protection, the Government should commission an independent review of the effectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and wider dog control legislation. This review should begin no later than January 2019. We expect this review to take account of the concerns and recommendations raised throughout this Report. (Paragraph 23) Recommendation 2 Defra should commission a comprehensive independent evidence review into the factors behind canine aggression, the determinants of risk, and whether the banned breeds pose an inherently greater threat. We expect to receive regular progress updates on the evidence review, and to be provided with the results no later than Easter 2019. These results must then be used to inform the Government’s future dog control strategy. (Paragraph 34) 4. In 2014 the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) was amended. This resulted in several changes, such as extending the main offence of owning or being the person for the time being in charge of a dog which is dangerously out of control to all places including in the dog owner’s home; increasing the maximum penalties for dog attacks; and providing protection for assistance dogs. 5. At the same time the Government also introduced new anti-social behaviour measures which allow the police and local authorities to intervene in low level nuisance incidents before dogs become dangerous. This was specifically in response to requests to introduce preventative measures to tackle minor incidents involving dogs. 6. These changes reflected stakeholder views as well as the EFRA Committee’s recommendations in its 2013 Report on Dog Control and Welfare. Comprehensive guidance was issued to the police and local authorities on practical ways to use these powers to tackle dog control issues. 7. In 2017 Defra reviewed the way the police and local authorities have used the powers available to them in legislation, including the most recent provisions, to tackle dog control and welfare issues. This resulted in further Defra guidance for these enforcement authorities emphasising their respective responsibilities and encouraging the use of good practice such as application of the LEAD initiative (Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs). 8. In November 2018, Defra commissioned further research in collaboration with Middlesex University to look at the following: (a) Assess the effectiveness of current dog control measures including the use of the powers provided to police and local authorities in 2014. (b) Identify and examine the factors and situations that may cause dog attacks, including whether any particular types of situation or domestic setting influence Controlling dangerous dogs: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report 5 dog aggression and dog attacks; how behavioural problems among dogs might best be addressed; and how policy might need to develop to deal with dog behavioural problems. (c) How to promote responsible dog ownership and, in particular, identify the help and information needed for dog owners who have experienced dog control issues or who are vulnerable to these (this includes evaluation of risk factors). 9. We will be pleased to update EFRA on the progress of this research which we expect will be published later this year. Recommendation 3 If the Government feels the ban is a valuable tool in reducing numbers of dangerous dogs, it must clarify why other dogs which can be just as dangerous should not be prohibited. We recommend that such a statement be provided. (Paragraph 39) 10. The Government is concerned about any dog that is not under control and that poses a threat to public safety. 11. Section 1 of the DDA allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions (as set out in that section) on any breed or type of dog which is either considered bred for fighting purposes or that shares the characteristics of dogs bred for fighting purposes. Section 2 of the DDA allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on other types of dog if it appears they present a serious danger to the public. 12. The Government does not consider that restrictions under the DDA should be applied to other types of dogs in addition to the four prohibited types. 13. Whilst any dog is capable of causing harm and even death to a person, the available evidence shows that prohibited type dogs (such as the pit bull terrier) which are moved illicitly are involved in a disproportionately high number of attacks on people, including fatalities. If anyone considers they have evidence that any other particular breed or type of dog should be subject to restrictions under the DDA, we will of course consider this evidence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency
    International Law Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-5234 E-ISSN 1927-5242 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 20, 2016 Accepted: February 19, 2017 Online Published: March 7, 2017 doi:10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 1. INTRODUCTION Prior articles have asserted that English criminal law is very fragmented and that a considerable amount of the older law - especially the common law - is badly out of date.1 The purpose of this article is to consider the crime of public nuisance (also called common nuisance), a common law crime. The word 'nuisance' derives from the old french 'nuisance' or 'nusance' 2 and the latin, nocumentum.3 The basic meaning of the word is that of 'annoyance';4 In medieval English, the word 'common' comes from the word 'commune' which, itself, derives from the latin 'communa' - being a commonality, a group of people, a corporation.5 In 1191, the City of London (the 'City') became a commune. Thereafter, it is usual to find references with that term - such as common carrier, common highway, common council, common scold, common prostitute etc;6 The reference to 'common' designated things available to the general public as opposed to the individual. For example, the common carrier, common farrier and common innkeeper exercised a public employment and not just a private one.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Notes
