1190. Mr Molloy: Do you accept that something similar to the Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) system for cars would be a deterrent against people not keeping their contact details up to date? Under such a system, if people did not register change of ownership, they would be liable for a dog's misdemeanours over the next 10 years?

1191. Mr Laurence: I was going to raise that point during our session on the Animal Welfare Bill. The Bill clearly states that the owner of a dog is responsible for its welfare 24/7. It would be nice to have some provision in the Bill for a form that showed that the name and address registered on the microchip database is that of the owner and, therefore, the person responsible. That would be a reasonable impetus for keeping data up to date. We would like, exactly as you said, the sort of system that exists for vehicle licences. In fact, some microchip companies already provide a tear-off bit at the bottom of the registration form that owners get after registering their dog. That allows the current owner and any new owner to sign the form, send it back to the database and, therefore, keep the database up to date. To me, that seems to be a logical system for the implementation of compulsory microchipping.

1192. Mr Molloy: I was interested to hear that microchipping is a fairly skilled job and that the chip can fall out. Depending on what data is on the chip, if a chip falls out, it could be re-implanted in another dog, which would distort the records that are kept.

1193. Mr Laurence: Let me make it clear that a microchip is a sterile implement when it is implanted. As it is an electronic device, it cannot be sterilised by boiling, because that would kill the electronics. Sterilising a microchip is a fairly skilled task that requires a very toxic gas, ethylene oxide. Taking a microchip out of one dog and putting it into another dog, while maintaining its sterility in between, would be very difficult.

1194. It is actually quite difficult to find a microchip in a dog. Occasionally, with a very thin-skinned dog, such as a lurcher, the microchip can be felt. However, for the average dog that is not the case. For example, my golden retriever has a microchip, and I have absolutely no idea where it is, because I cannot feel it. However, the scanner can detect it.

1195. Mr Molloy: Are you saying that, if a microchip is not properly implanted, it could fall out onto the ground?

1196. Mr Laurence: Yes. To microchip a dog, a needle is put in and the trigger is pushed to eject the microchip from the end. The end of the needle should be held while it is withdrawn so that the withdrawing of the needle does not encourage the microchip to come back to the surface. Massaging the skin tends to seal the hole. In some species, for example, with tortoises, a little bit of glue is put on the skin to seal the hole, because tortoise skin is much less elastic than dog skin. That is why doing it properly and implanters being properly trained are such important issues.

1197. Mr Molloy: At least with tagging people, the tag is on the outside. I wonder how many people would like to have a microchip implanted in them.

1198. Mr Laurence: Around a year or 18 months ago, Dogs Trust did some survey work that asked members of the general public whether they would support the compulsory microchipping of dogs and whether there was any opposition to that. Overt opposition was much less than 10% and approximately 70% of people would support compulsory microchipping. Another 10% to 15% were not strongly supportive of it, but not against it, and the residual portion of people were neutral.

1199. Mr Molloy: Are you talking about microchipping dogs or microchipping humans?

1200. Mr Laurence: I am talking about microchipping dogs.

1201. Mr Molloy: They might not be so much in favour if it were microchipping humans. What type of information is held on a microchip? There seems to be a variety of opinion. Some people seem to argue that you need the licence in order to link to the owner and that the microchip would not necessarily do that. Can it do that?

1202. Mr Laurence: It can. The microchip contains a 15-digit number and nothing else. The first three digits of that indicate the name of the manufacturer of the microchip. Those numbers are allocated by the International Standards Organisation, so there is a guarantee that every microchip is a unique number. There is also a tracing system from the manufacturer to the distributor to the implanter to the dog owner, data on all of which is kept on the database. If a dog owner moves house and does not update the database, I can trace the microchip back to the person who implanted it. Occasionally, people do not update the data; the dog is found as a stray, and it has been implanted by a veterinary surgeon. You can ring the veterinary surgeon and ask whether Mrs Bloggs who used to live at 24 Acacia Avenue is still his or her client and ask where she lives now? There is, therefore, a secondary way of tracing the microchip, even if the primary route goes wrong.

1203. Mr Savage: Is a dog on a farm classed as a farm animal?

1204. Mr Laurence: Under the Animal Welfare Bill, it would be classed as a protected animal.

1205. Mr Savage: I ask the question because inspectors who come from the farm quality assurance scheme see the farmer's dog and want to know whether it has been wormed and whether the farmer has proof of that from the vet. Do you believe that the microchipping of dogs should be compulsory?

1206. Mr Laurence: I do. One of the issues is the ability to identify a dog. That is relevant in a number of areas. You mentioned a situation in which someone will want to know whether a particular dog has been wormed. The only way that you can be sure that a dog has been wormed is if it has a microchip in it. One Border collie looks very much like another Border collie. If you present your Border collie to me, in my capacity as a veterinary surgeon, and I inject the appropriate wormer, I can only write a certificate to say that it is definitely that dog that has been wormed if the dog is microchipped. I will scan the dog at the same time as I inject it. The same applies to the rabies legislation, which comes into effect when owners want to take their dogs abroad. You could argue that any vaccination certificate for a dog should have the microchip number on it, because that is the only way that you know that it is that individual dog.

1207. Mr Savage: That is part of the traceability; you can trace that dog back to the farm.

1208. Mr Laurence: Yes. As part of the compulsory microchipping system, we would like to see a requirement for puppies to be microchipped before they leave their breeder. If that were done, the puppies could be traced all the way through their lives. I am sure that you are aware that inherited disease in dogs has been a significant issue, following a BBC programme from a couple of years ago. One way to control that and to gain good data on inherited disease is through traceability back to the breeders. Microchips have lots of functions. The function in relation to straying is the primary function, but there are traceability issues and, in particular, issues in respect of dogs that have a dog control order. The only way that you can be sure that a particular dog has a dog control order is if it is microchipped at the time.

1209. Mr Savage: I am conscious of traceability. I am glad to hear you say that, because I think that there has been some doubt about the compulsory element over the past few days. There is a query over whether a dog on a farm is classed as a farm animal. If it has to comply with regulations, has to be wormed and has to meet the requirements expected of the inspectors who come round from the farm quality assurance scheme, surely it must be classed as a farm animal?

1210. Mr Laurence: That is a moot point. The EU does not class a dog as a farmed animal, because it is not eaten.

1211. Mr Savage: That answers my question. No matter what trouble a dog gets into, the single farm payment received by its owner will not be affected, because the EU does not recognise it as a farm animal.

1212. Mr Laurence: The EU legislation does not recognise dogs as farm animals; it recognises them as companion animals, which is one of the reasons why there is much less legislation from Brussels about dogs than about farmed species. All of the farm animal legislation from the EU is based on the fact that the animals are eaten, so the issue is food safety.

1213. Echinococcus is a form of tapeworm, which is one of the major risks from dogs. One of the reasons why we have a derogation from the EU rabies directive is that there is one particular type of echinococcus that is prevalent in the middle part of Europe — Switzerland, France and northern Italy. If that type gets into humans, its effects mirror that of a terminal cancer. So, if you get it, it may kill you. That is one of the reasons why traceability and proper worming of imported dogs is critical.

1214. The Deputy Chairperson: You have highlighted the high number of stray dogs in Northern Ireland. In your written submission, you state that 60% of all dogs euthanized in the UK were Northern Ireland dogs. That is an unacceptably high level.

1215. You said that you do not think the licensing scheme is effective. What would be effective in reducing the number of stray animals and preventing such high numbers of dogs from being euthanized? I appreciate that you are involved in some of the organisational aspects of education and have worked with about 8,000 schoolchildren. What are the key aspects that should be concentrated on to get those figures down?

1216. Mr Laurence: If you look at the history of stray dogs and euthanasia for the whole of the UK and the Republic, the numbers have come down very significantly over the past 10 to 15 years. Two issues seem to have had the most influence: education of dog owners and better control of breeding. Over the years, we have spent a lot of money subsidising neutering schemes for dog owners, including in Northern Ireland. It is interesting that the most relevant data comes from the Republic, where we started subsidising neutering schemes about five years ago. The number of dogs euthanized as unwanted strays has dropped dramatically since we started doing that. Before that, the rate had been drifting downwards. So there is quite good evidence that those two issues have a significant influence.

1217. Quite why the work that we have done here has not had as much of an effect as it has in the rest of the UK is a wee bit of a mystery. Much better co-ordination is required between the Bill's provisions, local authorities and dog wardens to better get across the message to dog owners that chucking the dog out for a walk on its own is not the thing to do.

1218. One of the good things in the Welfare of Animals Bill, which we will look at this afternoon, is the abandonment clause, which makes it a specific offence to abandon dogs. So there are some legislative measures that could be taken, but we would like to co-ordinate much better all of the interested parties in educating dog owners on how to properly look after their dogs.

1219. The Deputy Chairperson: What additional information do you suggest? Is there a lack of literature going out from the Department? How would you co-ordinate the various parties?

1220. Mr Laurence: There has to be a carrot and stick approach. The stick will be the Welfare of Animals Bill when it comes into force. If licensing is retained, the carrot could be a reduction in the price of having an animal neutered, which makes sense because it would help to control the dog population.

1221. There is a syndrome in some areas whereby people get a dog, it accidentally gets pregnant, little Jimmy from next door turns up and says, "Oh, lovely puppies", takes one home, gets cuffed around the ear by his mother, but is told that he can keep the dog after all, and, lo and behold, in six or seven months, that bitch is pregnant, and the whole cycle starts again.

1222. We have to get much better at targeting the sorts of areas where that is an issue. That is not something that we have done particularly in Northern Ireland, but we did it in south Wales, where it seems to be having an effect. Rather than waiting for people to come to us, we go to them.

1223. If we put together a scheme, local authorities say that if you keep a dog in local authority housing stock, you have to have permission to do so. The dog has to be microchipped. That then gives us a list of people who we can go and see and say: "We know you have a dog. Has it been neutered? If not, why not? Can we help you to get that done?" A more proactive approach, co-ordinated by local authorities or the Assembly, would produce a better result. However, we are talking about a number of years before seeing any significant results.

1224. The Deputy Chairman: Where has that type of scheme operated?

1225. Mr Laurence: We have done very well in south Wales, where we have gone to a number of estates. They have not reached the point where the local authority is registering dogs. We went round, knocked on every door, asked, "Have you got a dog?" and followed it on from there. We collect the dog, take it to the vet, get it neutered, and deliver it back.

1226. That has worked very well in south Wales. There is a very proactive dog warden team in Wandsworth in London, and the council has introduced in its tenancy agreements a requirement that if someone keeps a dog, it has to be microchipped and registered with the local authority. They have seen a significant reduction in nuisance dogs, unwanted dogs, and straying dogs. Those two schemes put together would be much more effective.

1227. Mr McCarthy: People living in a large estate can be tormented by barking dogs from morning to night. What can those innocent people do to have some sort of a decent way of life?

1228. Mr Laurence: Again, that comes back to tenancy agreements. Dogs bark all day because, more often than not, they have separation-related anxiety. In other words, dogs are a social species, and want to be with people or other dogs. If you leave them alone for eight hours a day when you are at work, the dog is, frankly, terrified and barks at everything that goes past. You then get the public nuisance problem.

1229. The issue is not simply stopping the dog from barking because that does not resolve the welfare problem for the dog. We would not, for instance, rehome a dog with a person who was out at work all day unless we were satisfied that there was some contact with other people during that time. We need to take that welfare-focused approach with those dog owners, and point out to them that what they are causing by leaving their dog to bark is not just a nuisance to the neighbours, but that the dog is barking because it has a significant welfare issue.

1230. People are generally empathetic with their dogs, and if you say that a dog is barking not because it wants to be a nuisance but because it is really upset, they will then realise the issues. Frankly, many of those people should not have a dog.

1231. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you for your wisdom. Some of that goes beyond the remit of this Bill, but it was useful information. Again, thank you for your evidence.

2 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Stephen Moutray (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr Simpson Gibson
Mr William Irwin
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Savage

Witnesses:

Ms Colette McMaster Mr Martin Mooney Mr John Terrington

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1232. The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): I call to the table Colette McMaster, John Terrington and Martin Mooney from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD).

1233. Mr Beggs: I declare an interest as a councillor on Carrickfergus Borough Council.

1234. Mr W Clarke: I am a member of Down District Council.

1235. Mr Molloy: I am a member of Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council.

1236. The Chairperson: I am a member of Craigavon Borough Council.

1237. Good morning, you are all very welcome. I remind members that the date for completion of Committee Stage is 29 November. It is intended that detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny will take place at the next meeting to allow time for the draft report to be considered and laid before the Assembly before the closing date. It is therefore imperative that the Committee agrees as many of the matters relating to the Bill as possible.

1238. This morning we will go through the clauses that have caused some concern. We will start with clause 2 and microchipping. Papers have been tabled for members this morning in relation to this.

1239. Ms Colette McMaster (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): We provided some information on clause 2 to the Committee yesterday evening. The Committee raised the question of what contribution compulsory microchipping would make, and we have explained that the compulsory microchipping of dogs will enable the permanent identification of all dogs, because it will become an integral part of licensing a dog. Taken together with the other measures and improvements that are being proposed in the Bill — the stiffer fixed penalties and the improved resources for dog warden services — it will mean that careless and irresponsible owners are more likely to be identified, penalised and deterred from non-compliance.

1240. The question was asked as to why microchipping needed to be made compulsory rather than left as a voluntary thing that dog owners could choose to do. Indeed, a number of dog owners have voluntarily chosen to microchip their dogs, and promotional campaigns by charities have helped to increase the number of dogs that have been microchipped. However, of the 3,500 dogs that were destroyed here in 2008, more than 2,000 were stray dogs that had to be put down because their owners could not be identified. Voluntary action will help to increase the identification of dogs up to a certain level, but voluntary action will not ensure that all dogs can be identified by a microchip. Therefore, the proposal is to introduce compulsory microchipping for all dogs so that they can be easily identified and returned to their owners if they stray. That, in turn, will reduce the burden on the dog warden services and the number of dogs that have to be kept in pounds and, ultimately, destroyed because they have not been identified.

1241. Mr Beggs: As I understand it, about 30% of dogs are not currently licensed — their owners have decided not to pay for the annual licence. What makes you think that those owners will pay to have their dogs electronically chipped and then buy a licence? Is it not more likely that those people will remain outside the system and that you will simply have added a duplicate method of identifying dogs without having solved the problem of stray dogs?

1242. Ms McMaster: Over the years, we have seen an increase in the number of licensed dogs. That trend has been seen since the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 introduced the licensing system. Over the past 10 years, the number of licences issued here has risen by nearly 40%. That trend is increasing, and there is no reason why that should not continue to be the case. As this is rolled out, increasing numbers of dogs will be licensed, and then microchipped as part of that. If stray dogs are to be rehomed, they will be microchipped and then licensed as they are rehomed. That increasingly brings dogs into the system.

1243. If you are talking about a potential cost that might put people off, we are aware that if people go to a veterinary practice to have their dog microchipped, there is a cost. However, it does not have to be done by a veterinary practice; it can be done by a competent person, so the cost of microchipping a dog is quite low. Therefore, we do not believe that the cost is what will put people off getting their dogs microchipped. Also, a number of charities provide it as a free service.

1244. Mr Beggs: You have not really answered my core question. What makes you think that the owners of the 30% of dogs that are currently unlicensed will voluntarily microchip them and identify themselves for an annual licence fee?

1245. Ms McMaster: Part of the system is to improve the dog warden services and to include more deterrents so that people will voluntarily want to do that. There will be the added cost of the penalty for not having a dog licensed. It is £1,000.

1246. Mr John Terrington (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): The fixed penalty rises to £50. It is currently only up to £25, so there is an additional deterrent. Non-compliance with any legislation, particularly any licensing, comes down to the level of enforcement, the deterrents and the detection of offences. We are of the view that the Bill improves those three things. I have said in evidence before that councils here do the enforcing, and I think that that is why we have had the increase in the number of dogs licensed over recent years. However, the Bill provides them with better resources to do that more and improves deterrence through the penalty system.

1247. Ms McMaster: We have a licensing system that we have seen more and more people come into, and that may well continue, but we are looking at ways of improving the overall system and the overall level of dog control. There are benefits to microchipping; it means that a dog can be individually identified, so it is easier to trace the dog and its owner. Combined with that, we are seeking to improve the overall system and improve dog control overall, so we see the system having benefits.

1248. Mr Beggs: I can see that many responsible dog owners will want to microchip their dogs just to ensure that they will get them back again should they go astray. However, have you considered an incentive method, whereby there would be a slight reduction in the licence fee if a dog is microchipped? That would be a positive, incentivised way of doing it. Also, you could make microchipping compulsory for commercial dog breeders — people who have multiple dogs and who are actively breeding dogs — so that those who are making money from dogs and can afford the extra costs would pick up those costs. Those who are getting dogs for the first time would be more likely to have one that is microchipped, without putting an additional burden on existing dog owners.

1249. Mr Terrington: There are two or three points. If microchipping was made compulsory for breeders, there would be a requirement for a breeder to microchip a dog or ensure that it is microchipped before it is sold on. Currently, breeders are required to ensure that a dog is licensed before they sell it. From speaking to representatives of dog breeders, I know that they adhere to that and will continue to do so. So the first thing is yes, making it compulsory for breeders is something that could be done as a way of getting this out there.

1250. Secondly, your suggestion about providing incentives was certainly looked at, and it is a move away from where we ended up, which was to make it compulsory. For there to be an incentive, the reduction would have to be significant, and any rise in the number of microchipped dogs would have a negative impact on councils' income streams. The other side of that is that, for a long time, a number of organisations have offered it for free, but take-up has not been particularly widespread, so there is nothing to say that a reduced rate would allow it to happen either.

1251. Mr Beggs: I remain unconvinced that the 30% of people who do not even have a licence are suddenly going to voluntarily pay an annual fee and get their dog microchipped.

1252. Mr Terrington: It is also worth pointing out that our initial analysis — we are talking about the past 24 hours — of the survey of homes suggests that the figure is not as bad and that perhaps 55% of dogs are licensed and compliant, rather than the 33% that you mentioned. Nevertheless, that still leaves a number of unlicensed dogs.

1253. Mr Beggs: What percentage of dogs are unlicensed?

1254. Mr Terrington: 45%.

1255. Mr Beggs: I thought that it was only 30%, but you say that it is 45%. What makes you think that those dog owners will voluntarily chip their dogs and pay an annual licence fee?

1256. Mr Terrington: We do not think that they will do it voluntarily, which is why it is compulsory. The idea is that not doing it will be an offence. If any licensing regime, be it TV licensing or anything else, is not enforced, as a rule people will not comply, so improving the enforcers' weaponry and tools is a key part. Also, if those campaigns have been working at all, there will be dogs that are currently microchipped but not necessarily licensed. There is also your point about breeders, so, in that way, it will become the norm rather than the exception.

1257. Ms McMaster: Microchipping a dog incurs a one-off cost. Yes, there is an annual licence fee, but the cost of microchipping a dog is incurred only once in its lifetime.

1258. Mr Beggs: You say that it is a one-off cost, but if a dog turns up without having been chipped, you then have to find out whose dog it is, and searching the database will incur an additional cost.

1259. Mr Terrington: The Committee will have heard evidence from the microchipping action group that that is not the case. It does not cost anything for a dog warden to lift the phone or, indeed, to go online to identify a dog that has been scanned.

1260. The Chairperson: If I am picking you up right, you are saying that 45% of dogs in Northern Ireland are unlicensed.

1261. Mr Terrington: Based on the first analysis of figures that we have got through in the past 24 hours, that seems to be the case.

1262. The Chairperson: If it is the case, do you know who the owners are? What action has been taken to address the situation? It has not happened overnight.

1263. Mr Terrington: We do not know, and it is not for us to know. The councils enforce it, so it is up to them to know. If they identify an unlicensed dog, they have a number of tools in their armoury, including fixed penalties.

1264. The Chairperson: Therefore, if you bring forth compulsory microchipping, you will not have information as to who the owners of the dogs are.

1265. Mr Terrington: A number of people are done for not having a licence, which suggests that there are already ways to identify owners. There are dogs that are microchipped now, so their owners have been identified, although they are not licensed. It is a matter of making that gap smaller. Inevitably, some people will not comply, so their dogs will not be returned and action cannot be taken. Consequently, their dogs will run the risk of being destroyed or rehomed, although, at the point of rehoming, a dog will be licensed and microchipped, bringing more and more dogs into the system.

1266. The Chairperson: But you indicated that 2,500 stray dogs are put down each year because their owners cannot be identified. How is that going to improve?

1267. Mr Terrington: The situation is improved if some of those dogs are microchipped.

1268. The Chairperson: The World Society for the Protection of Animals commissioned a report which stated that 70% of EU countries with compulsory regulations saw no reduction in the number of strays.

1269. Mr Terrington: I may be wrong, but I think that the report refers to compulsory registration. Although each of those may have also had an associated identification system, be that a collar tag, microchipping or perhaps even tattooing, those compulsory registrations are the same as our licensing system.

1270. One key conclusion that I read into that particular paper, which was written by welfare specialists in each responding country, was that the biggest problem was the lack of enforcement. There is no sense in asking someone to register a dog if you do not then follow up and ask them for their licence details and so on. As I said, our councils have shown that that is something that they actively do through the number of people who have been done for not having a licence as well as through the increase in licensing over the past number of years.

1271. The Chairperson: Do you accept that there is a lack of enforcement in Northern Ireland at the moment?

1272. Mr Terrington: No. I think the figures show that the councils, which are responsible for this, are enforcing it. That is evident through the number of fixed penalties that have been issued for non-compliance and the increase in the number of licences issued. We do not think that there are any more dogs, yet more licences are being issued. However, the Bill provides councils with better weaponry and deterrents to further help them in that enforcement.

1273. Mr Molloy: To return to the issue of strays, you said that there were 2,500 strays, and 2,000 of those were put down. Is that right?

1274. Ms McMaster: I think that the figure that I mentioned was that 3,500 dogs were destroyed in 2008.

1275. Mr Molloy: There seems to be a difference of 500 between the two figures. They were obviously rehomed or something.

1276. Mr Terrington: There are a number of things there. A lot of dogs may be rehomed because they are handed in to the council or the Dogs Trust or other people, which would not be part of that. The figures on strays — they are already counted as strays and, at that point, whatever happens to them, whether they are put down or rehomed, they are still being counted as strays, so any dogs, for example, that are rehomed here or elsewhere have already been identified as strays and handed in to or seized by the council. The council has then failed to find them homes or return them to their owners. Two things can happen to the dog; it is either put down or rehomed.

1277. Mr Molloy: Can you explain why some charities said that they were importing dogs from Donegal and from the South to fulfil a market in England, if we are still putting down 2,500 or 3,000 dogs here?

1278. Mr Terrington: The evidence from the Dogs Trust explained how we would have understood it. They take dogs from here and rehome them in England. They have a centre in the South from where they take dogs and rehome them, and that is done with the help of other organisations such as Assisi. There are too many dogs with no homes here, and there is more scope to rehome them in England.

1279. Mr Molloy: That still does not account for why they import more dogs. If there are so many strays in this country, why would you import more to export them to England?

1280. Mr Martin Mooney (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): I think the figures are getting a bit muddied. The number of strays put down here is just over 1,300. A number of dogs are recorded as unwanted; those are dogs that people surrender to the dog warden. They can include very elderly dogs, sick dogs —

1281. Mr Terrington: Or indeed the owner may be elderly and cannot keep the dog.

1282. Mr Molloy: Well, which do you put down: the owner or the dog?

1283. Mr Mooney: The headline figure of dogs destroyed does not read directly across to the fact that a council has lifted a stray and not rehomed it.

1284. Mr Molloy: Is the reality not that you have not got a clue as to the number of stray dogs, but it is handy to pick up figures and throw them out in an alarmist fashion?

1285. Mr Mooney: We have the most —

1286. Mr Molloy: Tell me the number of stray dogs.

1287. Mr Terrington: Do you mean stray dogs picked up this year or last year? The point is —

1288. Mr Molloy: No, tell me the figure.

1289. Mr Mooney: In 2009, 6,745 stray dogs were impounded by councils; 1,300 of those ended up being put down.

1290. Mr Molloy: Where do you get the figure of 2,500?

1291. Mr Mooney: That is the number of dogs destroyed; that includes unwanted dogs.

1292. Mr Molloy: So, the alarmist thing about all these strays being put down is not that they are strays at all, but that people want to end the dogs' life in that situation.

1293. Mr Terrington: It is a combination of both —

1294. Mr Molloy: You did not say that.

1295. Mr Terrington: There are still —

1296. Mr Molloy: No, we were talking about microchipping stray dogs, and you muddied the waters with a number of dogs that were put down that were not strays at all.

1297. Ms McMaster: A number of those dogs that were put down were strays —

1298. Mr Molloy: A number of them might have been, but that was not what we asked for. We were talking about microchipping, and how it would stop stray dogs.

1299. Ms McMaster: The point that we are making is that those dogs were put down because they were strays and could not be traced back to their owners. If dogs were microchipped, it would reduce the number of dogs that have to be put down because they cannot be identified.

1300. Mr Molloy: The figures do not qualify that. The Department needs to be very careful with the evidence that it gives so that it is not alarming the public about the number of strays, and it needs to ensure that its figures are accurate, because, to date, they have not been.

1301. Mr Terrington: The councils supply us with the figures that we provide. The unique thing about the 1983 Order is that it requires them to provide those figures. On a number of occasions, we have quoted the number of strays and unwanted dogs that have been put down, but our latest correspondence talks about the number of stray dogs alone that have been put down: 1,300.

1302. Mr Molloy: It is important that we get an actual figure from you regarding the number of stray dogs that have been put down.

1303. With regard to the responsibility of councils, you say that there will be no extra burden on them. They have no responsibility for microchipping, but they are going to have some sort of device to enable them to detect microchips. Are you saying that councils will go around the country scanning dogs to see whether they have been microchipped, or are you saying that they will only microchip stray dogs?

1304. Mr Terrington: This is what they do now. All councils are kitted out with the technology to scan dogs, but they will only scan a dog if the owner is unidentifiable, that is, if the dog is straying or if some other offence is being committed. That is how it happens now, and nothing will change because it is compulsory.

1305. Mr Molloy: I am trying to find out how the microchip will reduce the number of stray dogs.

1306. Mr Terrington: Our latest response to the Committee says that microchipping provides a disincentive for people if a dog can be identified, but it is only one part of what the Bill does. Microchipping will try to stop unidentified dogs, be they strays or abandoned, from being put down or from somebody not being able to be held accountable for having let that dog stray. The other parts of the Bill that are helped by microchipping are things that address straying. Colette mentioned some of those things: the control conditions that stop a dog from straying repeatedly; stiffer penalties; a better enforcement regime; and a small change in the wording of the 1983 Order which councils asked us to consider, which would remove the requirement to see the dog straying. Other evidence can be used to prove that the dog had strayed and, therefore, enforcement action can be taken.