    These documents relate to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009 CONTROL OF DOGS (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES (AND OTHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS) CONTENTS 1. As required under Rule 9.3 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, the following documents are published to accompany the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009: • Explanatory Notes; • a Financial Memorandum; and • the Presiding Officer’s Statement on legislative competence. A Policy Memorandum is printed separately as SP Bill 29–PM. SP Bill 29–EN 1 Session 3 (2009) These documents relate to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009 EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 2. These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Non-Executive Bills Unit on behalf of Christine Grahame MSP, the member in charge of the Bill. They have been prepared in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. 3. The Notes should be read in conjunction with the Bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. So where a section or schedule, or a part of a section or schedule, does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND TO THE BILL 4. The Bill modernises the law on control of dogs. It enables local authorities to impose measures on the owner, or the person in charge, of a dog where that person has failed to keep the dog under control.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
    DEFRA RESEARCH CONTRACT: CR0246 June 2001 Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 A.G. Greenwood MA, VetMB, FIBiol, MRCVS P.A. Cusdin BSc.(Hons), GIBiol, VN M. Radford LLB* International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire BD21 1AG *University of Aberdeen, School of Law, Taylor Building, Old Aberdeen AB24 3UB Executive Summary The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 was intended to regulate the keeping of certain kinds of dangerous wild animals in order to protect the public. This review was commissioned to determine the effectiveness of the Act, as currently administered, in achieving its aims. A major component of this review involved a questionnaire based survey of all 410 local authorities in England and Wales. Wide consultation with individuals and organisations with an interest in the Act was also carried out. Control of the Act was transferred in February 1980 from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment (now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)). The Schedule to the Act has been modified on a number of occasions; most notably, in 1984, when the Department appeared to change its listing policy to include animals with the potential to be dangerous, without requiring their actual danger to be established. The 1984 Schedule is now considered by many respondents to be out of date; some of the animals included are not perceived to be dangerous by many animal keepers. There have been some changes to the taxonomy of listed animals, and these must be corrected in the Schedule to avoid legal dispute.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT VERSION 1.1 Guidance on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010
    DRAFT VERSION 1.1 Guidance on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 Ministerial Foreword The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring our communities are protected from dangerous dogs and we would support any sensible and practical measures that help achieve this. That is why we, along with all other parties, supported the measures contained in Christine Grahame’s Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament last year. We welcome the focus of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 ("the 2010 Act") in concentrating on the "deed not the breed" approach in tackling irresponsible dog ownership. Owning a dog brings many responsibilities for the dog owner and the 2010 Act is designed to highlight the responsibilities of dog owners by identifying out of control dogs at an early juncture and provide measures to change the behaviour of these dogs and their owners before the dogs become dangerous. The 2010 Act contains measures which will address the problems of irresponsible dog ownership and we believe this is fundamental in helping reduce the number of attacks by dogs of all breeds. The provisions contained in the 2010 Act will give additional powers to local authorities for action to be taken against out of control of dogs so as to improve dog behaviour and owner behaviour leading to reductions in the number of future dog attacks that blight our communities. Kenny MacAskill Cabinet Secretary for Justice Part A – Introduction Purpose of the Act 1. The key purpose of the Act is to promote more responsible ownership of dogs and ensure that dogs which are out of control are brought and kept under control in Scotland.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation Response
    Consultation Response Improving the Operational Effectiveness of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2020 15 January 2020 Introduction The Law Society of Scotland is the professional body for over 11,000 Scottish solicitors. With our overarching objective of leading legal excellence, we strive to excel and to be a world-class professional body, understanding and serving the needs of our members and the public. We set and uphold standards to ensure the provision of excellent legal services and ensure the public can have confidence in Scotland’s solicitor profession. We have a statutory duty to work in the public interest, a duty which we are strongly committed to achieving through our work to promote a strong, varied and effective solicitor profession working in the interests of the public and protecting and promoting the rule of law. We seek to influence the creation of a fairer and more just society through our active engagement with the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, Parliaments, wider stakeholders and our membership. Our Criminal Law Committee welcomes the opportunity to consider and respond to the Scottish Government consultation: Improving the Operational Effectiveness of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 (2010 Act) (the consultation). The committee has following comments to put forward for consideration. General Comments The consultation is referred to as “initial” focusing on “the operational effectiveness of the 2010 Act to aid enforcement agencies.” A further review of wider dog control in 2020 is intended to consider how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (1991 Act) operates and other associated dog control. We support some policy changes that the Scottish Government are proposing regarding the animal legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Memorandum
    This document relates to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009 CONTROL OF DOGS (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— POLICY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. This document relates to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009. It has been prepared by the Non Executive Bills Unit on behalf of Christine Grahame, the member in charge of the Bill to satisfy Rule 9.3.3(A) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders. The contents are entirely the responsibility of the member and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. Explanatory Notes and other accompanying documents are published separately as SP Bill 29–EN. POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL AND CURRENT LAW 2. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that dogs which are out of control are brought and kept under control in Scotland. In recent years there has been a marked growth in the number of out of control dogs in Scotland. The scale of the problem can be illustrated by the number of dog attacks reported to the police in Scotland. In 1999-2000 there were 239 reported to the police with this number increasing to 623 in 2006-071, representing a 160% increase in the number of dog attacks in an eight year period. The focus of the Bill is on “deed” not “breed” and is primarily aimed at owners’ behaviour which will thereafter address the resulting behaviour of dogs. 3. Existing law concerns dangerous dogs and is contained in four UK Acts: the Dogs Act 1871(“the 1871 Act”); the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 which amends the 1871 Act; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”); and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 which amends the 1991 Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Thesis Claire Lawson FINAL
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Research @ Cardiff Dogs and the Criminology of Control A case study of contemporary policy making in England and Wales Claire Lawson BA(Hons), MSc, PhD SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES CARDIFF UNIVERSITY 2019 ii Abstract This thesis explores the nexus of criminology and public policy analysis in order to better understand and explain the policy making processes in relation to the control of dogs in society. It does this through an empirical study of policy responses to the phenomenon of ‘status’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs in England and Wales, primarily during the past three decades. An influential body of work has suggested an expanding trend in punitiveness within Western societies over the past few decades. At the forefront of sociological thinking in this field is David Garland’s Culture of Control that theorises that the advent of late- modernity, with its adjusted macro-social conditions, has ushered in this new approach to law and order. As a theoretical scaffold, grand theories such as these can be useful, but this case study also seeks to go further into the empirical particulars of policy making in order to understand how a culture of control unfolds in relation to the lesser-explored arena of dangerous dogs. The methodological elements employed were two-fold and included both an extensive documentary analysis (including academic work, policy documents and legislation) recounted via a history of the present, and a thematic analysis produced from the empirical data of key policy actors' accounts (involving a programme of semi-structured elite interviews, n=25) gained via my unique insider-researcher access as a professional member of the dog policy network.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 (Asp 9)
    Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 9) Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 2010 asp 9 CONTENTS Section Service and content of dog control notice 1 Serving of dog control notice 2 Content of dog control notice Appeal against dog control notice 3 Appeal against dog control notice Monitoring and enforcing dog control notices 4 Duty of local authority to monitor effectiveness of and to enforce dog control notice etc. Failure to comply with dog control notice 5 Failure to comply with dog control notice Discharge or variation of dog control notice 6 Discharge or variation of dog control notice at instigation of local authority 7 Discharge or variation of dog control notice on application of person on whom it was served Scottish dog control database 8 Scottish dog control database Dangerous or unresponsive dogs 9 Dangerous or unresponsive dogs 10 Amendment of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Disqualification from owning or keeping dog: further provision 11 Disqualification from owning or keeping dog: further provision Guidance 12 Guidance General 13 Interpretation ii Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 9) 14 Minor and consequential amendments 15 Repeals 16 Saving 17 Orders 18 Short title and commencement __________ Schedule 1 —Minor and consequential amendments Schedule 2 —Repeals Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 9) 1 Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 2010 asp 9 The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 22nd April 2010 and received Royal Assent on 26th May 2010 An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make further provision for the control of dogs; to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and for connected purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Dogs