1307. Mr Molloy: As a councillor in Dungannon, I can say that you may be getting recommendations from council officials, but that is different from getting recommendations from councils. Every time you say that a council asks you to do this, that or the other, you need to clarify whether you are talking about council officials or councils. I know that that is not an issue.

1308. You said that both systems are needed because identification systems do not help to fund the dog warden system. Should we not just call this a dog tax, or a warden tax? It is not about identification of dogs and it is not about stray dogs, it is about how you collect money to pay for the warden system. If you wanted to, you could have one system, and enough information could be provided on the licence or the tag so that the dog could be traced. In fact, as far as I understand it, that information is already there in the present tag. That happens. Therefore, one or other system would do both, but you want both simply because it is a means of financing the dog warden system.

1309. Mr Terrington: There are a couple of things there. The Department consulted on the provisions at the end of last year, and the comments from a range of stakeholders, including councils, have been taken on board in the Bill. I think that 25 of the 26 councils responded, and all those councils had their responses ratified by the appropriate council committee or the full council.

1310. The 1983 Order introduced a requirement for councils to have dog wardens. In doing so, it raised the level of the licence fee and directed that licence fee to the councils in order to fund dog warden services. So, yes, that is what it does.

1311. Mr Molloy: You say that no additional resources will be required by councils, but why then are councils telling us that they will need an increase in rates in order to work the system? In fact, all the council officials who appeared before the Committee — we have not yet talked to any councils — indicated that an increase in resources would be required.

1312. Mr Terrington: I genuinely believe that the concerns that you raise are about the Welfare of Animals Bill in the sense that the licence fee does provides them with resources. There is a suggestion to increase that resource, which all the councils have accepted, and some have called for a higher increase.

1313. Mr Molloy: Excuse me, but I am not talking about any other Bill whatsoever; I am talking about the Bill here and the response that you gave that no additional resources would be required.

1314. Mr Terrington: I do not believe that they are.

1315. Mr Molloy: Well, the councils are saying that they are.

1316. The Chairperson: Is it not the case that you said that council officials required an increase of £25 to make it viable?

1317. Mr Terrington: We looked at and consulted on a range of options. It is accepted that some councils called for a higher level. The Committee will be aware that, when a higher level was discussed earlier, there were some concerns, particularly about the risk that introducing too great an increase might have a negative impact on compliance rates. For that reason, the £12·50 fee was put out to consultation, and, yes, there are still some councils that say that the fee should be higher.

1318. Mr Mooney: Different councils have different costs for their dog warden services. If all the costs of that service were met by the licence fee alone, in Belfast, for example, we would be looking at a licence fee of around £60. There are other council areas in which a fee of £12·50 or £15 would probably cover their costs. I think that the £25 fee that some council officials suggested seems to be a rough average of what they think would be needed to cover the costs.

1319. The Chairperson: You have just confirmed what Mr Molloy has said.

1320. Ms McMaster: There are two issues; the fee and the level of the fee. The licence fee is £5 and has not been increased for years and years. It has not gone anywhere near to covering the cost of the dog warden services, and everybody acknowledged that. What we have proposed is an increase in the fee in line with inflation so that it goes further towards covering the cost of dog warden services. It is not that the £12·50 fee will cover the full cost of the services, but it will double the income from the licence fee and will, therefore, contribute a lot more towards the cost of the services.

1321. The Chairperson: I accept what you say, but there will still be a shortfall and councils are going to need resources.

1322. Ms McMaster: Yes, and different councils will have different needs, so there will be additional resources, but some of the money that is currently being taken from ratepayers will be freed up to go towards the cost of dog warden services.

1323. Mr Molloy: How can you tell this Committee that no additional resources are required when, first, you proposed £50 straight off, which this Committee rightly rejected completely and, secondly, other councils have said that they would need a fee of £25 to cover costs? Whether we go by your figures or these figures, either way, there will be a shortfall. So, additional resources will be required and the ratepayers in every council area will have to pay for them.

1324. Ms McMaster: The point about no additional resources being required is specifically related to the point about running a system that includes compulsory microchipping. The point that I am making is that introducing compulsory microchipping will not be an additional resource burden on councils.

1325. Mr Molloy: But it is. We have proved that it is.

1326. Ms McMaster: No, we do not see the compulsory microchipping element of it as being an additional resource burden on councils.

1327. Mr Molloy: But in relation to the duplication of having both licensing and microchipping, every group that we have had here has said that there is no need for the double system. England, Scotland and Wales do not have a licence fee of that particular nature. If you bring in microchipping, they have enough information there to do it, but it comes back to your point about needing to fund the warden system. The issue here is around the double identification and the claim that no additional resources are required.

1328. Ms McMaster: For that particular element. The reason for that is that dog wardens largely already have microchip scanners, because a number of dogs are microchipped already. Dog wardens are scanning dogs and if they have a microchip, that makes it easier for the dog warden to return that dog to its owner. The councils already largely have the scanning equipment. There is not an additional —

1329. Mr Molloy: Chairman, perhaps the best way of rectifying this is to ask the Department to come back to us and say that it has an indication from the 26 councils that they will not require any further resources to implement this.

1330. Ms McMaster: The microchipping element of it?

1331. Mr Molloy: The entire licensing process. I cannot separate the two things.

1332. Mr Mooney: The Bill does not include any new resource requirements. Does the licence fee raise what councils need to fulfil their duties under the 1983 Order? No, it does not. It never has done. That is why we are proposing an increase. However, the Bill imposes no new statutory duties on councils.

1333. Mr Molloy: But the dual system is being continued in order to finance the warden system.

1334. Mr Mooney: The licensing system is being continued.

1335. Mr Molloy: Yes, and the onus on councils to identify and deal with stray dogs is going to put an increased responsibility on them and increase the demand on resources.

1336. Mr Mooney: They already have that statutory responsibility under the 1983 Order.

1337. Ms McMaster: If all dogs are microchipped, that will ease the burden on the dog warden services.

1338. Mr Molloy: But they will not be.

1339. Ms McMaster: That is the aim of this.

1340. Mr Molloy: Oh aye, but we know that they will not be.

1341. Ms McMaster: As more and more dogs are microchipped, that will reduce the amount of time that dog wardens have to spend tracking down the owners of stray dogs, as well as reducing the cost of keeping stray dogs in pounds and the cost of destruction. That is its purpose and its aim; ultimately, it will help to reduce those costs and the burden.

1342. Mr Molloy: Chairperson, can the Department provide the information?

1343. The Chairperson: Is it possible that you can provide the information that Mr Molloy has requested?

1344. Mr Terrington: We need clarity on what we are being asked for. We accept that the licence fee does not cover all the costs. We seek to provide a balance between dog owners bearing the costs, because without dogs there would not be an issue, and what ratepayers get out of having stray dogs and other issues dealt with, and that is why the licence fee has been set where it is. I am quite happy to say that in any of our consultations the majority of councils have said that they would seek a higher licence fee, but, again, it is a matter of finding the balance.

1345. Mr W Clarke: Under this new legislation, is it compulsory for dog breeders to microchip a pup before they sell it?

1346. Mr Terrington: It is currently a requirement that anyone breeding or selling a dog must ensure that it is totally compliant; ie, that there is a licence. If microchipping is made a requirement of the licence, the answer is yes, microchipping will become a requirement for breeders, or anybody selling a dog. Breeders will have to show information such as who they sold their dog to.

1347. Mr W Clarke: I just wanted that clarified. My second point is that you need to simplify the system if you want to cut the number of strays. The last thing that you should do is make it more difficult to comply. Francie talked about microchipping, licensing and duplication.

1348. I am a firm believer that once you pay your licence fee, microchipping should automatically be included. We have to get a one-stop shop. Once you come to get your dog licence, at that point of contact you arrange a suitable time to get your dog microchipped. Either the councils train their officers to do that, or they bring in one of those charities that will do it for nothing. It has to be done at that point. That is just my opinion.

1349. Mr Terrington: That is clearly a way to roll it out. There is nothing in the Bill to stop a council from doing that at the point of licensing. If they are going to supplement it, that is money off the top of their licence income, or —

1350. Mr W Clarke: But it does not cost anything. We are being told that all these charities will do it for nothing, so there will not be a cost.

1351. Mr Terrington: It can be done for nothing, or it can be done at cost price — £3 or £4.

1352. Mr W Clarke: All I am trying to do is to guarantee that responsible dog owners are not punished again with another tax. Fair enough, I agree that the warden service needs to be paid for, but I am not going to sit on a Committee and allow dog owners then to pay another £10 or £15 on top of the licence fee. I am not going to stand by and let that happen. It needs to be in the legislation that when you go to the council to licence your dog, the microchipping element is included in that fee. Either they give you a voucher for microchipping that you give to one of the charities, or the council does it in-house. That would simplify the whole system, that it is one system.

1353. Mr Terrington: The initial problem is that that works in only one year when the dog is first licensed. It may be complicated, and I do not know if it is possible or how it could be done with regard to the legislation. You would be basically setting the licence fee one year, and then increasing it or reducing it.

1354. Mr W Clarke: The dog is microchipped in the first year.

1355. Mr Terrington: But your fee next year is at what?

1356. Mr W Clarke: It is still the same.

1357. Mr Terrington: At the higher level, or the lower level?

1358. Mr W Clarke: It will not be at a higher level. There will be one licence fee per year, and that is it. Your dog gets microchipped when you bring it to get licensed in the first year, and that is it done.

1359. Ms McMaster: The issue from the council's or dog warden's point of view may then be the practicality of providing that service, or ensuring that the vouchers can be provided.

1360. Mr Terrington: You also have a number of people who have already —

1361. Mr W Clarke: You go to the front desk of the council, and say: "Listen, I want a microchip, and I want to licence my dog." They say: "Yes, that's fine. Arrange an appointment with such and such." In that system, once you are coming to get your dog licence, the council can do the microchipping because there are so many coming on the one day to get their dog licence. The process then is: you get a dog licence, get your dog microchipped, and then go home.

1362. Mr Mooney: Generally, that is a sensible idea, but it is something that councils may well choose to do as part of the roll-out of this over whatever period until the legislation comes into force. That would allow councils to have a campaign, along with those organisations that provide microchipping at cost price or for free in order to roll it out. A number of people who have already microchipped their dogs will not get as much out of their licence in year one as others in terms of —

1363. Mr W Clarke: So be it; it is done. There is not much you can do about that. If councils have an option to opt out of the service, they may opt out and say: "Listen, we will let them get on with it somewhere else." It may cost someone £20 or £25 to get their dog microchipped. You are encouraging people not to comply, not even to get their dog licensed or microchipped. You have to simplify the system and not punish responsible dog owners.

1364. Mr Mooney: I think that John said it —

1365. Mr W Clarke: But that needs to be in the legislation.

1366. Mr Mooney: I am not sure that a piece of primary legislation is the place to set out what, to all intents and purposes, seems like an approach to the roll-out or the implementation of something. Certainly, we have been talking to the people involved in microchipping and the dog warden services about how this would roll out if it ever came to pass. There is absolutely nothing here to stop such a system being put in place.

1367. Mr W Clarke: I do not want to labour the issue, like a dog with a bone, but there is an inclination for councils to not do that and leave it up to the dog owner to get the dog microchipped. People will then make a good business out of that, and there will be job creation. They will maybe charge people £20. That may happen, and then we will be left with the responsible dog owner on a low wage who is trying to comply. I have been told that a person can be trained to carry out the microchipping process in one hour. There should be an onus on all dog wardens to be able to do that.

1368. Mr Terrington: If compulsory microchipping is introduced we will continue to explore with councils how to roll it out. We have already started that, but obviously we can only go so far until we know whether that or any other aspects of the Bill go forward. We will continue to work with councils on rolling it out. There is at least one council that comes to mind that does this; when people go to get their licence they are given a docket to allow them to get their dog chipped. They say that it works and has had a positive impact in that council area. It is something that councils can do, and some of them are already doing it. We will certainly look at how that could be rolled out in various ways over a period of time.

1369. Mr W Clarke: Can we have more detail on that example and see whether it can be included in this clause?

1370. The Chairperson: Will you provide us with the details of the council that does it?

1371. Ms McMaster: Certainly. In terms of where it goes in the legislation, if it is agreed in the primary legislation that compulsory microchipping be introduced, subordinate legislation will be brought forward to provide the detail of what that means — what is meant by microchipping and how it will function. There will be a further phase of discussion about the more detailed implementation.

1372. Mr W Clarke: Perhaps the Minister could say that that is an option that she is looking at.

1373. Mr Mooney: As opposed to the primary legislation, the secondary legislation expressly deals with the powers of the dog warden in relation to microchipping. Rather than using primary legislation to put a statutory requirement on councils to do something, the secondary legislation would allow us to empower councils to do something, as opposed to making it a requirement that they have to.

1374. Mr Savage: No matter what we do here, it has to be got right. I think Colette summed it up fairly well 20 minutes ago. The number of stray dogs is just not on. If stray dogs are caught and microchipped, wardens should be able to trace them back to an owner. I said it last week, and I make no bones about saying it again. Once it comes into the lambing season — it happens every year, and it does not get any better — if those stray dogs are chipped it will be possible to trace them back to the owner. That is the only way you are going to stop this. People talk about responsible dog owners. If a person is allowed to keep a dog they will have to have it chipped, so that there is a means of identification of it and it can be traced.

1375. It has to be got right, and there is a big onus on this Committee, the Department and the councils. I am glad to see that there will be no extra costs, because if we can get it streamlined there is an opportunity to do something and bring it into line with modern technology. There is a wee thing that you can get, and if you see a dog you can put it on it and it will tell you who owns it; it should come up on a wee screen. I understand there are wee mobile ones; I saw one of them. It has to be got right. There are a lot of things coming back and, since the last time you were here, Colette, there has been a lot of sound information. You are not too far away from getting it right.

1376. The Chairperson: OK. I do not detect a question there, so we will move to Willie Irwin.

1377. Mr Irwin: We are told that one of the main reasons to have compulsory microchipping is to cut the number of stray dogs. I think that there is a possibility that it will help in some way, but my concern is that almost half of dogs — 45% — are currently not licensed, and the licence is only £5. If we increase the cost of a licence to whatever and make microchipping compulsory, responsible dog owners will adhere to that and pay the licence fee and microchip the dog. However, I very much doubt that the 45% of dogs currently unlicensed are going to be licensed and microchipped. Whether it is compulsory or not, how do you police it? It may be OK in theory, but in practice, unless there are some clear, heavy penalties for not doing it, I think that many of those people will just continue as they were and not licence or microchip the dog.

1378. Mr Mooney: Yes, the penalty will be a maximum fine of £1,000. The aim of the Bill is to increase the fixed penalties available; to increase the level and allow councils to keep that income, because they cannot currently do so. That in itself will increase the deterrent and improve the resources available to the enforcer. I think that that is the crux of what the Bill is trying to do.

1379. Mr Irwin: I know what it is trying to do.

1380. Mr Terrington: The other thing is that, as we have said, a number of people every year are prosecuted or handed fixed penalties for not having a licence.

1381. Mr Irwin: That is a very small number.

1382. Mr Mooney: There are 600 or 700 fixed penalties issued each year for not having a licence.

1383. Mr Irwin: How many dogs are unlicensed?

1384. Mr Mooney: Approximately 80,000, we think. It is hard to get robust statistics.

1385. Mr Terrington: But the issue is that that does happen. In each of those cases, the dog will be required to be microchipped the next time around, so you increase the compliance as you go forward, coupled with the increased resource and the increased deterrent. As you said, deterrent is a key point.

1386. Mr Irwin: I have no doubt about that. In theory, it sounds good, but in practice I have doubts. It will take some time.

1387. Mr Terrington: There is recognition that these things take time. People will realise that there are higher fines and that enforcement is there.

1388. Mr Irwin: It is still quite difficult to prove. If have seen situations where there was an accident involving a dog, and a car was damaged. They go to the man who owns the dog, and he says "I don't own the dog."

1389. Mr Terrington: If the dog was microchipped, it would be identified.

1390. Mr Irwin: I understand that fully.

1391. Mr Terrington: The last comment that the Dogs Trust made to us in past conversations is that we cannot make it any worse. If we start to identify more and more dogs, then that gap between the number of dogs that are unidentifiable in times like that or times when they have been seized as strays to be put down is narrowed.

1392. Mr Mooney: It might be worth saying that it is not just about those owners and dogs where a formal penalty has been imposed who will come into contact with dog warden services for lacking a licence. The wardens issue a couple of thousand written warnings a year to people for not having a licence. If those dogs were not microchipped, they would be sucked into that system as well.

1393. Mr Molloy: Did you say that there would be a £1,000 fine for not having a licence?

1394. Mr Mooney: Yes.

1395. Mr Molloy: Are we talking about draconian laws here? A thousand pounds for not having a licence for a dog?

1396. Mr Mooney: That has been the law since —

1397. Mr Molloy: Aye, but, you know, what are the possibilities of that being implemented, to start off with?

1398. Mr Mooney: No one has ever been —

1399. Mr Molloy: No, no one has ever actually been. We find that animals that are very valuable can be involved in an accident in the road, finish up with no ear tags and end up in the river or some other place. I think we will see a lot more dogs in the same situation. Your legislation will not have advanced the process one iota.

1400. Ms McMaster: With regard to incentives, concessions are being offered on the licence fee, pegging the level of the fee at £5 for older people or for those on income-related benefits. That is an incentive to encourage people to microchip their dogs.

1401. Mr Terrington: It is also worth saying that the fixed penalties seem to be in line with other areas. Licensing penalties tend to be about £1,000. Therefore, it is in line with environmental issues, litter and things like that. It sits in there because it relates to other similar matters.

1402. Mr Molloy: It is meaningless in the first place, so it does not make any difference. It just looks good.

1403. Mr Beggs: Mention was made of the fees in the primary legislation. Why are fee levels included in primary legislation? I was formerly on the Environment Committee, and one of the issues that arose there was of someone, after a large number of years, deciding that they had to increase their fees. Instead of having a relatively small inflationary increase annually or every couple of years, there was a huge jump in planning fees. Why are you putting figures in primary legislation? Will you have to bring more primary legislation to adjust those figures in 10 years' time?

1404. Mr Terrington: The 1983 Order set a fee, because there was a need to see what that was and have it discussed at an early stage, and it is there now. That primary legislation allows for the Assembly to raise those fees, with the agreement of the Department of Finance and Personnel and the like. That could be done. Given that we are having a bigger conversation about microchipping, control conditions and various other things, we thought that it was important to move forward and to not just increase that last year by subordinate legislation, but to include it on the Bill, because it is already there. However, we will not have to bring primary legislation back again in order to increase it. The Bill allows for that to happen through subordinate legislation.

1405. Mr T Clarke: I apologise for being late, in case someone has already asked this. In relation to microchipping, your response to the need for a central database is that it is unnecessary and the licensing and identification functions are already provided in the existing regions. Do you accept that the current arrangements are not necessarily satisfactory, and that may be one of the reasons why some councils who have commented on the issue of micrcochipping have been put off?

1406. Mr Terrington: The straight answer is that we think that the database is working. The Committee will have heard evidence from others that the database works: it is a single point of contact, it carries the information that is needed, and it is out there. To replace that with something else at the taxpayers' expense is not the right way forward.

1407. Mr T Clarke: Your response to that is probably in defence of the Department. However, it is the councils that have managed dog licensing for a number of years, and while I am sometimes critical of what councils do, I would have thought that they should have more expertise than departmental officials in how that system works. If they have said that the system is going to be difficult for them to interpret and to get the information from, surely the Department will roll out a centralised system to a central council in Northern Ireland.

1408. Mr Mooney: We are talking about two separate things: the licensing system, which they administer now, and microchipping.

1409. Mr T Clarke: That is not here as a requirement.

1410. Mr Mooney: We have heard from council officials that problems crop up when trying to identify a dog on the microchip database. We have then heard from the Dogs Trust that those problems are mistakes.

1411. Mr T Clarke: That is because the Dogs Trust runs its own system.

1412. Mr Mooney: We have also heard it from other people.

1413. Mr T Clarke: Do you not accept that one centralised system for councils in Northern Ireland would be better than various systems where they can get easy access to the information? Part of the reason for this is to make dogs easier to identify. Surely we should go the whole hog to make them easier to identify, as opposed to making it convoluted and more difficult.

1414. Ms McMaster: The systems that are currently used include a number of commercial databases in the UK and other EU countries. They operate EU-wide in terms of the EU pet movement controls. The same databases are accessed to retrieve information about microchip details of dogs across the EU. There is a single portal where you can carry out a search across the range of databases. There is no need to try several various databases to find the information on a particular dog; as I understand it, there is a single portal that can be used to search, and that is EU-wide.

1415. Mr T Clarke: Where is the councils' confusion coming from?

1416. Mr Mooney: It could be as simple as the fact that some people are not as familiar with the current state of the system as others. A council like Omagh, which John was talking about earlier, has been over the moon about microchipping and has been microchipping dogs itself for years now. Some think the system is brilliant and others think there are glitches in it, but we are persuaded by the stakeholders' submissions that the system will work much better that way.

1417. Mr Terrington: It is worthy of comment that technical issues were raised in responses to our consultation, including the Committee's response. The Bill and the subordinate legislation that Martin referred to seek to address some of that in relation to the powers of a council, what information should be held on the database and things like that. No council said that microchipping does not help to identify dogs. There will be some occasions on which the owner is not traceable —

1418. Mr T Clarke: Some of them did not say that it would help identify them and did not say that it would not help identify them. They identified difficulties with the system. That is one of the issues that have arisen during this inquiry. There is a problem, so surely we should fix the problem, and that will make the dogs easier to identify. Then you might actually tick a box, as opposed to leaving a box blank.

1419. Mr Terrington: Although we have given reasons why a central one is not necessary, there is a concern that some of the issues that they are raising — if they are issues — could be issues with any database, such as whether the information is up to date. We do not think that those are issues for the current databases, so we do not think there is any need to try to address them by setting up another system somewhere else at a cost.

1420. Mr Savage: Would it not be better, simpler and handier for everybody to state that if a person wants to keep a dog, they have to have it licensed and chipped? End of story.

1421. Mr Terrington: That is what the Bill proposes.

1422. Mr Savage: I think that is what has to be done. We have to face the reality.

1423. Mr Terrington: In Wales, for example, they are looking at consulting on new minimum standards for breeding rules, including a specific requirement that breeders must microchip dogs. The systems that they are saying that those microchips should adhere to are the existing systems; ditto the control conditions proposals. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 requires links to the systems that are already out there. As Colette said, the system worked for rabies control through the introduction of pet passports across Europe. They are tried and tested; this is not new. Greyhound legislation in England also links to microchips and existing databases.

1424. The Chairperson: We have debated the issue extensively, but, probably against my better judgement, I will give Mr Molloy one quick comment.

1425. Mr Molloy: It is important that this Committee listens. I have listened to Mr Savage's replies to a number of different things this morning. It is important that members sitting here listen to what is being said by all the different parties. The councils have said that there will be an additional cost to ratepayers in their areas. There is this idea that automatically chipping and licensing everything will solve the problem. We know that it does not solve the problem at the moment, because the licensing system has been there for a number of years, it has not licensed every dog in the country. What is actually going to change? We talked about microchipping in Wales, which does not have a licensing system, so you are saying that you do not have to have both systems; you can have one or the other. It is grand for people to come here saying that they will do everything to protect the farmers and that that will solve everybody else's problems. The same thing applies to farming; we know rightly that various people do not comply with all the regulations.

1426. Mr T Clarke: I do not want to get into an argument with other members. In principle, I support microchipping, and I believe that licensing has not worked because dog tags are easy to remove. Therefore, to a degree, I agree with George. The only problem I have is that if we proceed with microchipping, we will still need to do something to encourage councils and to make the system easier to manage. If councils are still concerned about the system, the Department needs to do something to address that and to make the system more readable.

1427. Mr Terrington: I am absolutely content to say that we have worked with councils, and we will continue to work with them if the legislation is enacted. It would be entirely wrong to bring anything forward without us continuing in that role.

1428. Mr Mooney: The very good work that we do is their reassurance.

1429. The Chairperson: Are you content, therefore, to make the clause dormant until appropriate processes and procedures are developed to allow the functional operation of microchipping?

1430. Mr Terrington: The Bill provides for a commencement date, so it can be commenced. We will certainly go back to the Minister, because that or any clause can be held back and commenced using a commencement note.

1431. Mr Molloy: On commencement, is it not also possible to start microchipping all new pups? The lifespan of a dog is limited, and a number of them have already been microchipped, so would it not be sensible for breeders to microchip all new dogs? Therefore, as part of a natural process, it would take a few years to implement, which means that existing dog owners would not have to do it.

1432. The Chairperson: We will ask the Department to explore that.

1433. Mr Beggs: Omagh District Council was mentioned. I appreciate that I have been on the Committee for only a few weeks, but if that is the one area in Northern Ireland in which a licensing system operates and dogs with which the council comes into contact are automatically microchipped, presumably with owners' permission, it is important that we hear evidence from that council. Has it given evidence to the Committee? Rather than hearing third-hand via the Department, if that council is saying that microchipping has had a significant effect on the number of stray dogs in the area, I would like to hear that information directly from it. Have we had that evidence?

1434. The Committee Clerk: I would need to check.

1435. Mr Beggs: If not, can we seek evidence directly?

1436. Mr Terrington: We provided the Committee with copies of all our consultation responses, including the one from Omagh District Council, so the Committee should have something to that effect.

1437. Mr Molloy: If the Department was to provide us with the number of stray dogs in each council area, we would know how effective the system is in Omagh compared to other areas.

1438. The Chairperson: Now that we have heard the Department's thoughts on the matter, are members content with the clause as it stands, or do you wish to see it amended, and if so, how?

1439. Mr W Clarke: I just want clarification on the one-stop shop and on whether microchipping will be included in the licence fee. All that would be under the Omagh stuff. I do not want to be hoodwinked and, later on, people are charged £20 to have their dog microchipped.

1440. The Chairperson: Are members content to wait for that information? I remind you that we are up against it.

1441. Mr Molloy: There are two bits of information. I would not be happy with a dual system of licensing and microchipping, and the evidence that we have heard from a number of organisations suggests that there is no need for a dual system. Let us just call the other a tax, rather than putting it in as regards licence fees and microchipping.