    ‘Dangerous Dogs’ different dog, same lamppost? BLEASDALE-HILL, Lydia and DICKINSON, Jill <http://orcid.org/0000-0003- 1471-869X> Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/12084/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version BLEASDALE-HILL, Lydia and DICKINSON, Jill (2016). ‘Dangerous Dogs’ different dog, same lamppost? The Journal of Criminal Law, 80 (1), 64-76. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk "Dangerous dogs": different dog, same lamppost? Lydia Bleasdale-Hill and Jill Dickinson Abstract Legislation governing the regulation of dangerous dogs is notoriously fraught with difficulties, in particular concerning the definitions incorporated within, and the enforcement and application of, the relevant provisions. This paper examines two aspects of the legislative framework; the regulation of "type-specific' breeds of dogs, and the extension of regulations relating to the control of dogs from public to private spheres. These aspects afford an opportunity for two principal justifications in favour of controlling owners and their dogs to be analysed: the protection of the public and the need to responsibilise dog owners. This paper considers the extent to which type-specific provisions and the extension of dangerous dogs legislation to cover private spheres achieve those desired aims and concludes that these goals are not clearly met. The authors recommend a consolidated piece of legislation, alongside a more sophisticated approach (supported by further research) being adopted with respect to the nature of dog ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill
    House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill First Report of Session 2013–14 HC 95 House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill First Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 May 2013 HC 95 [Incorporating HC 1111-i, Session 2012–13] Published on 16 May 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £12.00 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Richard Drax, (Conservative, South Dorset) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Iain McKenzie (Labour, Inverclyde) Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Ms Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Acts with Case Annotations Live on Lexislibrary Agency • Factors Act 1889 • Powers of Attorney Act 1971
    Acts with case annotations live on LexisLibrary Agency • Factors Act 1889 • Powers of Attorney Act 1971 Agriculture • Agricultural Credits Act 1928 • Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 • Agricultural Wages Act 1948 • Agriculture Act 1947 • Agriculture Act 1967 • Agriculture Act 1970 • Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 • Allotments Act 1922 • Allotments Act 1925 • Allotments Act 1950 • Food Safety Act 1990 • Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 • Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 • Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 • Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 Animals • Animal Health Act 1981 • Animal Welfare Act 2006 • Animals Act 1971 • Animals (Scientific Procedure) Act 1986 • Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 • Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 • Dogs Act 1871 • Dogs Act 1906 • Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 • Game Act 1831 • Ground Game Act 1880 • Guard Dogs Act 1975 • Hunting Act 2004 • Night Poaching Act 1828 • Night Poaching Act 1844 • Pet Animals Act 1951 • Poaching Prevention Act 1862 • Protection of Badgers Act 1992 Armed Forces, War and Emergency • Armed Forces Act 2006 • Court Martial Appeals Act 1968 • Distribution of German Enemy Property Act 1949 • Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964 • Military Lands Act 1892 • Pensions (Navy, Army Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 • Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 • Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 • Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 • Visiting Forces Act 1952 Aviation • Carriage by Air Act 1961 • Civil Aviation
    [Show full text]
  • BVA and BSAVA Position on the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) and Dog Control
    BVA and BSAVA position on the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) and dog control Executive Summary The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) was introduced in the UK following a series of serious, and in some cases fatal, dog attacks on humans. Its stated aim is to: “prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting [...] to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes.”1 However, the breed-specific legislation contained within the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) does not represent an evidence-based approach to dog control and we consider that the Act more widely has been ineffective in delivering its stated aims. A review five years after the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) found no significant reduction in dog bites.2 In fact, a study published in 2021 found that adult hospital admission rates for dog bites tripled in England between 1998-2018, and the incidence of dog bites in children had remained consistently high.3 The same study found that between the financial years 2009/2010 and 2017/2018 the total estimated direct costs of dog bite admissions to hospitals were £174,188,443. 4 Further, ONS data shows that dog attack fatalities have in fact increased since the introduction of the Act.5 All dogs, whatever their breed type or size, are capable of showing aggression. It is important to recognise that multiple factors can contribute to the development of canine aggression and dog biting incidents, including a dog’s socialisation,6,7 rearing and training,8,9,10,11,12 environmental circumstances 1 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/contents 2 Klaassen B, Buckley JR, Esmail A.
    [Show full text]