1442. Mr T Clarke: If we go with microchipping, which is the most difficult form of identification to remove, should the tag not be an identifiable thing that comes free with it? When you get your dog microchipped, a tag would be a visible way for people in the area to see that it is licensed, as opposed to charging separately for it. That way you have the technology in the dog, which will not be as easy to remove, and the identifying mark for the wider public to say: "Well, his or her dog is not licensed because it has not got a tag", and they can raise their concerns with a warden to have that dog checked.

1443. Mr Terrington: The two systems are not the same. One is about registration; it is a licence to own a dog. The other is about identification. The 1983 Order recognises that registration in itself does not identify a dog's owner, and it then requires that dog owners maintain the tag. Some councils made the point in consultation that having a tag and a microchip is duplication, because they are two bits of identification. Others would say that that is a useful thing, because people —

1444. Mr T Clarke: But it is not the same. A microchip is not identification if you cannot see it.

1445. Mr Terrington: Absolutely. The requirement for tags in dogs legislation is in the subordinate legislation. One requirement for licensing is a dog tag. Nothing in the Bill changes that. Some councils said that if microchipping came forward, they would save a small amount of money in not having to issue tags. Others say that the tags are a useful visual. We support that, and there is no suggestion of changing that. The tag and the microchip would sit side by side if the Bill was to go forward.

1446. The Chairperson: OK, we will stop it there. Will the Department bring the information required for next week? I remind members that we have to make a decision on this clause next week. We move now to clause 3. Members expressed a view at the last meeting that they wished to see the specific legislation removed from the 1983 Order.

1447. The Minister, we are led to believe, does not propose to bring forward an amendment that would legalise pit bulls, and she has make clear her determination to protect the vulnerable, particularly children, from dog attacks that may lead to serious injury or death, based on evidence that such dogs have a high pain threshold and a jaw structure developed specifically for fighting. Does the Department want to add to that?

1448. Ms McMaster: The Minister is not minded to change the ban on pit bulls, and the Bill proposes to maintain that ban on the type of dogs that are bred for fighting. In the Bill, the Minister also wants to extend the controls on dogs that have problem behaviour or could be dangerous. That is the new system of control conditions that is proposed in the Bill. That system will apply to any dog, of whatever breed, whose behaviour has shown that it poses a risk to the public. The Bill proposes to retain the ban on pit bull-type dogs, plus it introduces a system of control conditions that will apply to dogs of any breed.

1449. Mr Molloy: Again, that is contrary to the evidence that we have heard from vets, breeders and various organisations. It is a false thing; it does not protect the vulnerable. It actually makes people more vulnerable, because they think that because a dog is not licensed and is walking about, it is a safe dog, whereas in reality, as we have heard, any dog can be a dangerous dog. It is the individual dog, not the particular breed. That is an illusion that people are living under. The fact is that pit bulls are named, yet courts, councils and various bodies cannot identify what pit bulls are.

1450. That then involves additional costs for councils, which have to pay for the impounding of those dogs while the decision is made, and that could, as we heard, cost up to £10,000. Why should councils have to deal with legislation that is not clear? There is no clear identification of what make or breed a pit bull is.

1451. If we have the deed of the dog and the dog actually put down where it is a dangerous dog, that is a more efficient way of dealing with the issue and more protection to the vulnerable than simply naming a breed of dog. It may be good PR and more popular to name pit bulls, and that falls into the line of just responding to people's worst fears, but it does not deal with reality.

1452. Mr T Clarke: I tend to agree. I declare an interest as a member of Antrim Borough Council who has been involved in a very lengthy court case over the definition of a "dangerous dog" or a "pit bull-type" dog. There are thugs running the streets with Rottweilers and all other sorts of dogs that are equally as dangerous as pit bulls. Although I think that we need to get something in here that protects the public from dangerous dogs, labelling just one type of dog will not fill the gap. As a local councillor, Chairperson, you know the difficulty that many councils have had in that regard. There was mention of kennelling dogs, and there is a so-called expert that is brought over from London to try to say that a dog is not a pit bull-type dog and so on. There is no definitive definition. If this legislation goes through, councils will be in no safer a position than they were in before it started. Many of us had hoped that the Bill would offer protection to the wider public and would help councils by providing a definition of a "dangerous dog". This here is not that.

1453. The Chairperson: What about a dog such as a Great Dane? It has greater bulk than other dogs and could knock a person down.

1454. Ms McMaster: As I said at the start, the Bill is proposing to introduce a series of control conditions that can apply to any breed of dog. If a Great Dane jumps on someone and knocks them down, specific control conditions can be applied to that dog's licence with which the owner must comply. That applies to any breed of dog. Over and above the current ban on pit bull-type dogs, a system of control conditions will be introduced that will apply to dogs of any breed that are threatening or that present a risk to the public.

1455. Mr W Clarke: There are two sides to the argument, and they are both justified. Four breeds are currently banned, and I understand where the Minister is coming from; we have to protect the vulnerable and children, who could lose their lives if attacked by a dog of one of those breeds. However, within each breed, there are good dogs. The problem is that there are bad owners. Is it possible to put automatic control conditions on those breeds, be it with children or out in public? Is it possible to look at that as a compromise position on which to move forward?

1456. Mr Terrington: The answer at the moment is no. An offence would have to be committed under the control conditions; for example, the dog would have to attack or snap at somebody. Placing control conditions on a dog that has not done anything and has not committed an offence would be difficult in terms of human rights.

1457. Mr W Clarke: But you have already said that you are banning them, and that presents difficulties for human rights.

1458. Mr Terrington: That has been tested in the European Court of Human Rights and is fine.

1459. Mr W Clarke: Put a muzzle on them.

1460. Mr Terrington: There would have to be a ban in the first place. The current legislation allows for that, and there is some tidying-up of that in the Bill. It is actually an unexempted pit bull terrier. There is a process through which a dog can be exempted from destruction if certain strict criteria are met and the court is happy that that particular dog does not pose a risk. There is something in there already.

1461. Mr W Clarke: Just to clarify for myself: at the moment, four breeds are banned, and you are saying that it is not possible for the new legislation to say that, instead of banning those breeds, control conditions should be placed on them. You are saying that that is not possible?

1462. Ms McMaster: We are saying that, if there is a ban —

1463. Mr W Clarke: I am saying that we should lift the ban and put control conditions on those breeds.

1464. Mr Terrington: It remains as breed-specific legislation, but that does not mean that those dogs are necessarily put down. However, if the court process and the exemption process are gone through, that would not necessarily be the outcome anyway. It is also —

1465. Mr W Clarke: But they would not be banned; there would be no court process. I am saying that you should put conditions on those four breeds of dogs.

1466. Ms McMaster: That would be treating those types of dogs differently from any other breed of dogs.

1467. Mr W Clarke: You are doing that anyway, by banning them.

1468. Ms McMaster: For the other dogs that may present a risk to the public, we are saying that a dog must have demonstrated threatening behaviour before it has those control conditions imposed on it. You are saying that the four breeds that are currently banned could have the ban lifted and certain control conditions automatically imposed on them. That would still be making a difference between those four breeds and the range of other dogs that would have to demonstrate threatening behaviour before having control conditions placed on them.

1469. Mr W Clarke: That is a more sensible approach. As others have said, all dogs are capable of biting, but the four breeds have been identified as more dangerous; if they attack, they will kill. That is where we are coming from. I am looking at a halfway house where people can enjoy pit bulls that have never caused a problem. Responsible dog owners should be allowed to do that. They would accept having to put muzzles on their dogs and not allowing them to play with young children. That type of condition is sensible. To say that you cannot put that in the legislation is a bit strange.

1470. Mr Beggs: I agree that control for any type of dog that misbehaves or threatens others is important. However, I also agree with the Minister that if there are certain breeds that are of higher risk, it is appropriate that the public be made aware of those risks. A ban or possible restriction on their movement in public — muzzling et cetera — is appropriate. From what I have heard to date, I am content with the Minister's proposals.

1471. Mr Gibson: I go along with those views. There are dogs that have greater potential to do damage than others. That is a fact. They have the capacity to do greater damage than others, and that has to be recognised.

1472. I welcome what we have heard today. Having said that, basing it on the deed — waiting until the dog has demonstrated its capacity to do something before restrictions are placed on it — I suppose that there is no easy way around that. There are dogs that have the potential, the capacity, the build and the bone structure, which was referred to earlier, to do great damage. We have to be very mindful of that. Putting restrictions on those dogs leaves us with the problem of policing them. I welcome the comments that I have heard this morning and concur with the Deputy Chairperson.

1473. Mr Savage: I agree with Roy and Simpson. People have to be made aware. There are pit bulls and Rottweilers. I regularly meet a girl who has six big Rottweilers; she has them well trained and well under control, three in each hand. If anything happened to one of those dogs, the rest of them would go off the handle just like that. They scare me, and I am not easily scared. There has to be some legislation. The Minister is not too far away in what she has said in her statement.

1474. Mr T Clarke: That is why I do not disagree entirely. My only problem is that we are still talking about specific breeds. It might be a useful exercise for the Department to bring us pictures of what they believe pit bull-type terriers to be and send them to some behavioural experts and ask them what type of dogs are in the pictures. You will find that we are in the same scenario and do not know what those dogs are, because they do not have a specific breed.

1475. This all sounds good in an ideal world, with the people out there all love and fair, declaring that their dog is a pit bull and that they will take all those measures. However, we are not in an ideal world, and the people who have these dogs have them for the wrong reasons, for fighting and everything else. We will still be in the same position, and councils will be in the same difficulty, because there is nothing to identify one breed from another when it is expert against expert.

1476. It would be useful for the Department to get us some pictures. We could send them to some of these so-called experts who have come to represent those dangerous dogs against councils, to see whether we can get a consensus on what types of dogs we are talking about.

1477. The Chairperson: You talked about an ideal world, Mr Clarke. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, and time constraints are against us. Is the Committee content —

1478. Mr T Clarke: Chairman, hold on. Time constraints might be against us, but does that mean that we rush on to get the wrong piece of legislation, as opposed to taking a wee bit longer and getting the right piece of legislation?

1479. The Chairperson: Absolutely not. I was going to suggest that the Committee Clerk do some work and bring us back more information next week, especially about the suggestion that Mr Clarke made earlier. Are members content that we do that?

1480. Mr Molloy: Of the four breeds that are named, the pit bull is the one that mostly comes to mind. But see this emotive language in the responses, particularly talk about children suffering dog attacks that may lead to serious injury or death? A corgi could do the same with a child. This idea of just naming certain dogs, and those are the only dogs that actually do that, is rubbish.

1481. We have seen terriers, and all sorts of wee dogs. In fact, some of the smallest dogs are the worst at biting the heels of people. We are talking about reality here. If we want to come out with legislation that does protect, we will come up with it. However, if want just to rush this legislation through, we will finish up with legislation that is unworkable, and unworkable for councils.

1482. The Department wants the legislation through, and will not care what way it is done. It will just leave it to the councils to implement. That is where the problem lies. There needs to be an admission from the Department that Rottweilers and all sorts of dogs have the capacity, in the right circumstances, to injure anyone, and have a jaw structure and all the rest of it that is strong enough to cause serious injury to anyone. So, we need to have a wee bit of reality and not give people a false sense that the country is safe simply because you ban pit bulls and another couple of types of dogs, and none of those dogs are knocking about. What are the four breeds listed?

1483. Mr Mooney: The Japanese Tosa, the Fila Braziliero, the Dogo Argentino and the pit bull terrier.

1484. Mr T Clarke: Where does the Rottweiler fit in?

1485. Ms McMaster: The Rottweiler is not a banned breed.

1486. Mr T Clarke: No, it is not a banned breed, but in relation to dangerous dogs?

1487. Ms McMaster: Clause 8 is the clause that —

1488. Mr T Clarke: Yes, after it has attacked somebody.

1489. Mr Terrington: To be fair, an attack is defined in the 1983 Order as the apprehension of an attack. So, literally any dog that snaps at somebody, even on a leash, could, theoretically, breach the legislation, and could therefore have a control condition on it. Other control conditions are for if it strays, or for other offences under the Bill. The control conditions are known in some media circles as the doggy ASBO. It is in the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and a private Member's Bill in England as a way to deal with the deed, recognising that all dogs can have that extra level of protection, aside from whether there is a prohibition on particular breeds.

1490. Mr Molloy: We all know that those who want to breed dogs for fighting can do so. Various cross-breeds will fight. We cannot rule it all out. You label and name some dogs in the legislation. Next week, someone else will breed a different dog.

1491. The Chairperson: OK. Are members content that the Committee Clerk does some more work on that and brings it back to us next week?

1492. Members indicated assent.

1493. The Chairperson: Clause 4 is about fees. We had considerable discussion this morning about fees. Are we content that we leave that one and move on to clause 5?

1494. Mr Beggs: I want to clarify 4(3):

"The appropriate fee is £5 in the case of —

"a licence issued to a person over the age of 65, other than a licence falling within paragraph (2)(a)".

Do we not need an additional comment to state that that applies to a license issued to a person over 65 and kept by that person? Is there a danger that family members may get all of their dogs licensed through an older relative to save money, rather than appropriately licensing dogs according to who looks after them? They might not even be kept in that person's house.

1495. Mr Terrington: It says "kept by that person", which covers that.

1496. Mr Beggs: Where does it say "kept by that person"?

1497. Mr Mooney: The 1983 Order itself states that councils should issue licences:

"for dogs kept by persons resident in their districts."

You have to be the keeper of the dog.

1498. Mr Beggs: But that is not referred to in the Bill. Does it need to be referred to?

1499. Mr Terrington: The Bill will just amend the 1983 Order, so anything already in that Order will stay in place.

1500. The Chairperson: We are doing some extra work on clause 5, which deals with breed-specific legislation. If members are content we will leave that and move on to clause 6, which deals with setting on or urging a dog to attack.

1501. Ms McMaster: The Committee had asked if the Department would make this clause subject to affirmative resolution rather than negative resolution. That was the first point that was raised by the Committee. I can confirm that the Department will bring forward a draft amendment to make that subject to the draft affirmative control procedures. That was one element that we just wanted to confirm. That is the approach that we use in relation to affirmative —

1502. The Chairperson: Are you prepared to bring the text of that to the next meeting?

1503. Ms McMaster: We will certainly provide that.

1504. Mr Gibson: In relation to setting a dog on another person, I presume that that does not prohibit me from protecting my property at 1.00 am if someone gains illegal entry and I have an Alsatian.

1505. Mr Mooney: There is a specific defence of trespassing in the 1983 Order.

1506. Mr T Clarke: Does it allow for that?

1507. Mr Terrington: It acts as a defence. It includes setting on or allowing a dog to attack. The Bill will not change anything in relation to a dog attack on another person or a dog attacking or worrying livestock.

1508. Mr Gibson: If, at 1.00 am, I felt it necessary to set the dog on and encourage it after someone had broken into my property, would I be within my rights to do that?

1509. Mr Mooney: There is a defence in the 1983 Order where the "victim" is trespassing.

1510. Mr Terrington: It is certainly a defence if your dog attacks; that may be different from setting on. There are two bits, and perhaps we need clarity. There are two bits in the Bill about setting on a dog and being the owner of a dog that has attacked. Without doubt, the trespass defence would cover you in relation to the second one. If someone is on your property and your dog attacks them, there is no offence committed.

1511. Mr Gibson: What about the setting on bit?

1512. Mr Mooney: I do not think that there is an explicit defence if you actually set your dog on a trespasser. That is different.

1513. Mr Terrington: You can probably recognise the subtle differences between the two separate offences, as the Bill does.

1514. Mr T Clarke: So the clause is referring to setting on or urging a dog to attack?

1515. Mr Terrington: There are two clauses — clauses 6 and 7. Clause 6 relates to setting on or urging a dog to attack. The 1983 Order sets out two offences: setting on or urging a dog to attack — that is split into people and livestock — and a lesser or separate offence of being the owner of a dog that attacks or worries. It is a control issue, as opposed to being about setting your dog on someone. The clause that we are referring to extends the offences of setting on and of owning a dog that attacks to other dogs, because there is no offence at the moment for a dog that attacks another dog. The new clause simply takes the offences of attacking or worrying people or livestock and adds to that attacks on other dogs.

1516. Mr Beggs: I want you to specifically highlight the defence, because I want to be reassured that a pensioner who lives alone and has a dog for company and security will not be prosecuted for using their dog to ensure that an intruder leaves their premises. Where is the defence?

1517. Mr Mooney: It is article 29(3) of the 1983 Order.

1518. Mr Beggs: Does that not just refer to livestock issues?

1519. Mr Terrington: No:

"Except where a person causes a dog to attack some other person or to worry livestock, he shall not be guilty of an offence under this Article by reason of anything done by the dog if at the material time that other person or the livestock are trespassing".

1520. Mr Beggs: I am looking at the wrong part.

1521. Mr Terrington: That is already in the 1983 Order, and we do not propose to change that. The only difference is that, as well as attacking people and worrying livestock, we will bring in attacks on another dog, and then the same things all fall out after that, such as trespass and the offences and requirements, because it is just building on what is already here.

1522. The Chairperson: I will ask the Clerk to read the paragraph for the benefit of members.

1523. The Committee Clerk: Subject to clause 7, article 29(3) will state:

"Except where a person causes a dog to attack some other person or another dog or to worry livestock, he shall not be guilty of an offence under this Article by reason of anything done by the dog if at the material time that other person, that other dog or the livestock are trespassing on land occupied by that person and the dog is kept by, or in the charge of, the occupier of that land or in the charge of a person authorised by him to remove that other person, that other dog or the livestock from the land."

1524. Mr Beggs: Thank you.

1525. The Chairperson: Does the Department want to speak to any other issues in relation to the clause?

1526. Ms McMaster: When we were last with the Committee, members had asked that the clause be extended to other companion animals beyond dogs. It could be extended, but we would like to seek clarity from the Committee that it would like to have that extended.

1527. Mr Molloy: What are we talking about?

1528. Mr Terrington: We are talking about the offence of setting a dog onto another animal, except for livestock, which is already covered under the worrying provisions of the 1983 Order.

1529. The Chairperson: Are members content?

1530. Ms McMaster: Are we talking about companion animals generally?

1531. Mr Terrington: I think something that would avoid wild animals in definition is what we —

1532. Mr T Clarke: "Domestic pets" would cover it.

1533. Mr Terrington: That would be the sort of definition that could come forward.

1534. The Committee Clerk: There was concern that the current definition or restriction would not have taken in other companion pets, such as cats, for example. Members expressed a desire to see it extended to include other companion pets. The Department is now suggesting that that might be possible if members are content.

1535. The Chairperson: Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

1536. Ms McMaster: We can bring forward text in that regard.

1537. The Chairperson: We will await that next week. Thank you.

1538. We will now move to clause 8, which relates to control conditions on dog licences. If we can ask the Department to come in —

1539. Mr Terrington: Just to go back, there is a second clause related to that: clause 7. Although the Committee passed over that last week, I will go back to it for clarity. Rather than dealing with setting on, clause 7 is about owning a dog that attacks another dog, which parallels the owning of a dog that attacks a person or owning a dog that worries livestock, separate from the act of setting a dog. We want to get the view of the Committee on whether that extension to companion animals should apply to clause 7 as well, or just clause 6. If it is about the control of the dog by the owner, it seems to be a possible route.

1540. The Chairperson: That seems logical.

1541. Mr Molloy: Is that workable? If a dog goes after a cat, as it will, how realistic is it that someone can be prosecuted?

1542. Mr Mooney: It is the same as with sheep. You could prosecute on the same kind of evidential basis.

1543. Mr Terrington: It is also worth saying that, when we consulted on the measure, there were concerns about the subjectivity of the enforcer in cases where a dog attacks another dog. The Bill has taken account of that and requires that the dogs must be owned by different people, so you cannot have dogs squaring up in-house, and that actual injury is caused. That could be extended to the cat analogy; injury would have to be caused, which would start the evidence trail. It is not just chasing, and the cat running up a tree. That is a move from what was consulted on to recognise the potential for subjectivity. As Martin said, the evidence is the same as what you would gather if a sheep or a person had been attacked, although a person can give evidence.

1544. Mr Molloy: Will further legislation be required to cover incitement by cartoonists making 'Tom and Jerry' films, and things like that, in the future?

1545. The Chairperson: That is not within the scope of this Bill, so we will leave it there.

1546. Mr Beggs: I support making it an offence to set a dog to attack another companion animal. I have no difficulty there. However, if a dog chases a cat of its own volition and there is a scrap that results in injury to the cat, will the dog have to be put down? There is a certain amount of instinct in cats and dogs, as we know from 'Tom and Jerry'. You could be pushing too far there. How can anybody stop a dog chasing a cat? Will a dog be put down for chasing a cat? Is that what we are talking about?

1547. Mr Terrington: There are two points. Even if a dog attacks a person, it is not necessarily put down, so one cannot assume that a dog that attacks a cat will be put down.

1548. Mr Mooney: The dog would not be put down. That is not available.

1549. Mr Beggs: But you could not own it.

1550. Mr Terrington: You could take somebody through the courts for an offence, but the council could put on some of the control conditions to bring the dog under control — the relationship between the dog and its owner. The problem is not that the owner allowed his or her dog to run up a tree; it is that they are not controlling the dog to the point where it caused injury to another animal.

1551. Mr Beggs: Would this have to be in a public place, as opposed to a cat coming into somebody's back yard?

1552. Mr Mooney: The trespasser defence that we have just discussed would apply in those cases.

1553. Mr Molloy: So, the cat would be trespassing.

1554. Mr Beggs: I am a little bit nervous that we are taking legislation too far here.

1555. Mr T Clarke: Is the issue not about the control of the dog? If the dog is under your control, there should not be an issue. The only way that a dog can attack is if it is roaming by itself.

1556. Mr Beggs: You have to keep it under control in public places.

1557. The Chairperson: Are members content that clause 7 be dealt with in the same way as clause 6?

1558. Members indicated assent.

1559. The Chairperson: Clause 8 deals with control conditions on dog licences.

1560. Ms McMaster: As we discussed earlier, this clause introduces new powers for dog wardens to impose control conditions on problem dogs, whatever their breed. That will be a way for dog wardens to deal with dogs that show dangerous or threatening behaviour or that present a risk to the public. The intention is that the dog warden can impose specific conditions on the licence for that particular dog. The clause spells out those available conditions and the appeal mechanisms.

1561. The Committee asked the Department to consider what guidance could be made available to enforcement officers and to make it available as soon as possible. The Department can confirm that we are already engaged with dog warden service representatives in discussing the sort of guidance that will be needed across the whole range of the Bill's provisions, and the intention is that guidance will be agreed before the provisions of the Bill are commenced.

1562. The Chairperson: Are members content to agree the clause?

1563. Ms McMaster: The Committee asked for an additional condition to be considered in respect of education and training courses to be provided. The Department has looked at that, and we can bring forward an amendment to the Bill to include a requirement that a dog and its owner undergo a suitable course of training.

1564. The Chairperson: Are members content to agree the clause?

Members indicated assent.

1565. The Chairperson: Clause 9 is about breed-specific legislation, so we will have to come back to that. Clause 14 relates to the amount of a fixed penalty.

1566. Ms McMaster: The Bill proposes an increase in fixed penalties under the 1983 Order to £50. The Committee asked the Department to look at applying the same provisions as in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. In effect, that means that it will provide for a maximum £75 fixed penalty, with reductions for early payments and scope for councils to set different levels of penalties, within limits set by the Department. In effect, that is what the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill proposes. Therefore, it is something that we could do, and we want to seek clarity from the Committee that it wants a parallel with the fixed penalties proposed in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

1567. Mr Savage: I know a person who had a dog. He was addicted to alcohol and confined to his house.

1568. The Chairperson: Is this relevant to the clause, Mr Savage?

1569. Mr Savage: It is very relevant to it. He had to go into hospital, and the big Alsatian was left in the house. There was a whole discussion about what would happen to the dog. In a case like that, does the Department have the power to put that dog down?

1570. Ms McMaster: This is somebody who is seeking to make arrangements for the care of his dog?

1571. Mr Savage: The dog was very quiet, but if you interfered with it, it would save his life, but it would not let anyone intervene between him and the dog. What happens in a case like that? The man then had to go into care.

1572. Mr Terrington: Is the concern for the welfare of the dog?

1573. Mr Savage: Yes.

1574. Mr Terrington: It would not fall under this legislation.

1575. Mr Savage: I am only asking for a point of information. I do not want be awkward.

1576. Mr Terrington: It is about welfare legislation, so I am not sure that we are the best people to answer. If a dog has, in effect, been abandoned, and the owner has not collected it after five or 10 days, it could be put down. Things like that must be taken on a case-by-case basis to see whether something might be done to keep the dog until the owner is able to pick it up. It is not really a dog control issue.

1577. Mr Savage: But when the five days are up, and the person gets out of —

1578. Mr Terrington: The only time that that would have an impact would be if the dog was abandoned. You do not seem to be talking about an abandoned dog.

1579. The Chairperson: Mr Savage, we are straying from the point. If you talk to some of the animal charities, they may be able to help you. At the moment, we are on fixed penalties. Are members content with clause 14?

1580. Mr Molloy: Do you mean the £50?

1581. Mr T Clarke: It is £75.

1582. Mr Molloy: The penalty should be fixed at £50. Variations and discounts only complicate the system for councils. Surely there should be a fixed penalty, and that is it.

1583. The Chairperson: It was the councils that asked for this.

1584. Mr Molloy: Some council officials might have asked for it.

1585. The Chairperson: So we do not have agreement on that?

1586. Mr T Clarke: If we want to stick it at £75 and stay at £75 without any variation, it would keep the two in line. That is what the Committee wanted in relation to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. If they want, in their legislation, powers to reduce that, that is fine, but we just want to stick at £75.

1587. The Chairperson: The idea at the start was to bring it in line with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

1588. Mr T Clarke: It is: £75.

1589. The Committee Clerk: As far as I am aware, there is scope in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill to apply a reduction for quick payment.

1590. Mr Beggs: I came from the Environment Committee, and my memory is that it was setting a maximum fixed penalty, and there was then discretion left to the councils. The councils can set it at £75 for both or £50 for both. I am content with £75.

1591. The Chairperson: Are members content with £75?

1592. Mr Terrington: Does that include scope for early payment and scope for councils to set their own?

1593. Mr T Clarke: It is the maximum amount.

1594. The Chairperson: It is in line with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

1595. Mr Molloy: The briefing paper actually says:

"provides for an increase in fixed penalties under the Dogs Order to £50".

1596. Mr Terrington: That is what the Bill says, but we would be happy to bring forward an amendment in line with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, which specifies a fixed penalty of £75 with the option of discounts for early payment.

1597. Mr T Clarke: The Committee requested that it be aligned with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

1598. Mr Terrington: We are happy to do that.

1599. The Chairperson: Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

1600. The Chairperson: Mr Clarke has requested that we go back to clause 4.

1601. Mr W Clarke: With regard to fees, instead of having to come back next week, it is the point to include an option to offer lifetime licences in the legislation. Will you bring back a final decision next week? Are you going to include it or not?

1602. Mr Terrington: We have discussed that option in detail, and you have heard evidence from a couple of people who were concerned about the loss of the annual income stream, so, at this stage, there is no proposal to put that in the Bill.

1603. Mr W Clarke: Did the Committee take a vote on that? What is the best way to proceed? Perhaps I could talk to the matter first.

1604. The Chairperson: We are waiting for more information, so it will be next week.

1605. Mr T Clarke: If the Bill stands as it is currently drafted, will councils not have the power to make that decision themselves?

1606. Mr Mooney: No. The 1983 Order states that the licence is annual.

1607. The Chairperson: OK.

1608. Mr T Clarke: The reason why the councils do not want to do this is because they believe that it might affect revenue streams. Surely there is a wording that would to satisfy the other member so that councils could. Then it would be up to each council to decide whether it would affect the revenue stream. If the council decides to do it, it is up to the council to do it or not. If the wording was changed to allow them to do it, it would be up to individual councils to decide whether they want to offer lifetime licences, as opposed to our dictating that they cannot. We would be giving councils the opportunity to decide whether they want to do it or not. It should be up to them, because it would be their revenue streams and not the Assembly's that would be affected.

1609. Mr Molloy: Surely they will be getting the money up front.

1610. Mr T Clarke: The dog might never live a lifetime.

1611. Mr Terrington: If they get it up front they can only use it in that year, which means that the year after they do not have any licence fee for that dog. There are other issues, such as whether it is the lifetime of the person or the lifetime of the dog, and a concern that only some people can afford to pay it up front. We also like the idea of an annual application for a licence, which reminds people to make sure their information is up to date, including their microchip information.

1612. The Chairperson: OK, thank you. We are still deliberating on the issue of licences and fees, and we will come back to that. That ends the clause-by-clause consideration of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill. I thank the witnesses who have attended this morning. I inform members and the Department that formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill will be undertaken at the next meeting, scheduled for 9 November. Thank you all for your attendance.

9 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Stephen Moutray (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr P J Bradley
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Simpson Gibson
Mr William Irwin
Mr Kieran McCarthy
Mr Francie Molloy

Witnesses:

Mr Martin Mooney Mr John Terrington

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1613. The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): With us today are John Terrington and Martin Mooney from the Department. Gentlemen, you are welcome once again.

1614. It has been agreed by the Committee that the Department should explore making clause 2 dormant until such times as appropriate processes and procedures are developed to allow for the functional operation of microchipping. At this point, we will bring in the officials. You may want to address the letter from the Department on microchipping and licensing.

1615. Mr John Terrington (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): As we said last week, the Bill allows for a delay in the commencement of any of the clauses; that is possible.

1616. The letter addressed a number of issues that we have dealt with before. For example, we had set out that microchipping and licensing are not the same thing. Microchipping could have some impact on stray numbers, but that is not its only and primary function; the other aspects of the Bill deal more directly with straying. On the resource implications of universal microchipping, in the letter we said that we still do not see that the introduction of compulsory microchipping will in itself place any burden on councils or ratepayers, but that there will be a cost to those dog owners who cannot avail themselves of any of the free services that are out there. Indeed, the regulatory impact assessment that we consulted on suggested that most of the councils that responded were content that the Bill has no additional economic impacts.

1617. We also point out, as we have done before, that non-compliance is an issue. However, non-compliance in any licensing comes down to appropriate enforcement and suitable deterrents, and the Bill tries to address that in some way.

1618. We also set out that we looked at including microchipping in the licence fee in some manner as part of the policy development. However, our concern was that that would transfer the cost to the councils, and the councils did say that if microchipping was to be brought in, it should certainly not fall to them.

1619. Finally, we addressed the issue of banned breeds and suggested that we had looked at all the available options, including an option, on which we consulted, that would remove the need for court cases and some of the costs that the councils had raised as an issue. However, that suggestion was turned down during the consultation and was dropped. Indeed, it became clear that only one council had explicitly called for the repeal of breed-specific legislation (BSL).

1620. We have also tabled the amendments that the Committee asked for: the introduction of training as a control condition; an extension of dog-on-dog attacks to dog-on-companion-animal attacks; the introduction of a fixed penalty regime in line with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill; and amendments with respect to Assembly procedure.

1621. The Chairperson: OK; thank you. Can we just concentrate on clause 2 at the moment? According to the Hansard report of previous Committee meetings, the Department's main justification for clause 2 is that it will make it easier to trace a lost or stolen dog, and the dog licence is an income generator for councils. How do those combined systems meet the public's desire to tackle dangerous dogs and reduce the number of stray animals?

1622. Mr Terrington: In the first instance, being able to identify a dog is about being able to hold an owner accountable. If the owner of a dog that has been involved in an attack can be identified through the microchip, that improves enforcement. The increase in the licence fee will provide additional income to the councils to enforce all the aspects of the Bill.

1623. Straying is also about the accountability of the owner. We are content that straying in and of itself is not helped by microchipping, but the number of strays that need to be destroyed or rehomed because they are unidentified will be helped through compulsory microchipping.

1624. The Chairperson: Is it possible for microchipping databases to be adapted to allow for the registration and the identification of the dog?

1625. Mr Martin Mooney (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): At present, the database operators do not have any statutory obligation to operate a registration system; they basically hold data for the identification of dogs.

1626. The Chairperson: That is the situation at the moment, but could that be provided through this Bill?

1627. Mr Terrington: The first thing is that the registration system — as we have said, and you have fed it back to us —is about income generation. The costs would go to the cost of the microchip and running the microchip databases, whereas the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 provides that licence fees go towards the provision of a warden system and requires councils to have wardens. There is a disjunct in how income could be generated.

1628. Mr Molloy: We have not got a clear answer yet as to why there is a need for both systems. It is a tax-raising power, and that is one aspect in relation to costs, but the licence fee does not come anywhere close to paying for the warden system, even with the increase. It is only a contribution towards it.

1629. The Department continues to say that no additional resources are required. I talked to local government people and NILGA people last week, and they have now realised that additional resources are required for both these Bills and that the consultation was not a full and proper one. There are a number of queries from local government in relation to how it will be implemented.

1630. What you are really talking about is an additional burden on ratepayers from a central or council level. If you are paying a bill, I suppose that it does not make much difference one way or the other, but there has been no link yet, except for bureaucracy. To have microchipping and to have the council paying for the dog warden system through the rates system is probably cheaper than having to administer a licence system as well as the microchipping system, which they have no control over, and they have no control over the database. Instead of civil servants coming here and saying that the present system does not deliver that, we need them to come and say that they can deliver. We get the usual 101 reasons why they cannot do something, but we need one reason why it is needed and how it can be done, and that is not available from you.

1631. Mr Mooney: Microchipping is needed to improve the identification of dogs.

1632. Mr Molloy: Why do you need both systems?

1633. Mr Mooney: Because a registration system does not help to identify the dog. It records details of the ownership of the dog. The microchip actually identifies the dog as being owned by a particular person.

1634. Mr Molloy: There is something missing, because I do not understand. If a microchip can tell you that a dog is owned by a certain person, why do you need a tag on its ear, which can be cut off at any time? It gives you the same information. Why do you need that duplication?

1635. Mr Terrington: Some councils raised that issue. We entirely accept that if there is duplication by the introduction of microchipping, it is the requirement for a dog tag and a microchip. The 1983 Order requires that you register your dog and that the dog be identified through the collar tag. The introduction of compulsory microchipping just moves that into more modern times, rather than having something that, as you said, can be cut off.

1636. I am sure that there are dogs whose collars have been removed, if they ever had one, as the dog is abandoned and there is no link to the owner. Collar tags can fall off and be forgotten. On the other hand, some councils told us that tags provide visual identification that, to all intents and purposes, the dog is licensed. Therefore, the scanner is not required. Some are content with the duplication. Tags allow wardens out on patrol or in vans to identify a dog as entirely under control and not causing anybody harm, because it is tagged and the owner is meeting the requirements of the legislation. However, when the dog is straying or has been involved in an attack and is not tagged, or there is some dispute over ownership, the permanent identification through microchipping on top of that adds to the potential for identifying and holding to account the owner.

1637. Mr Molloy: If microchipping is a good system for tracing a dog, if it is straying, you can scan it and read it, and you do not have to be beside it. With a tag, you have to catch the dog to identify its owner, because you cannot read the tag from a distance. I presume that a scanner can read a microchip from a distance, as with sheep and other animals. However, microchips are not actually implanted into sheep. The information is on a tag, so why not use that system if you want both? If you can do it with sheep, where you can identify the number and herd through a scanner, surely the exact same system can be used for dogs? The Department just does not want to do it. It wants both systems and to be able to say to councils that they can raise revenue. There is no other reason why a system that is already there cannot be adopted.

1638. Mr Terrington: We are quite happy to accept that the licensing and registration regime is there primarily to bring in income. That is what the 1983 Order did. It does, through subordinate legislation, allow for identification. There are pros and cons to maintaining that separate set of provisions, in terms of a neighbour being able to return a dog because it has a name and address on it.

1639. Our understanding from wardens is that owners who are fully compliant, who accompany their dogs or walk them on a lead, whose dogs are not causing anybody any hassle, and whose dogs have tags will never be approached by a warden.

1640. Mr Molloy: I raised this issue a couple of weeks ago and did not get a response from the Department. I know of a case of six dogs, which were licensed, harassing a care dog. When the care dog's owner reported that to the council, it said that there was no problem because the dogs involved were licensed. If dogs are harassing other dogs, in this case harassing a guide dog for the blind, it should not matter whether they are licensed or not. Surely, that is the sort of thing that must be stopped. The tag on it does not make any difference.

1641. Mr Terrington: If what was brought to the council was an attack by a dog on another dog, guide dog or otherwise, the council was correct to say that there was nothing that it could do. The Bill seeks to deal with that separately. If this was to be enacted, and if there was a similar case, the council could not pursue the owners for not having a licence, but the owners would be guilty of the offence of owning a dog that had attacked another dog.

1642. Mr Molloy: But unless that dog can be caught, its tag cannot be read, whereas a microchip can be read at a distance.

1643. Mr Terrington: It is going to be very similar. At the end of the day you need to be holding the dog and giving it a scan from within a couple of feet — centimetres to be sure, depending on the power of the scanner.

1644. Mr Molloy: That is the nip of the thing. People have been given the idea that wardens can use microchipping to identify from a distance a dog that is in a fight or kills a sheep. That is now rubbish. You are saying that, no matter how vicious a dog is, the dog warden still has to catch it. Whether a dog has an ear tag or bells on its toes does not make a difference if you cannot catch it. The biggest problem with sheep worrying is that, most times, the dog cannot be caught. Are we any further forward?

1645. Mr Terrington: I certainly do not think that we ever gave the impression that you could do this from a distance.

1646. Mr Molloy: Oh, I think you did.

1647. Mr Terrington: It was always a requirement that you needed to have the dog. The issue of sheep worrying is an interesting one, because evidence is gathered mostly via vets being able to take wool from a dog's mouth to prove that it was involved in an attack. In most cases, it would be a requirement —

1648. Mr Molloy: Mostly, that happens after a dog has been shot. They can pick at it afterwards. At that stage, there is little real benefit in identifying a dog, except to find out its ownership.

1649. Mr Terrington: But that is important —

1650. Mr Molloy: Having a tag and a microchip would not make any difference. One of them would do.

1651. Mr Terrington: In that instance, you are correct. Once you have the dog, it is likely that you would identify its owner from just its tag, without ever going near its microchip. However, the point is that a dog may not have a tag, whereas a microchip is permanent.

1652. Mr W Clarke: Welcome back, gentlemen.

1653. I argued for linking microchips to licences as a one-stop-shop solution, and we discussed that last week to try and get more detail. Francie raised some of the issues, and you also touched on them, around putting a greater burden on councils and the need to perhaps re-consult on that if the amendment is made. I understand where you are coming from on that.

1654. If this is allowed to lie dormant, will guidelines be produced to bring councils along with your thinking and what you are trying to imply with the microchipping? That is what is needed. We touched on the Omagh project and how it is working well. I would like more information on that.

1655. I want to protect the responsible dog owner who will get the dog microchipped, but I do not want him to have a greater financial burden. Maybe the market will lower the price. If more people are microchipping their dogs, the price might be kept to a minimum. There would then be opportunities for councils to enter procurement arrangements in clusters, or all of the councils could come together to purchase microchips. There are opportunities, and that is what I would like to tease out. Dog charities could step up to the plate as well.

1656. Mr Terrington: Absolutely. Whenever this is commenced, be it the day after or any time thereafter, it will be highly appropriate for us to put out guidance to owners and to councils. We have started that process with councils, on all aspects of the Bill. When it starts, that is something that we will be happy to do.

1657. Mr Mooney: Organisations such as the Dogs Trust are in the process of giving microchips to councils. I think that the current project is 400 free microchips each. They have provided training for dog wardens. That is the kind of programme that they are rolling out. We have spoken to them on a number of occasions. They are very committed to compulsory universal microchipping in any kind of dog-owning community across these islands. They look at the roll-out of compulsory microchipping here almost as a pilot for Britain and the South. They are absolutely committed to making it work here. I think that you will see their campaigns continuing, if not stepping up.

1658. They have a close relationship with the manufacturers of the little chips, so you will see shoulders being put to the wheel with regard to procurement. They will work on guidance and a roll-out programme with councils, other such organisations and the database operators, because they are absolutely committed to this. That is why they do it. I do not think that there is any intention to move until that is in place.

1659. Mr W Clarke: That is fair enough.

1660. Mr Beggs: I am looking at the correspondence that was given to us by the Department today. There is a table towards the end of the paper. It is not well copied in my copy. Is that for 2009?

1661. Mr Terrington: Yes.

1662. Mr Beggs: The number of dogs impounded has significantly decreased over the three-year period, from about 10,300 to 8,500. The number of dogs being reclaimed has also gone down. There has also been a considerable reduction in the number of dogs destroyed. That number has gone from 2,595 in 2007 to 1,346 in 2009. Is the problem of stray dogs starting to be managed under the current system? Is there an urgent need for the electronic identification to deal with the issue, or is it starting to be dealt with? If you are proposing to introduce it, in what timescale do you see it being introduced? Do you see it being a requirement that, for a period, new pups will have to be electronically identified, becoming compulsory for all dogs thereafter? Or do you foresee a big bang one day and, suddenly, everybody will have to do it?

1663. Mr Terrington: There are a couple of aspects to that. We have said that we are happy that the number of strays being impounded has gone down. The difference between that and the strays dealt with is that some dogs were identified and able to be returned to their homes, because they were legally tagged or microchipped through a voluntary campaign, or because of a dog warden's local knowledge of who owns the dog. Yes, there has been improvement. However, there are still quite a lot of stray dogs and there are still issues that need to be dealt with.

1664. The number of dogs being destroyed has come down too. There are factors there. If more dogs are being identified and returned, that will have an impact. There is also a possible impact from the fact that, rather than be destroyed, some dogs will be resold or rehomed, either directly by the council or through other organisations. Again, however, the numbers are still high.

1665. As to when it will happen, as the Bill stands, if this aspect of the Bill is commenced when subordinate legislation comes in, some people will have a year in which to comply. Somebody who was due to have their dog licensed the day after the Bill comes in would have to microchip their dog on application. Somebody who was licensed their dog three days before the Bill comes in would have a year. It would be rolled out over a year. Some people would be better off in terms of when they had to do it, but over the lifetime of the dog it would be —

1666. Mr Beggs: On the practicalities of that, would it not be better to have a longer run-in period, even if it was three months? That would be a period in which people would know that they could get their dog microchipped and know that, in two or three months' time when the licence is due, they could do that automatically. Otherwise, people may not be able to license their dogs without having first made an appointment with a vet. Some people do not like to be outside the law. If microchipping was introduced immediately, there would be a problem.

1667. Mr Mooney: The Bill as drafted allows for those provisions to be commenced at a different date. It is very close to the answer on guidance, which I approached very much as guidance for council dog wardens. However, at the same time, we will want to be clear that guidance for owners is out there. We cannot commence the provisions before we are confident that everybody knows what they mean.

1668. Mr Terrington: It is worth saying that, when councils, and to a certain extent the Department, are aware that this is coming in — in other words, when the Bill has passed its formal stages — that is the day that it kind of starts. Once the Assembly agrees the Bill, the roll-out will start, and it will end when commencement is put in place thereafter.

1669. Mr Beggs: So there is a secondary bit of legislation that kicks in the date.

1670. Mr Molloy: I want to come back to the tables that we have been given. They tell you a lot, but they tell you nothing. Table 3 shows the number of strays that have been rehomed or transferred to other bodies. We do not know how many dogs have been rehomed within that. It does not matter which table you look at, they all show that most dogs seem to have been sold. That is the biggest category. Can you take us through what the significance of that is? Where is the significance of the Omagh example, which was heralded as the great pilot scheme?

1671. Mr Mooney: In the sold and rehomed/reallocated categories, we have no way of knowing what that "other" is. Once a dog leaves council care, we have no authority to gather those statistics. An increasing number of people buy their dogs from a council pound.

1672. Mr Molloy: The evidence that we have is that those dogs are being sold across to England.

1673. Mr Terrington: Some councils will have a pound. They will try to identify the owner and return the dog to them, but if that fails, they can sell the dog on. If they are unable to sell it, or if they cannot hold it for long enough to be sold, they can transfer it to Assisi or the Dogs Trust, which will rehome the dog. They have a no-kill policy, so their job in life is to have the dog rehomed. It will try to rehome the dog here, but if it cannot find a suitable home here, it will take the dog to other jurisdictions there where there may be homes.

1674. Mr Molloy: This is partly what Roy Beggs said. The system seems to be reducing the numbers without all this microchipping and double licensing and dual processes and all the rest of it. Assisi told us that it cannot get enough dogs; it is importing dogs from the South of Ireland to fulfil the market in England. You also said that Assisi has a no-kill policy. If a dog is a stray, if it is not a popular dog, or if it is a dangerous dog, Assisi's policy is not to kill it regardless of the circumstances. In one sense, you could say that stray dogs here are becoming possible stray dogs in England or wherever, so all you are doing is moving the problem from one place to another. Assisi said that demand was very high.

1675. Where is the Omagh example of where microchipping and licensing was more successful than anywhere else?

1676. Mr Terrington: Omagh's figures are the bottom of the list in table 1. The figures over those three years sit at 449 dealt with and 379 impounded. From those years on, you can see that the figures drop in the sense that the council is dealing with fewer dogs, and fewer dogs are being impounded. One theory might be that it is able to return them because the dogs have been identified.

1677. Mr Molloy: Cookstown District Council has similar figures, with 30 dogs reclaimed and 164 impounded. In Omagh, 167 were impounded and 33 were reclaimed. Therefore, Cookstown is a better resource for not having the dual system that Omagh had.

1678. Mr Terrington: The first issue is that Cookstown impounds all the dogs that it picks up, so none of those dogs are returned to their owner before. That is costing —

1679. Mr Molloy: It does not say that.

1680. Mr Terrington: They are impounded and dealt with.

1681. Mr Molloy: Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council does not have a pound, but it has a company that does that. Therefore, every dog that is collected goes into the pound. It does not actually mean that they are not rehomed. Out of that pound, they are rehomed.

1682. Mr Terrington: No, but they are not taken back. The figures are what they are. We —

1683. Mr Molloy: For the past couple of weeks, you have been giving Omagh as an example of where microchipping and licensing has been so effective that it has wiped out stray dogs in the area. Look at that table and tell me where the difference is.

1684. Mr Terrington: The figures may show an improvement or they may not. I am not going to —

1685. Mr Molloy: They do not. Do not say that they may or they may not. They do not.

1686. Mr Mooney: They show an improvement on the situation in Omagh before that campaign started.

1687. Mr Molloy: Where are the figures to show that? Where are the figures to compare with any other council that they are any different? They are not there.

1688. Mr Terrington: Every council starts with a bigger problem.

1689. Mr Molloy: You have made a specific point for the past couple of weeks that Omagh's pilot scheme of microchipping and licensing was effective. On that table, where is the example of there being any difference?

1690. The Chairperson: Give the official an opportunity to respond.

1691. Mr Terrington: We said that Omagh District Council says that it works, and Omagh is a supporter of it. That is the issue that we were raising. There is a council that has been actively doing this for a while and believes that it works and is advantageous. It thinks that the issues over database management and identification of dogs works, as opposed to some who are not using it as often and still have concerns over those systems.

1692. Mr Mooney: Omagh District Council has been running this since 2004. The number of strays impounded has fallen by 72% since then, and the number destroyed has fallen by 87%.

1693. Mr Molloy: I must be missing some lists; I do not have those.

1694. Mr Mooney: We have given the figures that we were asked for. We could give more.

1695. Mr Molloy: This is about evidence. There is no evidence. You can pick figures out of your head —

1696. Mr Mooney: They are not out of our heads.

1697. Mr Molloy: They are out of somewhere. The papers that you presented this week do not give the examples that you gave about Omagh council being so effective. You can look at other councils. I gave you the example of Cookstown, which has just as good a record of not using the dual system as Omagh District Council has of using it.

1698. Mr Mooney: Cookstown's stray numbers are on a rising trend.

1699. The Chairperson: You are quoting from 2004. Members only have figures for the past three years. In 2007, Omagh District Council dealt with 449 dogs, and it dealt with 240 in 2008. Is that correct? There is a decrease there.

1700. Mr Molloy: We do not know the reason for it.

1701. Mr Terrington: I do not think that we would claim that the microchipping campaign —

1702. Mr Molloy: You did.

1703. Mr Terrington: Omagh District Council has claimed that.

1704. Mr Molloy: No, but you did.

1705. Mr Terrington: We have said that the council thinks that it is working. It has had a programme for nigh on six years. The council also puts it down to a campaign by the Dogs Trust on neutering, which, again, we would say, could have an impact on how unwanted dogs are dealt with. For that reason, the Bill tries to give some help towards neutering.

1706. The Chairperson: We need to move this on and give an indication as to what we want to do in relation to this clause. The Committee had agreed before that clause 2 should lie dormant. What do you think about that now?

1707. Mr Molloy: We need to have consultation with the likes of NILGA and the councils on the resource implications. The Department keeps saying that there are no resource implications, but councils are saying that there are. Until that is clear, we cannot make a decision.

1708. The Chairperson: In other words, if the Department were to make that clause dormant, we could have extensive consultation with councils and other bodies in the meantime.

1709. Mr W Clarke: That is what I was going to say. We could be involved in the guidance and how that is rolled out, by working with the Dogs Trust and all that.

1710. Mr Gibson: What exactly do you mean by "lie dormant"?

1711. The Committee Clerk: It means that the primary power would be included in the Bill, but subordinate legislation would be required to enact the power. That would allow the Committee not only to negotiate with the councils in respect of the resource side of things, but to develop the processes before empowering the clause. We did the same in respect of clause 9 of the Forestry Bill. The evidence that the clause was required was not available to the Committee, so the Department agreed to make it dormant until such times as it was able to produce that evidence. If that evidence does come forward, the clause will be enacted through subordinate legislation.

1712. Mr Gibson: What is the time process?

1713. The Committee Clerk: The initial thing will be whether the Department agrees to make the clause dormant. After that, it is as defined or dictated by the Committee and the evidence that it takes from the councils or the representatives of the councils.

1714. Mr Beggs: Is that suggesting that affirmative subordinate legislation would be required — that the Committee would have to see it and approve it, and the Assembly would have to approve it, before it was enacted?

1715. The Committee Clerk: If the Committee wants to pursue the affirmative process, the norm would be negative resolution, which would still come to Committee. However, as you suggested, the difference is that it would not go to plenary. In the past, it has been the Committee's role with regard to legislation to change those processes from negative resolution to affirmative resolution in order to give the plenary session a further say in respect of legislation that is being brought through it.

1716. Mr Beggs: If we were going to go down that route, it would be fairly important that that resolution be changed. It would be very poor practice for something to be enacted by negative resolution, as it would be out there in law, and we would then have to wait a number of months for it to perhaps be annulled and taken away. If we are thinking along those lines, an affirmative resolution would be a better method of dealing with it.

1717. Mr Molloy: Before we approve the Bill, because this is something that can change over time, surely we should put it in abeyance, which would mean that it could be reactivated at any time. Given the resource implications for local government, we need to deal with that now and decide whether we are for or against it. Before we do that, we should consult local government further.

1718. The Committee Clerk: Again, if it is the mind of the Committee, the reason why the Chairperson, having taken advice from me, is suggesting that the clause be dormant is that it will not be enacted until such time as subordinate legislation is brought forward. The extension date for the Committee Stage of the Bill is 29 November. Therefore, we have to report on it. The Chairperson's suggestion would allow the Bill to progress without bringing that clause into account. It would also mean that the primary power is there. If members were not content with the processes and procedures or the resource implications for councils, the Committee and the House would not have to agree, if it was done through affirmative resolution.

1719. Mr Molloy: The clause being dormant would still mean that we were approving the Bill. If the legislation is bad, it would be wrong to approve it. We have a deadline of 29 November 2010, but we can look for an extension, rather than approve bad legislation.

1720. The Committee Clerk: We cannot look for an extension. Under Standing Orders, the Committee gets only one opportunity to extend a Committee Stage. We cannot go back to the House and ask for a further extension.

1721. Mr Molloy: Is there anything to say that we cannot do that?

1722. The Committee Clerk: Standing Orders say that, if a Committee asks for an original extension, it cannot go back to the House to ask for a further extension.

1723. Mr Molloy: The Committee could take one position and the Department could take another before the Bill reaches the House. From the Committee's point of view, we should be hearing the issues and concerns that local government has about the legislation.

1724. The Committee Clerk: The Committee would have that opportunity, irrespective of whether the clause was left dormant.

1725. Mr Molloy: But the Bill would have already been passed.

1726. The Committee Clerk: The clause would not be enacted and would not have to be enacted. The enactment would come with the agreement of the Committee and the House.

1727. The Chairperson: What is the view of the Committee?

1728. Mr Beggs: That is a reasonable way forward. I can see some benefits to microchipping dogs. However, I see that there are problems. An intervening period would allow some of those problems to be resolved. If those problems were not resolved, the provisions would not be introduced. Meanwhile, if there was an indication as to the direction of travel, more people would probably voluntarily microchip their dogs.

1729. Mr Gibson: I agree.

1730. The Chairperson: Do members seek an amendment for the compulsory microchipping of new dogs through breeding establishments?

1731. Mr Beggs: That should definitely be in place.

1732. The Committee Clerk: For clarification, the compulsory microchipping currently being proposed in the Bill is as a feature of the licence. The Chairperson is proposing that microchipping not be part of licensing but an obligation on breeding establishments.

1733. Mr Molloy: We have already heard that microchipping will not solve any of the problems in relation to stray dogs. This legislation is supposed to be about the control of stray dogs. Unless a dog is caught, microchipping is not going to have any affect whatsoever on controlling stray dogs. It is a farce. We can comfort ourselves by telling ourselves that we are creating legislation that will let us know whose dog it is when it is dead, but that will not solve the problem. The debate has been about how we control stray dogs, but microchipping does not deal with that. We are being fooled into believing that microchipping will solve all our problems and that the dog and its owner can be traced. However, you are still looking at two systems. Microchipping every dog at birth would put one system in place before anything else happens or anything else has been resolved.

1734. Mr P J Bradley: I am trying to catch up here. Since I was not here last week, I do not know what I missed. I am afraid to give the nod to anything. I am in favour of microchipping; I could live with it. However, I do not agree with licensing at the same time. In this day and age they should be able to come up with a microchip that can be all things. They can do anything with technology now; I do not see how they cannot design a microchip to meet all the requirements.

1735. The Assembly is always talking about red tape and bureaucracy, yet now we are told that not only will there be microchipping but there will be licensing as well. I know that the licensing is to fund the council, but I would prefer compulsory microchipping without licensing. Where are we at the moment? Are we at the stage where the two are going to run hand in hand?

1736. The Chairperson: Yes.

1737. Mr W Clarke: Microchipping pups makes sense; it will do no harm and reduce the number of strays. It will definitely not make the situation worse. Already, the Kennel Club encourages its members to do that. We should look at that.

1738. The Chairperson: That will make a start, if owners become irresponsible in the future.

1739. Is it the will of the Committee that we request that clause 2 lie dormant and that we support the introduction of compulsory microchipping for newborn dogs through breeding establishments?

1740. Mr Beggs: Are we not arguing against ourselves? If it lies dormant —

1741. The Chairperson: This would be a new clause.

1742. Mr Beggs: Do we not need this as an enabling power, but, initially, subordinate legislation should be brought in dealing with breeding establishments? In the meantime, discussions could go on to determine what further, if any, progress there was on compulsory microchipping outside breeding establishments. Do we not need this enabling legislation through in order to make microchipping compulsory for breeding establishments?

1743. The Committee Clerk: That is something that we would need to explore further. However, clause 2, which links compulsory microchipping with licensing, would lie dormant until such times as further consultation could be taken as regards councils. A separate amendment could be introduced to suggest that breeding establishments must microchip, but without linking that as a condition for licensing.

1744. Mr Molloy: The Kennel Club is like a golf club: few are members of it. It might sound good, but the Kennel Club said that it has more than 1,000 members here; that is a small proportion of dog owners. The normal pensioner or person around a housing estate is not a member of the Kennel Club, and most do not move in its elite circles. We need to get back to reality: most dogs are owned by individuals, and that is where strays come from.

1745. The Chairperson: We have debated this at some length. Are we agreed to take it forward as I indicated a few moments ago?

1746. Mr Beggs: I want to be clear about what you are saying: an amendment, breeding establishments, and the rest of it to remain dormant until there has been further discussion.

1747. The Chairperson: Yes.

Members indicated assent.

1748. Mr Molloy: I record my disagreement with the vote.

1749. Mr P J Bradley: I disagree too.

1750. The Chairperson: Right.

1751. Members expressed a view at the last meeting that they wished to see breed-specific legislation removed from the 1983 Order. In addition, there were a number of responses stating that breed-specific legislation had failed, and that offences should arise out of the deed, not the breed.

1752. Mr Terrington: As we have said before, we are pleased that there is a lot of support for clause 8 of the Bill. I know that we are not talking about that, but that is the bit that brings in, for want of better words, the deed of the dog rather than its breed. It introduces control conditions. A lot of the criticism of the current legislation is because that is not in place, and it is important.

1753. With respect to current breed-specific legislation — the ban on pit bulls and three other breeds — we have said that the Minister is content that the ban should stay. As I said at the start, some of the opposition from councils to the Bill and from some of the councils to the existing ban, introduced in 1991, is about the cost of enforcement. We consulted on ways to try to address that issue, but found no widespread support in councils. For that reason, it was set aside and not included in the Bill. The Bill does do some tidying of the court process for exempting dogs, but it does little else about the ban.

1754. The Chairperson: Can you tell us what happens in relation to this in the Republic of Ireland?

1755. Mr Terrington: There are a large number of dog breeds which are controlled. That is to say that, in public, they must be leashed, muzzled, tagged and registered with the council. The list includes the breeds that are currently banned here, and half a dozen other large breeds.

1756. We looked at that, and considered it as part of the review. We were concerned that that had its own enforcement issues. All of a sudden you are moving from the breed of three dogs to the breed of ten dogs, or whatever the final number is. Where someone was not complying with the law by keeping his pit bull terrier on a leash or muzzled, one of the defences open to him would be — as it is now — that it was not a pit bull. We were not sure that that would solve many issues, and we perceived difficulty as to what would happen in courts.

1757. Mr Molloy: Mr Terrington continues to refer to "pit bulls". As we heard last week, pit bulls are not mentioned in the legislation. Why does he continue to refer to them?

1758. Mr Terrington: I am sorry; I do not understand your question.

1759. Mr Molloy: Last week, we were told that pit bulls were not mentioned in the legislation, and that there were four other breeds.

1760. Mr Terrington: Four breeds are specified, including the pit bull type.

1761. Mr Molloy: I thought that last week we were told that it did not actually say "pit bull".

1762. Mr Terrington: It says "pit bull type". That was the distinction: between a pit bull and a pit bull type.

1763. Mr Molloy: How does a council worker or dog warden distinguish a pit bull type from other cross-bred dogs?

1764. Mr Terrington: The reason why the Bill uses the term "pit bull type" is that if you had banned put bulls in 1991, the day after that there would not have been any pit bulls. They would be bred, and the characteristics that make them pit bulls —

1765. Mr Mooney: As one of the answers in this process, we stated that there is a long list of characteristics which a dog of pit bull type must meet a high proportion of. That is how the decision is made. It will depend on individual cases, but quite often the decision is made that 90% of the characteristics are listed under the pit bull type, looking at the physical characteristics of the dog rather than a birth certificate or a Kennel Club pedigree certificate that says that it is a pure-bred pit bull.

1766. Mr Molloy: Clear as mud.

1767. Mr W Clarke: In relation to what is done in other countries about putting control conditions on, are you saying that the same costs would apply to councils to identify the type of dog?

1768. Mr Terrington: We have to be careful about saying "the same costs", because although a small number of cases come to court and make a bit of a media splash and cost money, most of the dogs are identified as as pit bulls, the owner accepts that, and the dog is destroyed. However, I do not know what the costs would be. If you just take the Southern model, dog wardens are going to have to enforce and ensure that pit bulls, Rottweilers, etc are kept under the conditions that are set down in the legislation. Therefore, you are moving from them only having to deal with a couple of types of dogs, and any dogs that by deed have done something wrong or their owners have done something wrong, to having to deal with a wider number of breeds because of their breed.

1769. If somebody flouts that legislation and refuses to keep their dog under those controls, one of the defences that he may bring is that the dog is a Staffie. If there are any issues, perceived or otherwise, about proving that in court, an owner has the right to an appeal if accused of an offence, or to defend their innocence, but there is a risk that the same thing could happen in those situations. Who knows? I would not want to put costs on it.

1770. Mr Molloy: I have been told that a recent case cost Banbridge District Council £50,000. Therefore, we need to investigate the costs for councils. The Committee is ignoring the issue about the transfer of costs to local government, but we do that at our peril, because the councils will have to approach ratepayers on the issue. Here we have legislation that has been transferred with no clear definition of what a dangerous dog is, but councils are going to be forced into court to try to establish that.

1771. Mr Beggs: Francie talked about legislation not being clear. Will you confirm that the proposal is to extend the current legislation to cover dogs' behaviour, rather than simply being breed-specific legislation? Breed-specific legislation is in place at present and will continue, but it will extend beyond that. Furthermore, there is a cost involved. No doubt, all ratepayers would prefer that cost not to be in place, but what is the level of risk? How many individuals have been attacked by those powerful-jawed, breed-specific animals in Northern Ireland? Do you have any record of that?

1772. Mr Terrington: There are a couple of things there. First, you are right that the Bill does nothing substantive about the existing ban, which the councils currently enforce. That has not changed. However, it extends the deed and gives them additional tools for their toolbox in terms of dealing with dogs that, by their deeds, have caused problems.

1773. In terms of the risk, fortunately, there are no records of attacks by pit bulls in Northern Ireland in recent years. There are stories all around the world, and two or three in Britain, of pit bulls attacking and killing children. However, some people will say that the risk is greater, and others will say that it is no greater. With the legislation there, the fear is that those dogs are a risk in the wrong hands. They are currently banned, and there is no proposal to change that.

1774. Mr Beggs: If the current ban were removed, would it be easier for those who are involved in dogfighting to have animals with clearer dogfighting characteristics? Would it cause difficulties in regulating that violent sport?

1775. Mr Terrington: The sort of individuals that you are talking about can, probably, find a way of flouting both the dogfighting laws under the welfare legislation and the ban. Someone who innocently exercises an illegal dog with the purposes of involving it in fighting will have the dog removed, once it is identified as an illegal dog. The answer is probably, but people like that may find a way around it, whether they are banned or not.

1776. Mr Beggs: You also said that there are no records of attacks involving those breeds in recent years, but, if I am right, those breeds should not be in Northern Ireland. There should not, therefore, be any attacks. If you were to legalise them, that is the risk that you would have to live with.

1777. Mr Terrington: We would go slightly further. The three other breeds that have been mentioned do not exist here; they have not been recorded here. If the ban is lifted for one and all, you might see the introduction of those three breeds. I do not know whether there is any risk in that, but it is a possibility.

1778. Mr Gibson: I am concerned that those who engage in the nefarious activity of dogfighting would be emboldened if the breed-specific aspect were dropped. The Committee should be mindful of the fact that the public has a particular view of those dogs. The public has a strong view about pit bulls. I am concerned that there would be quite a public reaction if the breed-specific aspect were dropped. I do not think that the public would welcome that in the slightest, because of the reputation that those dogs have. To introduce control conditions for dogs that have committed deeds that warrant it will certainly help. That meets some of the concerns that have been expressed around this table in the recent past. I would oppose any move by the Committee to drop the breed-specific aspect of it in relation to pit bulls and the other breeds that have been mentioned.

1779. The Chairperson: Is the Committee content with clause 3, subject to the concerns of Mr Molloy in relation to costs being raised?

Members indicated assent.

1780. The Committee Clerk: Clause 4 has a connection to clause 2 and the proposed dual systems. Until such time as the Committee considers clause 2 and its implications, there will be a licensing system in force. It is now a question of whether members wish to see the current fee of £5 increased to the suggested level of £12·50, with the various abatements for owners of dogs which are neutered or microchipped, senior citizens, etc.

1781. Mr Gibson: When was the last time it was increased?

1782. Mr Mooney: It was last increased in 1983.

1783. Mr Beggs: It has to increase. We are not clear about the future of microchipping. Until such time as that is made compulsory, it should be an option to have a reduction in price for dogs that are microchipped. That then becomes another incentive for people to voluntarily get their dogs licensed and microchipped, and take a benefit from that. Should it ever get to the stage of becoming compulsory, most animals would already be covered.

1784. Mr Terrington: That option was looked at before universal microchipping was considered. It certainly could have merit as a roll-out, getting people involved until such time as it became compulsory. The concern is that clause 2, as well as making it compulsory at the time of commencement, sets out some of the definitions and minimum requirements of what a microchip is. There are concerns as to what information is held on the database. What a warden can do and so on is sketched out in the Bill, and the intention is to have more detail in the subordinate legislation. Without that, there is concern that the microchip may mean very little. That is why it is done the way it is.

1785. Mr Mooney: I have just one slight concern if we went that way. If we amend this piece of primary legislation to allow for that concession for a microchipped dog, then, when we commence compulsory microchipping, we have that leftover piece of primary legislation sitting there, the concession provision. Now, I am sure —

1786. Mr Beggs: You could put enabling in for a concession for microchipping, so that when the compulsory provision is enabled, you can alter it as well through secondary legislation and remove that concession, should you ever go compulsory.

1787. Mr Mooney: The Committee might consider taking legal advice on that.

1788. Mr Terrington: We do not know. The other issue still stands, what a microchip is and what it does.

1789. Mr Beggs: You can introduce secondary legislation defining all that, and no one will oppose it.

1790. The Chairperson: At the end of the day, it would be for the Committee to make that proposal. You would take it to the Department and seek legal advice on it.

1791. Mr W Clarke: The danger in that is that we give a concession for microchipping, and then a couple of years later take it off. That will not encourage people to microchip their dogs. They will see it as more difficult because it is costing them more money. There is a bit of difficulty in regard to that.

1792. The price rise to £12·50 is proportionate. In the light of what the Committee has said about the extra responsibilities on councils, it certainly has to rise from a fiver. We are protecting the most vulnerable people, those on benefits, and we are trying to encourage people to get their dogs neutered. That is all positive stuff.

1793. The issue I have raised is the lifetime licence. I have had discussions about that with you. Just for the record, it would create difficulties for you with regard to the consultation process. Also, if you get a lifetime licence in one council area, then you get a free service if you move house.

1794. Mr Terrington: There is no great difficulty for us. It would not be an impossible thing to include in the Bill. As we said before, our concern is that, while the potential loss of income might not be great, we have not discussed it with councils. We are concerned about that.

1795. Your second point is right. As the 1983 Order stands, your licence is a relationship between you and the council in whose district you live. If you move, your licence becomes invalid, and that may cause more problems.

1796. There are other ways that councils may choose to deal with the kinds of issues that you are talking about — the forgetting about it. From the figures that we have seen, it is an issue of non-compliance rather than people forgetting. There are a few, but they get reminder letters and the reminder letters can be forwarded to their new address. I know that councils are moving into using direct debits in other services, and that might be another option. We have heard from the councils that they are going more electronic in a lot of the stuff that they are doing, and that might be a more efficient way of addressing that without having the other knock-on effects. But yes, a licence is invalid if a person changes address.

1797. Mr Molloy: How would the letter go out to the person who had moved?

1798. Mr Terrington: What happens is that two weeks or so before your licence is due, the council writes to you. If it does not get a response, it writes again a couple of weeks later. A lot of people who change address leave a forwarding address, to cover that period between when they move and six months down the line.

1799. Mr Molloy: But surely if we are going to have microchipping, which traces the dog anywhere, it does not matter whether it strays into the Dungannon council area or the Cookstown council area or wherever it may be, the dog will still be traceable. We are going to have a tag around its neck saying who owns it and where it comes from, and now the whole concern is that you will not know where to write to its owners. It proves the point that all of this is purely bureaucracy gone mad. You do not have a clue what you are saying, you just throw in these wee bits and pieces to try to create another confusion and some reason why you cannot do something that you actually do not want to do.

1800. Mr Terrington: As I said, we do not think that the issue of lifetime licences is particularly difficult. We have looked at it, and we think that there are reasons why it should not happen. Without lifetime licences or microchipping, the process of sending a reminder letter is something that happens now. If the councils do not hear from somebody, they assume that the person has moved or that the dog is dead and that is the end of it. It is up to the person moving to another place to register their dog with the council. That is a requirement, and they would be breaking the law if they did not, because they would have an unlicensed dog. Having an annual licence means that when people go to reapply for the licence, it may remind them to make sure that the microchip details are up to date.

1801. Mr Molloy: The Department seems to be taking a draconian line of having microchipping and compulsory this and compulsory that. If we are going to have all of that, surely the sort of system that they have in place for vehicles is one way of dealing with it. If a person has a dog licence in one council area and moves to another and they are not traceable, basically they can forget it. At least if there is a lifetime licence, paid either in one lump sum or by direct debit on a yearly basis or by some other means, that dog is licensed right across the board.

1802. Mr Terrington: I only mentioned direct debit as a way of addressing concerns that were raised about forgetting to renew a licence. If I did not get a reminder about my car tax and my house insurance, I probably would forget. That is all that that is — a way of remembering. It is not a legislative matter if councils choose to set up that particular system. The annual licence and paying up front makes a lot of sense and might save somebody some money but, as we have said before, and having not raised this with councils, the concern is that you are giving that amount of money in the first year that they then cannot use in the second year. If there were a way that the lifetime licence would allow you never to relicense again no matter where you moved, the same issue would apply. The problem is that the original council will have got the money and the person having to administer your dog in another council area will not be getting any income from it.

1803. Mr Molloy: But one of your concerns would be that the councils were not consulted on this previously.

1804. Mr Terrington: It is something that they have never raised with us.

1805. Mr Molloy: But you did not consult with councils anyway, on any of this. So what is the difference in not consulting on this piece? It has been proved time and again. I had a meeting with a number of councils last week at which it was very clear that councillors and councils had never been consulted on this legislation on the means that you are saying. You may have consulted dog wardens and various different people, but not in relation to the response from councils. As civil servants, you make the same mistake continuously: you talk to officials rather than councillors.

1806. Mr Terrington: Again, I am happy to show the proof that we consulted with all 26 councils, and 25 responded between November and the start of February. They were cleared by full council or the relevant committee — by elected representatives.

1807. Mr Molloy: I would like to see that proof. It would be interesting.

1808. The Chairperson: Mr Molloy is making the point that there was consultation on the principles of the Bill, not the individual clauses. There is a distinction.

1809. Mr Terrington: We consulted on the clauses. Certainly in terms of the licence fees, there were not many changes, and councils were given the option to provide any other comments on how licences might work. They came forward with some ideas that have been incorporated in the Bill. Obviously, the Committee will have consulted on the Bill itself.

1810. Mr W Clarke: I introduced this for common sense reasons and to make it easier for people. If there was an £80 licence that did you for the lifetime of the dog, it would encourage people to licence their dog. I understand the points that you made, and it would probably take some time to work them through, but my argument is that NILGA and councils should get involved in providing proper guidance in how to use best practice to do that. We should maybe try to encourage the best possible system at that level, and anything that the Department could do in regard to that sort of guidance would help greatly, be it direct debit or whatever.

1811. Mr P J Bradley: I have a few questions on microchips. Where are the microchips designed and manufactured? Has the Department met the designers and manufacturers? We have been told that the microchips are not adequate. Could an adequate microchip be manufactured? Did we take evidence at any stage from microchip manufacturers, or is it too late to do that?

1812. The Chairperson: We have moved past microchips.

1813. Mr P J Bradley: No, we are still talking about microchips. It is still in this.

1814. The Chairperson: We are discussing a specific clause about fees.

1815. Mr P J Bradley: Microchips are referred to.

1816. The Chairperson: If the Department wants to come back very quickly, it can do so.

1817. Mr P J Bradley: They are referred to:

"Identification systems like the tag (or the microchip) attach to the dog itself".

I am asking about microchips because it is in the clause.

1818. Mr Mooney: Microchips are governed by a couple of ISO standards. We have met representatives from the companies that operate the database and sell and implant the chips. The chips are an inert piece of surgical glass, basically, with a coating. There are no working parts. Almost all of the chips used in western Europe and most other parts of the world, apart from the United States, conform to a particular technical standard. They are identical.

1819. Mr P J Bradley: Can they contain all the information that we need? We were told that the licence can tell you whether a dog is stray.

1820. Mr Mooney: The microchip contains no information whatsoever.

1821. Mr P J Bradley: Could it be designed to contain information?

1822. Mr Mooney: All the microchip contains is a little coil that reacts to a reader.

1823. Mr P J Bradley: My question is: could it be designed to contain information?

1824. Mr Mooney: It does not need to contain any information. The information is contained in a database. The microchip generates a single number when it is read. That number is stored on the database, and the data is stored against that.

1825. Mr P J Bradley: Can a database contain all the information, then?

1826. Mr Mooney: The database can contain whatever information the database operators want to put on it.

1827. Mr Molloy: We have actually got an answer.

1828. Mr Mooney: I am not sure why that is relevant.

1829. Mr P J Bradley: It is very relevant. I think that we are being taken for a journey here.

1830. The Chairperson: Are members content with the proposal to raise the fee to £12·50 and to further investigate Mr Beggs's proposal around the discount for microchipping?

1831. Mr Beggs: If microchipping was not made compulsory from the start, that would be a way of running it in.

1832. Mr Molloy: Councils could tie it to microchipping in the future. To tie this to microchipping could be interpreted as tying us to microchipping.

1833. Mr W Clarke: I agree. It could work its way through that guidance process and best practice, and councils could take a decision to do that.

1834. Mr Molloy: Councils could give discounts for various things.

1835. Mr Terrington: That is what Omagh District Council, the Dogs Trust and others are doing now. There are ways and means for people who genuinely want to comply to do that without any change to the legislation.

1836. Mr W Clarke: For the record, Francie and I are agreed on something.

1837. The Chairperson: Are members content at £12·50? We can explore Mr Beggs's proposals through the councils.

1838. Mr Mooney: Before we leave clause 4, one of the amendments that the Committee requested related to Assembly controls and affirmative resolution. Implementing that requires a small amendment to clause 4. It is set out in the paper that we sent to you. In the proposed new article, sub-paragraph (7)(b) will be removed. That may look paradoxical, because you have asked for a lot of those powers to be subject to affirmative resolution. There is an explicit reference to affirmative resolution in this one, because not all the powers are in the 1983 Order. The full amendment states that where it says "an Order", it is an Order by the draft affirmative procedure, so there is no need for an express reference to it here.

1839. The Chairperson: Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

1840. The Chairperson: Members will be aware that clause 5 was deferred when we looked at clause 3 in relation to breed-specific legislation. The Department agreed to the Committee's request that clause 6 be amended to subject subordinate legislation to the affirmative process.

1841. Mr Mooney: This is an interesting one. It goes to a question that Mr Gibson asked last week about whether you would have a defence if you set your dog on a trespasser, as opposed to the dog simply attacking a trespasser. I said that, strictly speaking, there was no such defence on the face of the Bill. There is a reason for that. The offence of setting your dog on someone, as it is set out in the 1983 Order, can happen only in a public place. As the law stands, there is a defence to setting a dog on someone.

1842. Thinking that through made us look again at these two clauses with the draftsmen. One of the changes that the Bill wants to make is to say that an attack that happens in a private place can often be serious. That is where many dog attacks happen, and they are often as serious an offence as anything else. You will see the amendments in the papers that we have sent. Articles 6 and 7, which put the new articles 28 and 29 into the 1983 Order, are arranged slightly differently than in the first draft of the Bill. Instead of distinguishing between "setting on" and "attacks", it now distinguishes between attacks on livestock and other animals — which addresses the Committee's point on domestic animals — and, as a separate clause, attacks on people. We think that that is clear, but you can look at the amendments in our papers.

1843. Mr Terrington: In effect, the big change between this week and last week is purely the adding of companion animals as requested and accepting that we do not want the Bill to be any weaker as far as the impact on dog owners. Therefore, it has reverted to where it was: there would, in effect, be a defence in the situation that you talked about.

1844. The Chairperson: Under the proposed new article 28(1), the option of imprisonment has been removed. Is that correct?

1845. Mr Mooney: Sorry?

1846. The Committee Clerk: As the Chairperson said, the new proposed 28(1) has no reference to "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months" and now refers only to a different level of fine.

1847. Mr Terrington: Not for livestock. Is that right?

1848. Mr Mooney: That is an attack on a person. The new revision is dealt with in the next clause. I am sorry; perhaps I did not make that clear.

1849. Mr Terrington: The original penalties for attacks on people and worrying livestock were different, and the amended clause in the Bill continues to say that an attack on a person carries higher financial penalties than worrying livestock or the new attacks on other animals. It is to do with that restructuring again.

1850. The Chairperson: Are members content?

1851. Mr Molloy: If a dog is set on someone as they leave the premises, is that any different from as they enter the premises?

1852. Mr Mooney: We would need to see the details of the case. Is he trespassing at that point?

1853. Mr Molloy: If I were to attack someone who is coming on to my premises, I would have the right of defence along the lines of stopping them coming on to my premises, but I would not have the right to shoot them going off the premises, if that is the situation.

1854. Mr Mooney: That would be an individual case issue for a court to decide. I do not think that it is something for a Bill to build in that detail.

1855. Mr Molloy: It affects postmen. They are not often attacked coming on to it, but when they turn to go off, they are often attacked.

1856. Mr Terrington: That is different. That is an offence, because a postman is not trespassing. He has a reason and a right to be there.

1857. Mr Molloy: If someone is coming onto your premises, they are basically attacking your premises, whereas, if they are leaving, whether they have robbed you or not, you do not have the right of defence that you injured them when they were leaving the premises. You need a bit of clarification regarding what "setting on" means. It basically means anybody who came on to your premises but left again, and you chased the dog on to it.

1858. Mr Terrington: The idea of the offence happening is about protecting your property and your family or your pet. If a dog attacks someone when they have left the property, you are not protecting your property any more. That may be seen as an unreasonable force issue, if the equivalent is what you can do to a burglar when they are on your property and what you can do when chasing them down the road, which happened in a recent case. That is not reasonable force. You would not be protecting yourself anymore; the deed would be done, as it were.

1859. The Chairperson: I know that, for myself, whether someone is coming or going, if he is trespassing, I would be after him, if he is going down the driveway with the TV and the video or whatever.

1860. Mr Molloy: You may finish up in court in that situation.

1861. The Chairperson: Moving on, are members content with clause 6?

Members indicated assent.

1862. Mr Mooney: Again, because these two have been restructured —

1863. The Chairperson: OK; it is the same as clause 6.

1864. Mr Terrington: It deals with the issues that the Committee asked for it to deal with, by extending it to owning a dog that attacks other animals, as well as attacking people and worrying, which are already there. It is basically a restructure, with that in mind.

1865. The Chairperson: Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

1866. The Chairperson: The Department agreed with the Committee that education and training courses should be provided as additional options under control licences.

1867. Mr Terrington: Again, we have tabled an amendment, which is in the papers that members have been given. There are three parts to that. The amendment to clause 8, page 6, line 12 provides exactly what you are asking for, which is that the council can require that a dog and an owner undertake a training course. A couple of consequential amendments happen as a result of that.

1868. Page 6, line 30 of the Bill already provides that the requirement that you have your dog neutered cannot come into effect until you have sought an appeal, because it is a permanent thing. The training course is the same. Once the training course is done, it is done, so the idea is that that would be stalled. Other things like having your dog on a leash would stay there until such times as the appeal has completed its due process, but the training one could be set aside until such times as it has been appealed. There would be no sense in appealing it if you had already undertaken the training.

1869. The third little amendment is about recognising that once the training is done, it is done. It makes the councils remove that as a licence condition. Neutering is the same: you do not need to have it kept on their licence as a condition once you have done it, unlike leashing or keeping the dog in a secure place, which stay there until an appeal or review by the council.

1870. The Chairperson: Are members content in relation to that?

Members indicated assent.

1871. The Chairperson: Was some change made to clause 8, page 5, line 11?

1872. Mr Mooney: It is because we have reorganised the last two clauses. Proposed new article 30A lists the offences for which a control condition can be applied. We have just changed the title of those to reflect the changes that we have made earlier.

1873. Mr P J Bradley: Clause 8 as well, regarding the new owner:

"give that new owner any advice it considers appropriate; and, where the new owner resides in the district of another council, to inform that other council of the transfer of the dog into its district."

Is that into all jurisdictions — in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, for example?

1874. Mr Terrington: It would only be in Northern Ireland where a new licence is required. However, we met our counterparts and some council representatives in the South, and we intend to do that again to see whether the sharing of information between councils would be of value. But this is about the control of the dog and the licence.

1875. If the dog is a serious problem, it will probably not be dealt with as a control condition; it will be dealt with by the courts. It is about trying to provide some reassurance to dog owners or another council if you are aware that there were issues with a particular dog in the past, but there is a limit to what we can do in other jurisdictions.

1876. Mr P J Bradley: I am thinking of someone in Newry who has a dog that is so restricted. Can you do anything if the dog is given to someone in Dundalk?

1877. Mr Mooney: We have spoken to councils in the South, and we will continue to look at what can be done.

1878. Mr Terrington: It would be on an administrative basis rather than anything else, probably. I do not know whether the legislation could deal with it.

1879. Mr P J Bradley: Is the dog recorded as being dead?

1880. Mr Terrington: Theoretically, and this is a slightly different point, if someone here managed to get a pit bull, it could live happily south of the border where there is no ban. There is a risk either way. We are looking at all those issues where there are differences. We want to help people who are taking on a new dog to be aware that councils can do administrative things among themselves by being open to the idea of setting up fora to talk among themselves. There might be some useful information-sharing.

1881. Mr P J Bradley: It would make sense.

1882. The Chairperson: Clause 9 was deferred when we considered clause 3.

1883. The Chairperson: With respect to clause 14, the Department agreed at the last meeting that it should align the fee system with that contained in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

1884. Mr Terrington: Our reply to the Committee sets out that that is exactly what we have done. A new clause 14 is proposed which parallels the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. It allows councils to set their own parameters and allows for early payment. Those are the two aspects to that.

1885. Mr Molloy: I have reservations about it. Fixed penalties are not the same in everything, whether it be parking or anything else. I do not understand why we have to increase this to £75 to be in line with a different piece of legislation. There is no connection with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

1886. Mr Terrington: The original thing on which we consulted was bringing this into line with the Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, particularly with regard to dog litter. That was set at £50. We consulted on that. Subsequently, the Department of the Environment consulted on and is bringing forward a Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. The relevant sections are about dog litter, not the other bits of that Bill, such as high hedges or the removal of burnt-out cars. It is specifically about the dog litter bit. That is the reason for the parallel that the Committee asked us to look at.

1887. The Chairperson: With the exception of Mr Molloy, is the Committee content with clause 14?

Members indicated assent.

1888. The Chairperson: That brings us to the end of the clause-by-clause consideration. The Committee will write to the Department in respect of clause 2.

1889. Mr Mooney: Apologies, Chairperson, but we want to say one more thing. The amendment that the Committee asked for on the Order-making powers and the Assembly procedures will be slotted in as a new clause after clause 14. It is in the annexe to the document that you received.

1890. Mr Terrington: It was referred to earlier in the removal of one of the clauses.

1891. Mr Mooney: That will have some consequential changes, which you will see in the new schedules. That is all that that is doing.

1892. The Chairperson: You will come back to us in relation to clause 2. We will write to you. Thank you for attending this morning's meeting. That ends the clause-by-clause consideration of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

16 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Stephen Moutray (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr P J Bradley
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Savage

Witnesses:

Ms Colette McMaster Mr Martin Mooney Mr John Terrington

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1893. The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): I welcome Colette McMaster, John Terrington and Martin Mooney from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

1894. We have received some correspondence from the Department in relation to the costs of microchipping. Before I ask the officials to talk to us about that, I want to pose a question. The proposed legislation will prohibit councils from issuing a licence unless a dog is microchipped. Therefore, in order to prove that a dog is microchipped, the animal will have to be brought to the council office each year. Boarding facilities will have to be made available and a warden will have to scan the dog before confirming that a chip is available. Is that not an additional administrative burden on councils, and is it not also an additional cost to be borne by councils?

1895. Mr John Terrington (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): The Bill requires that owners microchip their dogs. That is all that it requires. The current process for applying for a dog licence involves writing your name, address and details, along with a description of the dog. We see that process being exactly the same; you will record the microchip number as well. Councils may want to run risk-based checks, but there is nothing in the Bill that requires them to do that.

1896. Only if a dog comes to the attention of a dog warning because it is straying or has been involved in an attack will the council be required to scan it. If the dog is not microchipped or if the microchip information is not the same as the information that the council has, that is an unlicensed dog. There is nothing in the Bill that requires councils to do that.

1897. Mr Martin Mooney (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): There are a range of checks that councils can do, short of scanning the dog. It is not that someone could just write down any number; there is a particular format to these numbers. That number can then be checked online with the database to check that the details recorded match those on the application form. You only need to check the dog if you have grounds to believe that something is going on.

1898. The Chairperson: How is a local authority going to know that a dog has been microchipped before it issues a licence?

1899. Mr Terrington: When you apply for the licence, you put down the microchip number in the same way as you would claim for a reduction in the price of your licence because you are a pensioner. The council will record that information in the same way as it does now. As Martin said, the numbers will be in a format that will show that the code is legitimate. If you have recorded information on your licence application that does not match the database or your licence fee, you have an invalid licence and, if you ever come to the attention of the council, action will be taken. Nothing more is required of the council other than recording the information, as it does now, in good faith.

1900. Mr Molloy: Thank you for the presentation. The Bill says that the dog has to be microchipped; it does not say that the microchip has to be registered with any particular authority. If you are saying that the council does not have to check out that microchip before it issues a licence, surely we are back to the dual system. If you can get all the information that you say from just a number, surely there is no need for the tag. If I go in to licence my dog and I tell the council the number and the council can bring up the data from that number, what is the purpose of a dual system? A tag on the collar would not give you any less information.

1901. The onus for microchipping is being transferred to local government, but with very little regulation or control. It seems to be bureaucracy more than anything else. The documentation that we got today repeats that there will be no extra cost or resources. Armagh City Council raised the issue of resources, but we had a number of councils in yesterday that raised the issue of resources and said that there had been no consultation. The Department's line that there has been adequate consultation fell flat on its face yesterday. There is no way of checking the microchip unless the scanner is put on the dog. The council, therefore, in licensing that, cannot guarantee that the dog is microchipped at all.

1902. Ms Colette McMaster (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): With the dual system, basically you are talking about the visual identification. Some councils did raise concern that there would be duplication. However, others said that the visual identification helps because it makes it possible to know straight away whether a dog is licensed or not. That is like a first indicator to both dog wardens and any other people who come across a dog as to whether it is licensed. In future, if a dog is licensed, it will be microchipped. The fact that a dog has a tag will mean that it will be licensed and microchipped.

1903. Mr Mooney: The only other thing that I will pick up on is the notion that there is a willy-nilly system of recording microchip details. Some weeks ago, we sent up a draft of the subordinate legislation that will regulate what "a microchip" means for the purposes of this legislation. While it will not require an owner to register with one particular microchip database provider, it will require that, wherever an owner has registered, certain details will be recorded.

1904. Mr Molloy: I was talking to a vet yesterday, and he said that there is a problem with horses, because microchips are registered with different databases and it can take a variety of scans to pick the information up. There is no scanner that will scan all chips.

1905. Mr Mooney: There is.

1906. Mr P J Bradley: There is one, is there not? The iMax.

1907. Mr Mooney: There are two main types of microchip in use across the world. In Europe and most countries in the world, there is one international standard, which scanners will read. There is a chip used in America which older scanners sometimes do not read, and a scanner based on that system will not always pick up an ISO standard microchip. However, most scanners that are available now will pick up any chip in use in western Europe and other countries.

1908. Mr Molloy: I am sure that the vet was not telling lies. If a dog is microchipped, there is no necessity to register that with any direct database. You can pick and choose, but dog wardens will have to have a scanner that picks up that microchip.

1909. We will go back to the main point, which is really about double tagging and the bureaucracy that it will bring for councils. You have just told us that all you have to do is bring in the number of the microchip, and any council official can track that down and find out who owns the dog. Therefore, what is the purpose of the tag, except to see that the dog is licensed? Is it going to be compulsory for the dog to have a tag as well as a microchip? Someone at the council will have to read these and ring up to find out whether they are accurate. Council officials do not stand at counters waiting for something to come in; people will have to be paid to do that job. That is an extra resource on councils.

1910. Ms McMaster: The proposal is that microchipping is a new technology that will be used to help with identification. The tag is there currently, and this builds on the existing system. Therefore, the proposal is that the tag will remain there. Councils have said that there are advantages in that, and we have also heard that from other people.

1911. You mentioned that Armagh council had raised the resource concerns. We sought to deal with that in a letter that was sent to the Committee. Armagh City and District Council had concerns about who updates, maintains and administers the database and who provides the resources required at council level to insert and read the microchips. We have sought to clarify that those are not going to be requirements that will fall to local authorities. The Bill simply requires owners to microchip their dogs. The Bill — and this is to clarify the concern that Armagh had — does not require local authorities to do anything about microchipping. They will not be required to maintain or administer the database, or to insert the microchips, which was the concern that Armagh raised.

1912. When the consultation with councils was carried out earlier this year, all the responses were ratified by the elected representatives. We got a very full response from councils to the consultation.

1913. Mr Terrington: The tag requirement is set out in subordinate legislation made under the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. There is a case for saying that having two types of identification, as opposed to registration, is doubling up, and some councils said that. As Colette said, some councils also said that tags are worthwhile, because if a warden in a van is able to see that the owner is entirely compliant, it means that they do not have to do anything else. However, that is in subordinate legislation and could certainly be looked at in the future if it was felt that there was not a need.

1914. A question was raised last week or the week before about who pays for the tag. The cost of the tag comes out of the £5 licence fee, and is about 37p, which is quite a lot when the licence is £5. On the other hand, it is not an awful lot, and that would be the likely cash saving if the tag was not there. That is offset against some councils saying that the tag provides a useful visual identification, as well as providing any of us with identification to be able to return a dog, and not have to report it as a stray or lost.

1915. Mr Molloy: I have just one point abut clause 2. You say that an additional £1 million will be provided to local councils out of the licence fee. Who is going to pay for the concessions? Will the Department recompense councils? Who will make it up to the councils if, for example, there are so many pensioners or other variations of people in an area who do not pay a full licence fee? Will it be the Department, or the Finance Department, or who will make up the difference?

1916. Ms McMaster: The concessions are built into that estimate of the increased income. That up to £1 million takes account of the estimated number of concessionary licences. Even with the concessions, that is increasing quite significantly the income that is taken from —

1917. Mr Molloy: Sorry, but you have based the legislation on £12·50 being needed to cover the licence. If there are to be concessions — if, in some councils, 50% of dog owners happen to be pensioners and will get a £5 licence — who will make up the difference?

1918. Ms McMaster: It is just the licence fee. Nobody will make up the difference. That was the basis of the consultation, and that was welcomed and broadly supported by everyone. So, regardless of the concessions, it is still increasing the income —

1919. Mr Molloy: Let us clarify that one, Colette, that it was widely welcomed by everyone. It says here that you consulted certain officials in councils and local government. I have queried that from the start; there was actually no consultation. As for the idea that councils are happy, I repeat again that local government as a body was never informed of this. The issue about who will make up the difference has never been discussed with councils at all.

1920. If a council is not collecting rates from a number of areas — Government buildings and all the rest of it — the Department of Finance makes that up in the general grant. However, there is nobody to make up the difference in this situation, so there is no benefit at all to councils.

1921. Ms McMaster: It was built into the regulatory impact assessment that went out to consultation with the consultation proposals.

1922. Mr Terrington: The current licence fee is £5, with reductions for some groups of pensioners. The proposal to increase the licence fee was consulted on. There were other options, but the key option, as is set out in the Bill, was to increase the licence fee to £12·50 with reductions for a number of types of dog owners. That option was widely accepted by a range of stakeholders. We accept that some councils said that £12·50 was insufficient and suggested £25 as a better level. However, given that the licence fee has not been increased since 1983, the Department's view is that £12·50 is a balance between increasing it and keeping it affordable. I accept that, without the Bill as it stands, councils would call for an increase in the licence fee.

1923. Mr P J Bradley: I will go back to Francie's point. Your letter tells us that you are satisfied that the councils were well enough consulted. However, it is important to tell the officials that we heard completely different evidence at yesterday's meeting. I will say that both sides are right; I will not say that anyone is wrong.

1924. Mr W Clarke: I would like clarification about the tag. Like Francie, I felt that it should be one system. However, I understand that having the visual identification tag will cut enforcement costs. You cannot run about scanning every dog that walks down the street with its owner. A dog warden cannot jump out and scan a dog that being walked by an old lady. I buy into that. There is a need for some sort of visual identification. Is it correct that an enforcement officer can only scan a dog that has an identification tag?

1925. Mr Terrington: Sorry?

1926. Mr W Clarke: Can an enforcement officer only scan a dog that does not have an identification tag?

1927. Mr Terrington: If the dog is involved in an attack —

1928. Mr W Clarke: It is just walking down the road.

1929. Mr Terrington: If the dog owner is apparently compliant — the dog is accompanied, under control, on a leash, with its owner and there has been no straying or attacking offence — there would not seem to be any value in an enforcer doing anything with that owner. The belt and braces approach to licence enforcement is that the existence of the tag proves that the dog is licensed and that the owner is compliant with the issues of straying and attacks. A dog warden would have no reason to approach that owner. If a dog is involved in an attack or is a stray, a tag is identification enough to deal with those offences and the owner. If there is some dispute about ownership or something else is wrong, the microchip provides backup if the dog is not tagged.

1930. Mr W Clarke: It is fundamental to clarify the need for the identification tag, and I think that that does it.

1931. The Chairperson: You estimate that it will raise £1 million a year. Forty-something per cent of dogs are not licensed, and the Department does not know how many dogs are out there. What happens if we raise £500,000 a year? Where does the shortfall come from?

1932. Ms McMaster: It is an increase, whatever happens. There is a range. You are quite right: the amount of income raised will depend on the number of dog owners who license their dogs. Even based on the existing numbers of dog owners that have a licence, this will increase overall income, taking account of concession fees.

1933. Mr Terrington: The redirection of the fixed penalties to councils is also additional income for councils.

1934. The Chairperson: I accept that. However, given that 48% of dog owners do not have a licence when it costs £5, if we have compulsory microchipping and the cost of the licence rises to £12·50, is it likely that there will be a rise in the number of people who have licences? It will have to be very well enforced.

1935. Ms McMaster: It is unlikely that people who already have a licence will cease to be licensed. Our previous experience, when the licence fee was introduced, is that the number of owners who had their dogs licensed actually increased, despite the increase in the fee.

1936. Mr Terrington: From 37p to £5, yes. There was an increase, partly due to the increased enforcement that the 1983 Order also introduced — the dog wardens. We think that the same thing will apply here. The additional resource that the Bill gives will allow for improved enforcement. However, as Colette says, we start from the basis that the majority, if not all, of those who are currently licensed will re-licence their dogs.

1937. Mr Molloy: Your letter says that:

"In fact, the introduction of compulsory universal microchipping will reduce the number of unidentifiable dogs in local authority pounds, reducing kennelling costs".

Why, if the dogs are tagged, and with the microchip you have to catch the dog before you can measure it? I had this impression, and I think others had it, that you can scan a dog's microchip from a distance. However, you have to have the scanner up against the dog before you can actually read it. There is no benefit of having stray dogs identified on the street. Where is the fact that that will actually happen in that situation?

1938. Secondly, why do they not have a licence system in England? Why do we need two systems here and they do not have one in England?

1939. Mr Terrington: I will address the first issue: why we think this will save money in the long term.

1940. Say, for example, a dog is picked up as a stray. If it has a tag, the council may return it to its home straight away or impound it and contact the owner. If it has a microchip, the same thing will apply. If it has no tag and is not licensed, or if it has been abandoned and the tag taken off or dislodged, the dog ends up in the pound and stays there until the owner is found. The cost of kennelling that dog falls on the ratepayer. Ultimately, in some cases, the ratepayer will have to pay to destroy that dog. The more dogs can be permanently identified through microchipping, the fewer the cases where an owner cannot be found. When the dog is impounded and the owner is asked to come and collect it, the owner pays the kennelling charges until such time as he collects the dog. The only type of stray dog that costs the council is an unidentified dog — one for which the owner cannot be charged for kennelling costs.

1941. Mr Molloy: If the dog has a tag, that reduces the same problem. Why do they not have a licence system in England? What system has England?

1942. Mr Mooney: England had a licence system until the mid-1980s. The then Conservative Government looked at the licence fee, which was 37p; it had come down from 37½p when the ½p was abolished. It cost a great deal more to collect that 37p than the licence was bringing in. People were ignoring the licence; they were not paying it. It is worth pointing out that there is a strong campaign in Britain at present to restore the licence system.

1943. Mr Terrington: Unlike the 1983 Order, whereby the licence fee is collected and used purely for funding the enforcement of the legislation by councils, the money in England went into the central exchequer, so it had no impact on whoever was responsible for policing the legislation on strays and so on.

1944. Mr Molloy: The Committee has been told that there is a shortage of dogs in England and that the charities here are exporting them to England, selling them and getting good prices for them. There seems to be a contradiction.

1945. Ms McMaster: We have a licensing system here, and it has been here since 1983. It has been working well. There are no strong calls to do away with that system. It is supporting the dog warden services, and, as a result of it, we have seen improvements in dog control. It is not something that we are looking to discard. Obviously, this whole Bill —

1946. Mr Molloy: Why break it then?

1947. Ms McMaster: The Bill is about building on that system and improving dog control further in Northern Ireland. The intention of the Bill is to build on the system that we have.

1948. Mr Molloy: That wall over there is fairly solid and concrete. Talking to the Department is something similar, along the lines of trying to get any sort of concessions.

1949. The Chairperson: We keep trying.

1950. Mr T Clarke: There is a door in the wall as well, Chairman. There are other ways of doing things.

1951. I actually agree with the Department on this. If you do away with the licence fee, you are, in a sense, asking people who are not dog owners to subsidise a service to look after dog wardens. I think —

1952. Mr Molloy: I am not talking about doing away with the licensing.

1953. Mr T Clarke: You referred to England having no fee.

1954. Mr Molloy: I was talking about the dual system.

1955. Mr T Clarke: The other thing is something that has been recognised. I think that Mr Terrington has answered my question, but I will try to tease it out again anyway. If a dog is seized by a dog warden — Mr Molloy thought that it could be scanned from a distance; that would be some system — and its tag has been removed, compulsory microchipping will be beneficial in the identification of the dog. The only bit that I still struggle with, and which I would like to see tightened up, is that if a dog has neither it should not be kennelled while you look for its owner, because the owner has been irresponsible and has not registered the dog. The authorities should put the dog up for rehoming or, unfortunately, euthanise it, rather than look for its original home, because the dog has been brought about by illegal means. I would like to see that tightened up. At the end of the day, there are dogs roaming the streets, and there are people who will break the law. The sooner that they get the clear message that they cannot do that, the better. There is concern about doing two systems, and it may be down to cost, but you cannot remove the microchip; that is the long and the short of it. So I want that.

1956. Mr Terrington: The current rules are that councils must kennel the dog for five days. I am not sure whether that is in subordinate legislation or on the face of the Bill. The figures that the councils provide show that some dogs are returned, and the costs recouped. If it is an unlicensed dog under the Bill, which it will be if it is not microchipped, it is automatically an offence; there is no argument there. The costs will be recouped and the authorities will be able to put on whichever penalties they choose — the fixed penalty or the prosecution. It sits at five days, and that is not something that has been raised before.

1957. Mr Beggs: A comment was made earlier about the system that enables dogs to be moved to England to be rehomed. I picked up some resentment that they were taken there to be sold. Should we not be grateful that there are people who are happy to rehome our surplus dogs, rather than our having to put them down, and that they choose to do that, rather than go to breeders to buy dogs?

1958. Mr Molloy: You miss the point.

1959. Mr Beggs: I am grateful that many people give dogs a second chance in other parts of the United Kingdom. Is that not a more accurate interpretation, rather than some sort of profiteering by selling our homeless dogs?

1960. Mr Terrington: It certainly is a route to avoid, at the end of the five days, the destruction of any dogs which are not found a home.

1961. Mr Beggs: The other aspect that I want to address is dogs that cannot be identified. Following this legislation, what penalties will there be for those owners who do not have a licensed dog or, if it becomes compulsory, a microchipped dog?

1962. Mr Terrington: The Bill, as amended by the Committee's suggestion, will include a fixed penalty of up to £75 for having a non-valid licence, with a prosecution of up to £1,000.

1963. Mr W Clarke: Will you expand on why an amendment should not be included on compulsory microchipping of new pups at breeding establishments? There are a couple of paragraphs there. My rationale is that you can trace a dog through a microchip even if it is not licensed. Therefore, it would be very sensible to do it.

1964. Mr Terrington: I absolutely agree that it would be sensible. It is a route that has been taken in the South, and the requirement for breeders to do it is out for consultation in Wales at the moment. The way the 1983 Order is written is that it is an offence to sell a dog that is not licensed. The Committee has heard evidence from professional breeders, and they are more than content to apply those rules. The nearest analogy that I can think of is buying a car and the car company arranging your tax for you. They arrange the licence, which means that the dog is licensed by the time you pick it up. If we make microchipping a requirement on the licence, they will have to ensure that it is microchipped before it can be licensed. Therefore, in effect, if you were selling a dog, the minimum requirement will be to ensure that it is microchipped. If that were brought in for all owners in one go, that would happen automatically.

1965. Mr W Clarke: If you were buying a dog at a breeding establishment, it would all be done for you, and the fee would be included in the cost of buying the dog. It just seems sensible to do that.

1966. Mr Mooney: The same would hold if you were buying a rehomed dog from a dog pound. It would already have been chipped, and you would not leave with it until your details were on the microchip.

1967. Mr W Clarke: There is nothing in the Bill that will make dog breeders microchip dogs.

1968. Mr Terrington: We say that there is, because, right now, they can only sell a dog that is licensed. If you make it a requirement that dogs be microchipped —

1969. Mr W Clarke: That automatically goes on.

1970. Mr Terrington: Yes.

1971. Mr W Clarke: That is dead on. That is clearer.

1972. The Chairperson: P J Bradley made the point earlier about yesterday afternoon's meeting with the councils. The evidence in relation to that will be presented at this afternoon's session, and the Department will have an opportunity to respond then.

1973. Mr Savage: I am glad to see this. It will make dog owners act responsibly if they want to keep dogs. It will bring the whole thing into line. It may not be possible to get it to 100%, but it will have come quite a long way. I think that you are moving in the right direction.

1974. Mr Beggs: Going back to the issue of breeders and compulsory microchipping, your scenario is that all dogs will have to be compulsorily microchipped. Is there not an argument for allowing some time to get to the stage where it becomes compulsory? In other words, by starting with ensuring that all breeders are compulsorily microchipping and using some incentives for people voluntarily to get their dogs microchipped — for example, giving them a discount for a limited time. You take some of the pressure off the system to prevent people panicking about where they can get their dog microchipped, and, after a limited period of time, whether it is a number of years or whatever, it becomes compulsory. I would have concerns if Big Brother just told them to do it after a very short period of time. I would much prefer a little bit of carrot and stick: go with the breeders, and give a positive incentive to people to voluntarily get their dogs microchipped.

1975. Mr Terrington: Those are good suggestions, and they are things that we have looked at. In the first term, the Minister stated that she would be content to allow a delay in this part of the Bill in order that owners can get used to the idea, rather than just commencing it straight away. The time issue is something with which we would be content. There is a requirement to bring in part of the microchipping clause to define "microchip" and so on and so forth. Any microchip that goes into a pup would be useless if it were not linked to the database, etc. There would be no powers to scan.

1976. Some councils are comfortable with it, but for councils to become more comfortable with it, the issues start on the day that it is introduced for any set of dogs. Therefore the roll-in is better for everybody. If you put it onto registered breeders only, you are possibly impacting unfairly on responsible registered breeders and responsible owners who buy from responsible registered breeders, in advance of anyone else having to do it. Say that the Bill is enacted as it stands next summer. By the time that you make the subordinate legislation on what a microchip is and make it a minimum requirement under any new welfare legislation which will be regulating breeding establishments, you might be looking at a few months towards this time next year. That means that you are eating into the time in which you could be starting to roll out and make people aware that they need to do this at a given time a few months later, or whatever.

1977. The incentive is helpful. Our concern — and it is a concern that the Committee has expressed — is about any burden on councils. The incentive is a burden on councils in the sense that it is taking the £12·50 out of their bottom line. There are incentives out there, in terms of what other organisations are already offering. As we said before, that may have hit a glass ceiling. If the incentive is to work, you definitely have to know that what they have got will become a requirement in a given time. For people to know that they are getting something, they will comply in a period. It is sensible to have all of those things as part of a roll-out. The question is about how long that value would be before you bring it in.

1978. Ms McMaster: We have outlined that that can happen. The Minister is saying that if that clause is commenced after 12 months, for instance, the preparation for it and the campaign to promote it and to encourage people to do it voluntarily can be done in that first 12 months. From the date that the clause is commenced, there is a requirement on a breeder or anyone who is selling or giving away a dog to have that dog microchipped. For the individual owners, it kicks in the next time that they get their dogs licensed after that. That will depend on when their licences are due. In that instance, there is an element of phasing in. Throughout that time, we will be working alongside councils.

1979. Mr Terrington: It is important to say that it would be within the councils' powers and rights to do that anyway, without the legislation making them do it. They could take the incentive out of the licence fee, raised or otherwise. At least one council does that. A lot of councils do it with dogs that they sell or pass on from pounds. That incentive model is helpful. I suspect that some councils will do that. They will say that this is going to come in in a year's time and that they are happy to provide some way of doing that by way of vouchers, for instance, alongside the subordinate legislation or the Dogs Trust. Rather than making that a statutory requirement, they could do that and, as I said, some do.

1980. Mr Beggs: I was not aware that it could be done already.

1981. The Chairperson: Will the commencement Order be subject to an affirmative process?

1982. Ms McMaster: The commencement Order is an Order that starts the clause. The Minister has said that she is prepared to give a firm commitment that that clause will not be commenced until 12 months after the Bill has passed into law. During that period, we will be doing preparation work and working with councils and others to ensure that arrangements are in place.

1983. The Chairperson: What form will that commitment take? Will it be written?

1984. Ms McMaster: We have set that out in the letter that has come to the Committee.

1985. The Chairperson: With respect, we are asking for the ministerial commitment.

1986. Ms McMaster: That is fine. How do you want that provided? The Minister will be here today.

1987. Mr Savage: Roy raised something there that I think is very important. Phased in over a period of time — if you came to the Committee next year and had not made a fair bit of progress, it would be pointless. You will have to set a timescale so that it cannot drag on forever. Any responsible dog owner who wanted to care for their dog could get it in in a very short space of time.

1988. Mr Terrington: We agree entirely. It is important to have a date set so that people know what they are working to. For that purpose, what has been suggested is that it should be 12 months after Royal Assent, which will allow campaigns and press and allows people the time to do it over that year. Indeed, the process can continue for another year because it is the next time that you license your dog. The ability to get all dogs microchipped will be rolled out over two years, but it will become a legal requirement in one year from the time that is tabled now.

1989. Mr Molloy: John said that one council was using both systems at the moment. It is interesting that a member of that council who was here yesterday had no recollection of any discussion by Omagh District Council in relation to any of this legislation. He certainly had no input from the cost of a dual system to the councils. It is very well for members to talk about how quickly it is going to be enforced and all the rest of it, but they would do well to talk to their council first and explain to ratepayers the cost to councils to do that. That bit is missing. It is very clear that there has not been adequate consultation or a full explanation of the added costs and responsibilities to local government.

1990. Ms McMaster: All that we have been able to do is set out the options that are available to us and the information that we got from the consultation process, the regulatory impact assessment and the responses to that, and the ongoing engagement with councils. We have not, as yet, heard the information from yesterday's meeting.

1991. Mr Mooney: Omagh District Council's environmental services committee discussed it on 8 December last year.

1992. Mr Molloy: A committee?

1993. Mr Mooney: Yes. It was then ratified by the full council.

1994. Mr Molloy: We had a councillor saying that there was no discussion on the council about it. There is a bit of a conflict between the two situations.

1995. Mr Mooney: Its minutes are published online.

1996. Mr Molloy: We will see the evidence.

1997. The Chairperson: We need to move on and see what path we are going to take. The Department has indicated that it will defer commencement for 12 months and introduce subordinate legislation, and that this will be confirmed by the Minister in writing.

1998. Mr Molloy: We have not yet got a clear explanation of the need for a dual system. Microchipping is grand if that will be the system, but we do not have a clear line about the need for both systems to be in place and the bureaucracy that surrounds them.

1999. Mr T Clarke: You are wanted in the Speaker's Chair.

2000. Mr Molloy: I see that you are dressed up for the Minister today, anyway.

2001. Mr T Clarke: I would have worn my Union Jack tie, but I could not find it.

2002. Mr P J Bradley: Could it happen that each council would order its supply of microchips from a different source? How many suppliers are there? It is back to the earlier question about the one reader to serve all council areas. It could cause a lot of problems if we do not allow for that at the early stages.

2003. Mr Terrington: It is worth saying that there is nothing in the Bill requiring them to order, buy or insert microchips. That would have been a burden on them. The burden falls on the owner to have a microchip. As long as that microchip is compliant with the legislation — it meets an ISO standard — then it will be able to be scanned by most normal readers. As long as the information held against that includes the information required to unite that dog with its owner, the database will be compliant.

2004. These systems are in place across Europe. The very same model is used for welfare protection in England. [Interruption.]

2005. The Chairperson: Members, we have a witness speaking here.

2006. Mr Terrington: It is used for tail-docked dogs in England. It is used for linking dogs that have caused problems in Scotland, or will do when that legislation is commenced. The system of microchips linking to databases and being read by standard readers is a well-trodden path.

2007. Mr P J Bradley: It is just that I read somewhere that there is only one reader that is compatible with all microchips. I think it is called the iMax Black Label — it sounds like a drink.

2008. The Chairperson: Are we content with what the Department has brought forward, or do members have other proposals?

2009. Mr T Clarke: Content.

2010. Mr Beggs: Reluctantly content.

2011. Mr Molloy: Not content.

2012. The Chairperson: Do members have any other proposals, then?

2013. Mr Molloy: One system, very straightforward. If we introduce microchipping, let that be the one system. If we continue the licence, and if it is not broken, why try to fix it? You can put so much information on the microchip — all of the information that is on the tag. It is very seldom that a dog will actually hold on to its tag for the full year. Either it is not tagged for part of the year or it finishes up having to be renewed. The microchip cannot be taken out or lost — one system that is universal.

2014. Mr T Clarke: I propose that we accept what is here. It gives the council greater flexibility. We have had reassurance that the councils can actually reduce the fees if they wish. We have been given the most that it can be —

2015. Mr Beggs: In the short term.

2016. Mr Terrington: It is not so much reducing the fees as, if they decide to pay for the microchipping, in that sense, by providing a voucher or however they would do that, rather than —

2017. Mr T Clarke: At the end of the day, we are all aware that some dogs do not have tags and that some people can remove tags. While I appreciate what Francie is saying in relation to the two systems, the other advantage of the tag is that a member of the public can observe whether a dog is licensed or not without having a scanner, and can report the dog if it does not have a tag. From that point of view, I think we should accept it.

2018. The Chairperson: We have a proposal from Mr Clarke. Do we have a proposal from you, Mr Molloy?

2019. Mr Molloy: Yes, for one system.

2020. The Chairperson: OK. We will take Mr Molloy's proposal first, as it was proposed first.

2021. Mr Beggs: Do you have to have a seconder?

2022. The Chairperson: No.

2023. Mr T Clarke: It is a direct negative.

2024. The Committee Clerk: For the record, we need to —

2025. Mr T Clarke: They are two counter-proposals.

2026. The Committee Clerk: Members could abstain from the vote.

Members indicated dissent.

2027. The Chairperson: And Trevor Clarke's proposal?

Members indicated assent.

2028. The Chairperson: OK. We are now going to move on to the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny. I thank the officials for their attendance; they are welcome to remain in the Gallery while we go through this.

2029. Ms McMaster: Thank you.

Clause 1 (Exemptions)

2030. The Chairperson: There have been no issues on this that I am aware of —

2031. Mr Beggs: Where are we?

2032. The Chairperson: Clause 1.

2033. Mr Molloy: There is a query that I raised that has not been answered: who pays the difference with regard to exemptions? In any other system — I pointed out the rates system — the exemptions are paid for out of the general grant. In this system, exemptions are being proposed by the Department, but the people who will pick up the costs will be local government. I do not think that that part has been thought out. If the majority of people in a council area are getting a £5 licence, we will be no further forward than we are at present.

2034. The Chairperson: OK, we will write to the Department and seek a response in relation to that.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Microchipping)

2035. The Chairperson: This is subject to the receipt of correspondence.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the receipt of correspondence from the Minister confirming that the commencement of the clause will be deferred for 12 months from the date when the Bill is enacted, put and agreed to.

Clause 2, subject to the receipt of correspondence from the Minister confirming that the commencement of the clause will be deferred for 12 months from the date when the Bill is enacted, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Setting on or urging dog to attack)

2036. The Chairperson: I remind members that the Department has agreed that the new article 28(3)(b) of the 1983 Order, as introduced by clause 6, as well as a number of consequential articles in respect of broadly parallel or linked Order-making powers under articles 25(2)(f) and 33(3)(c) and a further consequential amendment of article 54 of that Order, be subject to the affirmative process rather than the negative process. In addition, the Department agreed to extend the restriction in respect of people, livestock and other dogs to include other domesticated animals.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 6, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Attack by dog on a person or another dog)

2037. The Chairperson: The Department agreed to extend the restriction in respect of attacks on people, livestock and other dogs to include other domestic pets.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 7, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Control conditions on dog licences)

2038. The Chairperson: The Department agreed that guidance would be made available to, and agreed with, enforcement officers and their councils as soon as possible. In addition, the Department has agreed to amend article 30B as introduced by clause 8 to consider education or training courses as a control condition.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 8, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Fixed penalty notices)

2039. Mr Molloy: There is enough draconian stuff in the thing, without the bill as well.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Amount of fixed penalty)

2040. The Chairperson: The Department agreed that it should align the fee system with that contained in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

2041. Mr T Clarke: What happens if that does not come in before this one?

2042. The Committee Clerk: It will still be on the face of the Bill that it should be £75.

2043. Mr T Clarke: Francie thinks it is not dear enough.

2044. Mr Molloy: Your former Chairman actually disagreed with the licence fee that the Department was proposing of £50.

2045. Mr T Clarke: Ah, but he is former.

2046. Mr Molloy: This is a similar situation, so maybe a wee bit of consistency from your party —

2047. The Chairperson: OK members, we will move on.

2048. Mr T Clarke: It must be something in the water in Mid Ulster.

2049. Mr Beggs: Take this outside if you want.

2050. The Chairperson: Absolutely.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 14, subject to the amendment suggested by the Committee and agreed by the Department, agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

23 November 2010
(Unapproved)

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Stephen Moutray (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr P J Bradley
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr Simpson Gibson
Mr William Irwin
Mr Kieran McCarthy
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Savage

2051. The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): We will now undertake consideration of the first draft of the Committee's report on the Dogs (Amendment) Bill. Members will need to consider and approve each paragraph. If amendments are required, I propose adjourning the meeting to allow those amendments to be applied and brought back to the Committee later today. That will ensure that the deadline for the Committee Stage of the Bill is met.

2052. I propose to start with the powers and membership, and then to work through the 23 pages of the report. Where a recommendation has been made, I will make reference to the summary of recommendations commencing on page 9 of the report. Are members content?

2053. Members indicated assent.

2054. The Chairperson: Are members content that the powers, membership and table of contents are accurate?

Members indicated assent.

2055. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 1 of the executive summary, which details the purpose of the Bill?

Members indicated assent.

2056. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the executive summary, which detail the principles of the Bill and the witnesses that have provided oral evidence to the Committee?

Members indicated assent.

2057. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 4 of the executive summary, which details the key issues?

Members indicated assent.

2058. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraphs 5-8 of the executive summary, which detail microchipping and licensing?

2059. Mr Molloy: I query the line in paragraph 5 that:

"Almost all … were in favour of the introduction of compulsory microchipping."

2060. The Chairperson: Do you have an alternative suggestion, Mr Molloy?

2061. Mr Molloy: I think that nearly every group queried the need for microchipping and the dog licence. They spoke about microchipping, but there was a lot of opposition to compulsory microchipping.

2062. The Chairperson: I take on board what you say, but that sentence refers only to microchipping.

2063. Mr Molloy: I do not think that the majority were in favour. The Clerk will have the notes with the numbers in favour in one way or another, but it comes down to how many people were asked.

2064. The Chairperson: Have you read the sentence underneath that to put it in context? Does that make you any more comfortable with it?

2065. Mr Molloy: Yes, it covers some of the issues. A lot of the evidence was in favour of microchipping, but on a voluntary basis.

2066. The Chairperson: What if we were to change the word "introduction" to "concept"?

2067. Mr Molloy: My query relates to the word "compulsory". A lot of the people who gave evidence said that microchipping was beneficial, but nearly every group had reservations and concerns about the compulsory nature.

2068. The Committee Clerk: We could remove the word "compulsory" and, as the Chairperson suggest, put "concept" instead of introduction, so that the line read:

"Almost all respondents to the Committee consultation and during oral evidence sessions were in favour of the concept of microchipping."

2069. The Chairperson: Is that OK? Are members content with paragraph 5?

Members indicated assent.

2070. The Chairperson: Members may want to look at paragraph 6.

2071. Mr P J Bradley: I am probably one of those who is referred to in the line:

"the Committee reluctantly agreed to a dual system of registration and licensing."

I certainly reluctantly agreed. Where do the likes of me stand now? To try to get the Bill through if we can, should I abstain at all times or continue to reluctantly agree?

2072. The Committee Clerk: The member was one of two on the Committee who opposed the clause. That is recorded in the minutes and in the Hansard report. Whether the member wants to abstain from voting on the report is entirely up to him. As I said, his opposition was recorded in the Hansard report and in the minutes.

2073. Mr P J Bradley: I probably have a completely different view to everyone else. I support compulsory microchipping but no other form of licensing; everything should be on the microchip and database. I do not think we are going to get that delivered now. Paragraph 6 also talks about what might occur over the next 12 months; I reluctantly accept that too.

2074. The Chairperson: I take your points on board. Are members generally content —

2075. Mr Savage: Maybe I missed this earlier on. Do councillors have to declare an interest?

2076. The Chairperson: You can do. That is OK.

2077. Are members content with paragraph 6?

2078. Members indicated assent.

2079. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 7?

2080. Members indicated assent.

2081. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 8?

2082. Mr Irwin: I am only just in; I am sorry for arriving late. I declare an interest as a member of Armagh City and District Council.

2083. Mr Molloy: I am a wee bit concerned about the wording of the last sentence in the paragraph:

"The Department should also consider whether this system should be resourced using the principle of full cost recovery."

My concern is that that could mean that the cost of the microchipping database would have to be borne by either the applicant or the council.

2084. The Committee Clerk: The recommendation is that the Department uses its computer system and that the full cost recovery is placed on the Department.

2085. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 8?

2086. Members indicated assent.

2087. The Chairperson: Are members content with the recommendations that are made in paragraph 6 of the report, which are transposed to the first and second bullet points of paragraph 14?

2088. Mr P J Bradley: Say that again, Chairman.

2089. The Chairperson: I am led to believe that this is a straightforward lift from the text.

2090. Mr P J Bradley: Why have we bypassed paragraph 9?

2091. The Committee Clerk: The reason is that a recommendation made in paragraph 6 has been lifted to the recommendations pages. We will be coming back to paragraph 9.

2092. Mr P J Bradley: All right, OK.

2093. The Chairperson: So are members content with that item?

2094. Members indicated assent.

2095. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraphs 9 to 11 inclusive of the executive summary, detailing the resourcing of enforcement responsibilities through fees and fixed penalties?

2096. Mr P J Bradley: Again, just for the record: agreeing to the increase does not necessarily mean that I am accepting a licence. I am not going to forgo my principles on the dual system. I will reluctantly accept it, in the phrase that we are using this morning, but I am still opposed to the dual system of microchipping and licensing.

2097. Mr W Clarke: Is it worth putting something into paragraph 9 with regard to what Francie raised about the shortfall in revenue to councils?

2098. The Committee Clerk: That is in the next paragraph.

2099. Mr W Clarke: OK, I am happy enough.

2100. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 9?

2101. Members indicated assent.

2102. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 10?

2103. Members indicated assent.

2104. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 11?

2105. Members indicated assent.

2106. The Chairperson: Are members, therefore, content with the recommendation made in paragraph 11, and transposed to the second bullet point of paragraph 14?

2107. Mr Molloy: I think that that deficit issue could be highlighted, because it is the gap that could leave local government funding higher than proposed in that situation.

2108. The Committee Clerk: If we put that as a separate bullet point on the recommendations page, would that be sufficient?

2109. The Chairperson: Are members content with that?

2110. Members indicated assent.

2111. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraphs 12 and 13 inclusive of the executive summary, detailing breed-specific legislation and control conditions?

2112. Mr Gibson: What, precisely, do we mean by the phrase "minded to agree"? Does that mean that we were not fully persuaded — that we are minded to agree, but we have not actually agreed?

2113. The Committee Clerk: There was still some doubt expressed by members as to whether it was inappropriate to have the legislation still in place. However, the Committee decision was that the clause should stand as it was, so that the ban remains in place.

2114. Mr Gibson: The breed-specific ban.

2115. Mr Molloy: I have to go now, but I want to mark up one that I will miss. I know that it is jumping ahead, but paragraph 26 mentions the power that:

"enables district dog wardens to attach certain control conditions".

The dog wardens will not be making legislation, so it would be important to include wording like "recommends to council" in that paragraph, because it will have to be the councils that make any decisions.

2116. The Committee Clerk: This is a straight lift from the explanatory notes that are provided with the Bill. The new article 30A will provide the councils with the power to attach the control conditions.

2117. Mr Molloy: We could include something along the lines of a dog warden could "recommend to a council", because a dog warden cannot enforce legislation.

2118. The Committee Clerk: The dog wardens will be given the power to enforce the legislation.

2119. Mr Molloy: If they are working for councils, they will not. The power will come from the councils, not from the dog wardens.

2120. The Committee Clerk: The council is given the power to enforce it.

2121. Mr Molloy: It is just that wording. I am sorry that I will miss the rest of the meeting.

2122. Mr P J Bradley: I know that I am straying from this, but I want to make a comment. Francie has had to leave to be Deputy Speaker or something like that. He has had a great input to this. It is unfair that things might happen here that he is not au fait with. Perhaps that is a problem with meeting during plenary.

2123. Mr Irwin: In all fairness, I think that he has stated what he had problems with.

2124. Mr P J Bradley: We are going to get through a lot of work here.

2125. The Chairperson: I take your point, Mr Bradley. We are content to make the small change that Mr Molloy suggested in relation to paragraph 26. Are members content to amend paragraph 26 to say:

"which enables district councils to attach certain control conditions"?

Members indicated assent.

2126. The Chairperson: I propose to leave the recommendations on pages 6 and 7 until members have considered the main body of the report. Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

2127. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraphs 15 to 18, which give factual information?

Members indicated assent.

2128. The Chairperson: Are members content with pages 9 to 13 of the report, entitled "Summary of the Draft Dogs Amendment Bill as presented to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Committee Stage", which represents a summary of the various clauses of the Bill, subject to the change already agreed at paragraph 26?

Members indicated assent.

2129. The Committee Clerk: I remind members that this is basically the explanatory notes that come with the Bill provided by the Department.

2130. The Chairperson: We now come to the "Summary of Consideration and Agreed Amendments". I propose to consider this paragraph by paragraph. Where a recommendation has been made, I will refer members to the section entitled "'Recommendations" that they previously agreed to defer. Are members content to take that course of action?

Members indicated assent.

2131. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 39?

Members indicated assent.

2132. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 40?

Members indicated assent.

2133. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 41?

Members indicated assent.

2134. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 42?

Members indicated assent.

2135. The Chairperson: Are members therefore content with the recommendation made at the third bullet point, commencing on page 6 of the report and continuing to page 7?

Members indicated assent.

2136. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 43?

Members indicated assent.

2137. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 44?

Members indicated assent.

2138. Mr Savage: I did not know that there were so many stray dogs unlicensed.

2139. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 45?

Members indicated assent.

2140. The Chairperson: Members have previously indicated that they are content with the recommendations made at the second bullet point in paragraph 14 of the report. I propose to continue with the next paragraph. Are members content with paragraph 46?

Members indicated assent.

2141. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 47?

Members indicated assent.

2142. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 48?

Members indicated assent.

2143. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 49?

Members indicated assent.

2144. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 50?

Members indicated assent.

2145. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 51?

Members indicated assent.

2146. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 52?

Members indicated assent.

2147. Mr P J Bradley: I do not want to nit-pick, but do we have our priorities right when we talk about:

"urging a dog to attack another dog, a person or livestock"?

Should we not be starting with "a person" first?

2148. The Committee Clerk: That would be an amendment to the Bill. That is the wording in the Bill.

2149. Mr P J Bradley: Which is the most serious issue?

2150. The Chairperson: I take your point.

2151. Are members therefore content with the final bullet point in paragraph 14, on page 7, under the title "Recommendations"?

Members indicated assent.

2152. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 53?

Members indicated assent.

2153. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 54?

Members indicated assent.

2154. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 55?

Members indicated assent.

2155. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 56?

Members indicated assent.

2156. The Chairperson: Are members content that the minutes of proceedings and the Hansard transcript of this morning's meeting be appended to the report unapproved?

Members indicated assent.

2157. The Chairperson: I propose that we adjourn the meeting for 20 minutes.

Committee suspended.

On resuming —

2158. The Chairperson: Members will now have a copy of the updated report. Clerk, can you bring members through the changes that have been made?

2159. The Committee Clerk: The first line of page 2, paragraph 5 has been amended to read:

"Almost all respondents to the Committee consultation and during oral evidence sessions were in favour of the concept of microchipping."

2160. The Chairperson: Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

2161. Mr Beggs: I declare an interest as a local government councillor.

2162. Mr T Clarke: If it is important, I declare it as well.

2163. The Committee Clerk: Page 6, paragraph 14 has been amended to include an additional bullet point that has come out of the second bullet point. It is now a third bullet point, which begins:

"In any event, the Department may wish to keep the need for gap funding".

That was brought by Mr Molloy, who wanted that highlighted.

2164. The Chairperson: Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

2165. The Committee Clerk: On page 10, paragraph 26, the term "dog wardens" has been removed.

2166. The Chairperson: Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

2167. The Chairperson: To complete our consideration of the report, we have to approve pages 18 to 20, which are a direct transcript from the minutes previously approved. Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

2168. The Chairperson: Are members content that the minutes of proceedings and the Hansard transcript of this morning's meeting be appended to the report unapproved?

Members indicated assent.

2169. The Chairperson: Are members content that the Committee's report on the Dogs (Amendment) Bill should now be laid in the Business Office and that it be ordered for print?

Members indicated assent.

2170. The Chairperson: I advise members that the laying of the report and ordering to print will result in the end of the Committee Stage of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill. I thank members for their detailed consideration of the Bill, and I thank all of those who submitted written or oral evidence to the Committee for giving their time and expert advice to members. Finally, I thank the departmental officials who have attended the Committee and responded to our queries over the past few months.

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

Appendix 3 – Written Submissions

1. Dr Elaine Hardy

2. Emma McCool

3. Coleraine Borough Council

4. Dogs Trust

5. Irish Foot Harriers Association

6. British Association for Shooting and Conservation

7. County Down Hounds

8. South Tyrone Foxhounds

9. Royal Mail

10. Armagh City and District Council

11. Dungannon Foxhounds

12. Ballymoney Borough Council

13. Banbridge District Council

14. British Veterinary Association

15. Countryside Alliance Ireland

16. Greyhounds Welfare Northern Ireland

17. Newtownabbey Borough Council

18. Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Committee

19. North of Ireland Veterinary Association

20. Trevor McConville

21. Kennel Club

22. Communications Workers Union

23. Lawrance Rafferty

Dr Elaine Hardy - 25 June 2010

From: Elaine Hardy
Sent: 25 June 2010 16:06
To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email
Subject: The Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Dear Sirs,

In reference to clause two of The Dogs (Amendment) Bill

"Clause 2 of the Bill (Microchipping) introduces a requirement to have a dog implanted with a microchip before any licence or transfer certificate is issued and empowers the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to make subordinate legislation regulating a system of compulsory microchipping".

I would like to know whether the cost of microchipping has been investigated.

I am aware that the procedure can be expensive and dependent on the price determined by an individual veterinary practice as well as the company producing the microchip. At present microchipping costs owners an average of £30. As microchipping is linked to private enterprise data bases, e.g. http://www.pettrac.co.uk/ , http://www.pet-detect.com/ then it stands to reason that compulsion will create a situation whereby private companies will be able to increase the price of microchips, hence the cost of microchipping may become even more expensive.

The vast majority of dog owners are law abiding citizens and it would seem that the purpose of this legislation is to punish the majority for the sake of a minority of irresponsible dog owners. It would seem that the logic behind this clause is ill conceived and unfair especially in consideration of the economic hardships that many Northern Ireland citizens are facing.

The logical conclusion is that the high cost (of microchipping) will encourage more people to abandon their dogs, which ultimately will increase the number of strays; Those that have not already registered their dogs, will most probably not microchip their dogs and will ignore legislation anyway.

Therefore I believe that this clause must be removed, unless the government is prepared to offer microchipping free of charge.

Sincerely,

Dr Elaine Hardy

Emma McCool - 4 July 2010

From: Emma McCool
Sent: 04 July 2010 17:57
To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email
Subject: stupid ideas

I think micro chipping is a good idea but I prefer the way it is now only the people who want their dog micro-chipped should have it.

Why do they need to increase the price of the licence fee? Being a dog owner myself I think £5 is a suitable price. Increasing it would do nothing for strays/abandoned dogs.

Coleraine Borough Council - 7 July 2010

Our Ref : KD/KS
Your Ref:
Being Dealt with by: Kieran Doherty

7 July 2010

Dog Control Bill Team
Room 933, Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SB

Dear Sir

Re: Dogs Amendment Bill

Thank you for the opportunity to consult on the above bill at this stage.

You will already have a reply from Coleraine Borough Council regarding a previous version which remains valid as the body corporate view of this Council. Discussions at officer level however would raise three key issues as follows:-

(i) Licence Fees – you will recall some time ago a popular rumour that the licence fee would be set in the order of £50. You will also recall that this met with considerable opposition from the public, indeed I believe that £50 as an unabated licence fee is indefensible. I would equally argue however that a realistic fee for an unabated licence should be £25. A business case for this figure is being prepared by NIDAG on behalf of CEHOG to support this view.

(ii) Fixed Penalty Notices – you will be aware that the level of fixed penalty fines in recent similar legislation such as The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill is flexible within certain limits with a default position set by the Department if the Council fails to set a level. It is recommended that this flexibility is incorporated into this legislation.

(iii) Micro-chipping – The concept of compulsory micro-chipping is supported however due to current issues with database management it is suggested that this section is included but not commenced at this stage.

Perhaps you could bear these comments in mind as you take this process forward.

Once again the opportunity to be involved in the preparatory stages of this legislation is very much appreciated.

Yours faithfully

Kieran Doherty
Director of Environmental Health

This correspondence has been produced having regard to this Department's Enforcement Policy. If you are unhappy with any of the matters raised the Council operates a Corporate Complaints Procedure to allow you to register your concerns. Complaints Number: 028 7034 7134. Copies of both documents may be obtained from this office or by logging on to www.colerainebc.gov.uk.

Dogs Trust - 21 July 2010

Comments on the Dogs (Amendment) Bill
Dogs Trust
July 2010

Dogs Trust is the UK's leading dog welfare charity. Every year we invest substantial resources in addressing the stray dog problem through microchipping, neutering and our education services. We care for over 16,000 stray or abandoned dogs every year through our network of 18 Rehoming Centres including our Ballymena Centre. In Northern Ireland we have neutered over 67,000 dogs; microchipped nearly 32,000, and in 2009 alone we ran 256 educational workshops, reaching out to nearly 8000 school children. The happiness of every dog is at the heart of everything we do and we never put a healthy dog down.

Dogs Trust understands that the proposed measures in the Dog Control Bill are primarily concerned with dog control and not welfare, and we welcome the introduction of Animal Welfare Legislation in the near future. However, Dogs Trust considers that dog control is inexorably linked with dog welfare and that every opportunity to improve the welfare of dogs in Northern Ireland should be taken.

The proposed Dog Control Bill includes key measures to improve the welfare of dogs in Northern Ireland; we welcome the introduction of 'ASBO'-like requirements on dog owners whose dogs have shown undesirable behaviour, the use of fixed penalties, the creation of a new offence of allowing a dog to attack another dog, and the introduction of compulsory microchipping.

Microchipping a dog should ideally prove legal ownership of the dog, and as a result will reinforce the responsibilities of the owner under the forthcoming animal welfare legislation. Microchipping is not an act of veterinary surgery, it is low cost, accessible, and almost universally promoted by animal welfare organisations and rehoming centres. The introduction of a compulsory microchipping policy will, over time, promote the principles of responsible dog ownership thus diminishing the impact of dog related problems Local Authorities have to deal with. Microchipping a dog is a one off cost that offers a lifetime of security for both owner and dog and the act of microchipping provides a clear point of intervention for the trained professional, be it a vet, veterinary nurse, or trained charity representative, to exert a positive influence on the owner, for instance advising on diet, welfare, training and behaviour.

Dogs Trust has been campaigning for the introduction of compulsory microchipping across the UK for some time now. In 2009 over 107,000 stray dogs were dealt with by Local Authorities across the UK. Stray dog management costs money, and we consider that universal microchipping would enable many more of these dogs to be quickly reunited with their owners and would significantly reduce the associated costs for Local Authorities.

However, we are concerned that the introduction of microchipping as a condition of the dog licence will in fact be counter productive. We know that the majority of dog owners in Northern Ireland do not agree with the dog licence and, even at the low cost of £5, choose to ignore it. It is seen as an unfair and out of date tax.

Currently, many owners are reluctant to chip their dogs through our subsidised campaigns as they believe it may lead to them being prosecuted for not having a licence. Where we are able to re-assure them that this is not the case, they are happy to have their dogs chipped. If microchipping is linked to the dog licence, we fear that the association with an unpopular "tax" will deter the unlicensed majority from considering microchipping as they will feel that they can now be identified as not having a licence. This will lead to more unidentified stray dogs being held in pounds for up to 5 days and then being destroyed at the tax payers' expense.

Dogs Trust is absolutely adamant that compulsory microchipping should be introduced on welfare grounds and as an alternative to licensing. Northern Ireland has consistently been shown to be the worst area in the UK for straying dogs and the subsequent destruction of strays. In 2008, approximately 13% of the UK's stray dogs and 60% of all dogs euthanised were located in Northern Ireland. We also know, from our vast experience of working with Local Authorities and Dog Wardens, that licensing does not play any part in solving the stray problem. Microchipping however, clearly identifies and underlines the responsibility of the owner and in addition to this microchips enable stray dogs to be reunited with their owners.

We have already identified the fact that irresponsible owners in Northern Ireland do not buy a licence. We estimate that there are around 320,000 dogs in Northern Ireland, whilst there are currently only about 114,000 dog licences (35%). It is much more likely that owners will have their dog microchipped due to the known benefits for both the dog and the owner. The licence confers no such benefits for either dog or owner. Linking chipping to the licence will, we fear, result in many owners choosing to ignore both. We believe that by making it compulsory for dogs to be microchipped before changing hands, and before six months of age in the introductory period, compliance will be much higher than is achieved through the licensing scheme.

We recognise that Local Councils need revenue in order to perform their tasks and we believe that they can bring in additional revenue by microchipping dogs and by charging around £10 for the procedure (we can supply chips at £2.95 + VAT including owner registration fee). An increase in microchipping would mean that fewer dogs would need to be boarded and ultimately destroyed by Local Authorities, therefore saving the tax payer money. We are also very happy to support the suggestion in the Bill that fines for penalties be retained by the Local Authority.

As the UK's largest dog welfare charity we would welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee.

Irish Foot Harriers Association - 26 July 2010

Pat Devlin
Irish Foot Harriers Association

Clerk to the Agriculture & Rural Development Committee
Room 284 Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3XX

26th July 2010

Re: Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Dear Sir,

I write on behalf of the Irish Foot Harriers Association following the advertisement of a Public Notice on behalf of the NI Assembly Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development inviting comments on the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

The Irish Foot Harriers Association (IFHA) is the representative body for those groups who hunt hares on foot. We have 150 member clubs, representing over 5,000 members.

The IFHA broadly welcomes the Dogs (Amendment) Bill and attempts to improve the control of dogs where this is demonstrated to be necessary and also to reduce the problems associated with straying dogs.

However, we are strongly opposed to proposals to introduce compulsory microchipping for dogs on three main grounds.

1. We are not satisfied that microchipping is entirely safe for our dogs. Microchips are normally inserted between dog's shoulder blades but have been known to migrate to other parts of the dog's body, causing obvious health concerns. Furthermore our dogs are particularly active and athletic which gives us further grounds for concern regarding microchip migration.

2. There is a substantial cost associated with compulsory microchipping. An average litter of puppies would be about 8 in number and given the published estimated costs of microchipping is £20 to £30 then each litter would cost between £160 to £240 to microchip. Unlike many other dogs, foot hounds are not bred for sale. Each member of the hunt club keeps a few hounds on their own property and should they breed a bitch they will normally give the pups to other members of the hunt club without charge making it impossible to recoup the costs of microchipping.

3. Our dogs are always kennelled when not working and do not stray. We therefore see no good reason why we should be required to carry out an unnecessary, costly and potentially unsafe procedure.

For the above reasons we would respectfully ask the Committee to consider promoting an exemption for hunting dogs from the compulsorily microchipping requirements of the Bill.

We would be more than happy to appear before the Committee to further explain or position and to suggest how any exemption could work.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Devlin

Pat Devlin
Secretary
IFHA

British Association for Shooting and Conservation -
26 July 2010

26 July 2010

The Clerk to the Committee
Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Sir

Re: Dogs (Amendment) Bill

BASC is grateful for the opportunity to submit comments to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, in relation to the Dogs (Amendment) Bill, presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 24th May.

BASC Northern Ireland responded to the original consultation earlier this year and given that a large percentage of our members have working dogs, we look forward to engaging with the Committee to try and achieve effective but fair dog control regulations.

Our comments are specifically in relation to the following clauses:

• Compulsory micro-chipping
• Increase in Dog Licence Fees

Further to our written & submitted comments, BASC Northern Ireland would welcome an opportunity to make representation to the Committee in person if a request to do so were forthcoming.

Yours sincerely,

Tommy Mayne
Country Officer
BASC Northern Ireland

Dogs (Amendment) Bill

To: The Committee for Agriculture & Rural Development

From: BASC Northern Ireland (The British Association for Shooting & Conservation)

Introduction

BASC is the representative body for sporting shooting in the UK and has a membership in excess of 130,000. Our aims are to protect and promote all aspects of sporting shooting and the wellbeing of the countryside. We actively promote good practice, training, education, scientific research and habitat conservation.

BASC believes that all those who shoot, must conduct themselves, at all times, according to the law, to the highest safety standards and with sportsmanship and courtesy. Working dogs play a vital part in sporting shooting, both in flushing quarry from cover and in recovering shot quarry.

We note from the consultation document that one of the key objectives of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill is to address the issues of stray and abandoned dogs. The proposed legislation as presented in the draft Bill, attempts to tackle these issues, and while that is to be commended, we feel that for a number of reasons, the draft Bill as it currently stands, will simply penalise responsible dog owners and do little to solve the problems, therefore falling short of its original intention.

Clause: Compulsory Micro-chipping

BASC Comment

As stated in our response to consultation, BASC Northern Ireland is opposed to compulsory micro-chipping.

However, while we believe that micro-chipping can be a valuable way of reuniting a lost or stolen dog with its owner, we also believe that the decision as to whether or not a dog should be micro-chipped should be made by the owner. A survey of BASC members in 2006 showed that at that time, 43% already micro-chipped their dogs. BASC promotes the voluntary micro-chipping of all dogs owned by its members and we believe that compulsory micro-chipping will simply add a further financial burden to responsible, law abiding dog owners in Northern Ireland.

We note from the analysis to consultation document, that of the twenty five local councils that responded, only ten (40%) are in favour of compulsory micro-chipping with the other fifteen (60%) local councils being against it, due to the additional administrative and subsequent financial burdens which they would incur.

We also note from the analysis to consultation document, that some councils have experienced difficulty in re-homing micro-chipped dogs, due to that fact that that the dog may have changed ownership, and that the microchip database has not been updated with the new owners details. As a result, this can lead to such dogs being kept in council kennels for longer than the statutory period whilst thorough investigations are carried out, prior to such dogs being either re-homed or destroyed.

This process obviously has additional financial implications for local councils and we note that in a bid to address this problem, a number of councils have recommended that it should be made a legal requirement, for the owners of micro-chipped dogs to notify both their local dog warden and the microchip company when there is a transfer of ownership. While this attempt to address the issue of out of date microchips is to be commended, BASC is concerned that if ever implemented, this system would place not only a further workload on council dog wardens but, more importantly, a further financial burden on the owners of micro-chipped dogs, as there would no doubt be a fee for updating records held by database management companies.

Finally, we understand that compulsory micro-chipping does not exist in any other part of the UK and therefore we do not see the merits of introducing compulsory micro-chipping in Northern Ireland.

Clause: Increase in Licence Fee to £12.50 / Block Licence to £32

BASC Comment

BASC Northern Ireland is opposed to any increase in the dog licensing fee, in relation to either the individual licence or block licence. In fact, we would question the existence of the dog licensing system in the first instance. Dog licensing does not exist in any other part of the UK, yet the consultation document notes that the number of stray dogs is higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. Hence, we feel that the existing licensing system in the Province has not addressed the issue of abandoned or stray dogs, therefore we fail to see how proposed increase of 150% to £12.50, would rectify this problem.

The majority of our members own a number of working dogs, subsequently, the proposed increase in the block licence fee to £32.00 (an increase of 156%) will undoubtedly affect a significant number of them. BASC feels that it is the responsible dog owner who will feel the greatest impact of any increase in the dog licence fee.

BASC recognises the value of the dog warden service, however we feel that it is the whole community, not just dog owners, that benefit from the service provided. Therefore we feel that it is totally inappropriate that the financial burden be placed on law-abiding dog owners, through a licence fee. Furthermore, we believe that the dog licensing system should be scrapped to bring the Province into line with the rest of the UK and that the cost of the dog warden service should be met as part of local government spending.

Summary

BASC is opposed to both compulsory micro-chipping and any increase in the dog licensing fee, as we believe that this would place a significant financial burden on our members and that it would do little to address the issue of abandoned or stray dogs. Neither compulsory micro-chipping nor the dog licensing system, exist in the rest of the UK and we believe that that irresponsible dog owners will most likely continue to neither licence nor micro-chip their dogs leaving law-abiding dog owners to take the financial impact.

County Down Hounds - 26 July 2010

South Tyrone Foxhounds - 26 July 2010

Royal Mail - 27 July 2010

The Clerk to the Committee Room 284 Parliament Buildings Stormont Ballymiscaw BELFAST BT4 3XX

Group Corporate & Government Affairs External Relations Royal Mail House 20 Donegall Quay BELFAST BT1 1AA Tel: 028 9089 2052 Fax: 028 9089 2233 www.royalmail.com

Dear Clerk

I am writing on behalf of Royal Mail to support the dog control legislation currently passing through the Assembly.

Last year Royal Mail delivery staff reported over 100 attacks by dogs (an average of 2 attacks per week) resulting in both minor nips and serious cases requiring hospital treatment. These were the cases that were reported to us, but we believe that many more incidents do in fact go unreported.

Attacks by dogs represent a third of all accidents suffered by Royal Mail staff and it is an issue we take very seriously. As a responsible employer we regularly provide training and advice to our delivery staff to help them assess and deal with potential attacks and we also work closely with local authority dog wardens whose support is invaluable to us. In addition we recently issued a public appeal to dog owners to keep pets under control when delivery staff call with mail. Many members of the Northern Ireland Assembly have given their support to this public awareness campaign, for which we are very grateful.

We very much welcome the principles behind the Dogs (Amendment) Bill and particularly support the following objectives:-

• to promote responsible dog ownership
• to reduce the number of strays
• to make it easier for dog wardens to identify stray and other problem dogs and to respond more flexibly to any problems that emerge with a dog's behaviour

Within the Bill itself we are very pleased to see new conditions outlined in the "control of dogs" section. The control conditions set down at Article 30A which include the requirement to muzzle the dog in a public place and that the dog (when not under control) be kept securely confined in a building, yard or other enclosure, will be extremely helpful in managing deliveries to premises where the risk has been assessed as high.

Tom O'Kane, Safety Director for Royal Mail in Northern Ireland, and I are happy to meet the Committee at its convenience, should members wish to discuss these issues further with us.

Yours sincerely

Barbara Roulston
Head of External Relations Northern Ireland

Armagh City and District Council - 27 July 2010

Armagh City & District Council

11CM13

27 July 2010

The Clerk to the Committee
Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284, Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Ballymiscaw
BELFAST BT4 3XX

Dear Sir/Madam

Proposals for Changes to Dog Control Legislation

Armagh City and District Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the above consultation and wishes to make the following comments in relation to the Dogs (Amendment) Bill:

Clause 2 Microchipping

As stated in the Council's response to the consultation in February 2010, we believe that there are benefits to be gained from making micro-chipping compulsory, however there are issues which we believe need to be considered. These were detailed in our original consultation response but include who updates, maintains and administers the database(s) and the resources required at District Council level to insert and read microchips.

Clause 4 Fees

The Council agrees with the reduction in the license fee to £5 for those over 65 years of age. We have concerns about income-related benefits as a concession for dog licensing as the cost of a license is a very small proportion of the total cost of dog ownership. This will lead to additional bureaucracy, increasing the administrative burden on both the applicant and the council.

It is felt that concessions in licence fees for neutered dogs is very positive, and would encourage more responsible dog ownership – although proof of neutering would be required and would result in additional administration.

We are in agreement with the substantial increase in the block license fees, however we believe block license fees should increase proportionally via a rising scale should the number of dogs being kept under a block licence increase above certain thresholds, e.g 5-10 dogs, 10-20 dogs, >20 dogs.

A financial distinction should also be made between a block licence holder and a breeder. The cost of a block licence for a breeding establishment should be significantly higher and go some way to covering the cost of the inspections of such premises carried out by the council.

Clause 5 & Clause 9 Contingent destruction orders

We have some concerns over prohibited breeds being exempted from destruction, due to public safety issues (both outside and within the home where these dogs are kept). We believe that clarification needs to be provided regarding how a district judge would become satisfied that a dog will not be a danger to the public and who would be responsible for providing and paying for evidence and expertise to assist in this judgement. We still have concerns regarding the cost and time required to undertake professional identification of prohibited breeds and associated court proceedings.

Clause 7 Attack by dog on a person or another dog

This council would prefer that the offence was 'failing to prevent' an attack on another dog.

There needs to be very clear distinction between this and the offence in Clause 6 of 'Setting upon' or 'Urging' a dog on another dog. Any potential overlap or conflict between these offences and dog fighting / animal welfare offences needs to be clarified. We would seek clarificationon whether the specific offence of dog fighting under Article 19 of the Welfare of Animals Act will remain within that Act.

Clause 8 Control conditions on dog licenses

We have some concerns about the responsibility this will put on dog wardens and would urge the department to provide detailed guidance on the implementation of this clause.

Clause 11 – Clause 14 Fixed Penalties

We are in favour of the clauses in relation to fixed penalties.

The Council wishes to be kept informed of developments. It would be helpful if your response could be e-mailed to jennifer.mcaneney@armagh.gov.uk

Yours faithfully

John Briggs
Clerk and Chief Executive

Dungannon Foxhounds - 27 July 2010

Ballymoney Borough Council - 30 July 2010

1. Response to Dogs (Amendment) Bill

This response is prepared on behalf of NICEHOG group by the Northern Ireland Dogs Advisory Group (NIDAG). NIDAG wish to thank the Department of Agriculture and welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment bill as introduced. These comments should be read in conjunction with previous responses made to the initial consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation issued November 2009. This response has been prepared following a meeting with Department officials on Friday 25th June 2010.

2. Compulsory Micro-chipping

The concerns expressed previously regarding compulsory micro-chipping have not been addressed by the bill although it is acknowledged that it is intended to resolve these detailed issues by way of secondary legislation. NIDAG would appreciate the opportunity to work closely with Department officials in the preparation of secondary legislation on this matter which should include an appropriate transition period prior to the introduction of compulsory micro-chipping.

Such legislation must deal with the issues of data accessibility, co-operation between data base providers and enforcing authorities and data accuracy including the requirement to update ownership details in the event of transfer of a dog or change of address. Any proposed code of Practice covering the operation of databases should carry an approved status.

If compulsory micro-chipping is to be introduced, consideration should be given to the option of dispensing with the requirement for council's to also issue licence identification tags as this in effect is a duplication of effort and an additional cost. For those authorities that wish to retain a dual system it is suggested that this may be made discretionary.

3. Licensing of Dangerous Dogs

No comments are offered in respect of paragraph 3 of the proposed bill. NIDAG remains concerned over the difficultly of obtaining satisfactory insurance cover within Northern Ireland to satisfy this licence condition.

4. Licence Fees

NIDAG would support an above inflationary increase to £25.00 per ordinary licence, and acknowledge the necessity for concessionary rates for those on means tested benefits. Concessions should be given to encourage responsible dog ownership and these should be in line with comments made in the original consultation response. The increased licence fee is required to reflect the costs involved in the administration of the dog licensing system.

The Bill refers to concessions being granted in respect of a sterilised dog. Legislation should clearly state the evidence required to be submitted to the licensing authority should the owner wish to avail of this option (A letter or certificate from a veterinary practitioner).

It is disappointing to note that the suggestions put forward regarding an increased fee for block licences have been disregarded. As a minimum this should be a multiple of the single licence fee e.g. 2.5 times and a reduced single fee per dog thereafter. This is in line with the initial response submitted that there needs to be a greater increase in the fee for a block licence, and that a sliding scale should pertain for differing number of dogs retained by block licence holders.

It is recognised that provision has been made "with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel to amend the licence fees. It is suggested that fees be reviewed either on an annual, three or five year cycle rather than not being specified.

5. Contingent Destruction Orders where no prosecution

No comments are offered in respect of paragraph 5 of the proposed bill.

6. Setting on or urging dog to attack

It is requested that the proposed legislation makes it clear that the offence of dog fighting is dealt with under animal welfare legislation.

7. Attack by a dog on a person or another dog

Paragraph 7 of the bill refers. It is suggested that this offence of a dog attacking another dog be qualified by including the following words or similar. "Failure to make a reasonable attempt to prevent a dog from attacking or causing an injury to another dog".

8. Control conditions on dog licences

NIDAG welcome the proposed control conditions, appeal, review, transfer arrangements and contraventions.

9. Contingent Destruction orders on conviction

Paragraph 9 of the bill refers. NIDAG offer no comment.

10. Entry on to land to prevent or end attack by dog on another dog

NIDAG offer no comment on this paragraph.

11. Fixed Penalty offences

NIDAG welcome the opportunity to deal with contraventions of the proposed new control conditions by way of fixed penalty notice.

12. Payment of Fixed Penalty to Council & use of fixed penalty receipts

NIDAG welcome this proposal for fixed penalty receipts to be retained by councils for the purpose of the dog control service.

13. Amount of fixed penalty

NIDAG suggest that the level of fixed penalty should be commensurate with that proposed in the Clean Neighbourhoods Bill (£75.00). Alternatively, the level of fixed penalty should be left to the discretion of each individual authority together with discount for prompt payment.

Banbridge District Council - 30 July 2010

Clause 2 Microchipping

Banbridge District Council notes the proposed amendment in relation to the requirement that a dog must be mirochipped before a dog licence can be issued and the Departments comments that the aim of compulsory microchipping is to improve the likelihood of the owner of a stray dog being identified. Whilst the Council accepts this aim, it must point out that the inclusion of compulsory microchipping in the Bill will do nothing to address the fundamental problem of unlicensed dogs and irresponsible dog owners. The Department also states that many stray dogs are put down because they could not be identified and reunited with their owners. Banbridge DC wishes to point out that from the experience of our dog warden staff, that those dog owners who have lost a dog and want to find it will do all they can to do so, and actively contact our service. It is our experience that the vast majority of stray dogs that humanely destroyed are those which have been permitted to roam or let out to stray because they are no longer wanted by irresponsible dog owners who are unlikely to licence the dog in any event. Microchipping will not solve this problem.

There are still there are issues which we believe need to be considered in relation to microchipping database management. These were detailed in our original consultation response but include who updates, maintains and administers the database(s) and the resources required at District Council level to insert and read microchips and for changes to the current dog licensing software for record maintenance.

Clause 4 Fees

The Council agrees with the reduction in the license fee to £5 for those over 65 years of age. We have concerns about income-related benefits as a concession for dog licensing as the cost of a license is a very small proportion of the total cost of dog ownership. This will lead to additional bureaucracy in the processing of applications and licence management, increasing the administrative burden on both the applicant and the council. Proof of entitlement to such benefits will be required before a licence application can be accepted.

In relation to a reduced fee where the dog is neutered, it is felt that concessions in licence fees for neutered dogs is a positive step, and would encourage more responsible dog ownership. However, this will require guidance on the evidence or proof of neutering that will be required by councils before a licence application can be accepted, and if this will be required on an annual basis. This will also lead to additional bureaucracy in the processing of applications and licence management, increasing the cost and administrative burden on both the applicant and the council.

Banbridge Council is in agreement with the principle of an increase in the block license fees. However we believe block license fees should increase proportionally via a rising scale should the number of dogs being kept under a block licence increase above certain thresholds, e.g 5-10 dogs, 10-20 dogs, >20 dogs etc

The Council firmly believes that a financial distinction should also be made between a block licence holder and a breeder. The cost of a block licence for a breeding establishment should be significantly higher and go some way to covering the cost of the inspections of such premises carried out by the council.

We do not agree with the Departments comments in their response to the original consultation document that a sliding scale of block licence fee dependant on the number of dogs kept was 'unnecessarily complicated'. The Council would encourage the Committee to reconsider this matter given that the Licensing and Regulatory section of council has experience of managing other sliding scale fee systems in entertainment and pollution control charges without issues arising.

Clause 5 & Clause 9 Contingent destruction orders

Despite the withdrawal of the Departments proposal that councils should have the power to exempt dogs of a banned breed, Banbridge DC continues to have concerns about prohibited breeds being exempted from destruction due to public safety issues, (both outside and within the home where these dogs are kept). We believe that serious consideration must be given to the process in which a district judge would become satisfied that a dog will not be a danger to the public. Furthermore, Council would query who would be responsible for providing and paying for evidence and expertise to assist in the district judge's decision making.

The Council is disappointed that the Department has not taken the opportunity to review the entire legislation in relation to the Dangerous Dogs Order (NI) 1991 and the Dogs (Amendment) Act (NI) 2001. Indeed, we believed that the consultation came about because of issues surrounding dangerous dogs and we are disappointed that resulting Amendment Bill offers no new proposals to address practical matters surrounding enforcement, such as identification evidence for prohibited types such as the pit bull terrier. Additional guidance from the Department is required in this area.

It is this council's view that the key in dealing with the issue of enforcement in relation to prohibited breeds/type and the matter of lengthy court proceedings is identification evidence. The current proposals in the Dogs (Amendment) Bill do not offer any new strategy to deal with this matter. Council would suggest that additional work is required in this area, for example, the establishment of a regional panel of expert witnesses to assist with identification and provide evidence in court, at a reasonable cost.

Clause 7 Attack by dog on a person or another dog

The Council accepts that the inclusion of this new offence, but would like the Committee to note that creating these offences will lead to an increase in the workload of council dog control staff, given that council is already aware of a number of these attacks being reported. Consideration should be given to providing assistance and additional resource to investigate and enforce such offences.

Clause 8 Control conditions on dog licences

The Council welcomes the inclusion of a 'menu' of control conditions and the enforcement option of a fixed penalty notice in the event of non compliance with a control condition. In adding conditions to a licence, this will involve cost to the council in changes to the current dog licensing software for record maintenance. Provision should be made by the Department to assist councils with these costs.

Clause 11 – Clause 14 Fixed Penalties

The Council welcomes the increase for all fixed penalties to £50 and the change to allow councils to retain the proceeds from fixed penalties.

Additional comments

Banbridge District Council would again ask that the following aspects of the Dogs (NI) Order 1983 are reviewed so that this opportunity to further improve proper efficient enforcement of the legislation in the eyes of the public is maximized.

A. Officers dealing with dog control duties report that a major problem area lies with Article 25 of the current legislation and the places where a dog should be within the definition of 'under control'. It is the view of this council that dogs should be 'under control' ie restrained by a chain or other sufficient leash held by a person exercising proper control over the dog' in all public areas, roads and footpaths. Whilst local byelaws make this provision for recreational parks and spaces, the fact that dogs are not on a lead on footpaths accounts for a large number of complaints from the public and this measure would act as a preventive measure leading to a reduction in dog attacks, biting or incidents of aggression.

We do note the comments of the Department in Section 4 of its response document of June 2010 to the consultation in relation to this matter; where they state that it would be disproportionate to require mandatory leashing of dogs in public places and that the use of control conditions after a breach has occurred will suffice.

It would be our view that including the provision of dogs on a lead in all public areas would help to suitably address the problems of dog on dog attacks, fear of being attacked and other incidents before they occur

B. Article 42 gives an officer power to enter any land '' to prevent or end any dog attacking any person or end the worrying of livestock". This power, however, does not extend to a dwelling house or its curtilage. This should be reviewed and indeed repealed. Officers investigating dog attacks on livestock invariably have to visit private property and having no power of entry causes problems where the occupiers are uncooperative. Although a warrant can be obtained, the delay caused by the administration of this process can result in evidence being lost or a dog that has attacked livestock 'disappearing'.

C. Article 33 refers to the power of the Court to order the destruction of dogs and states that "where it appears to a Court that a dog has attacked any person or killed any livestock, the Court shall make an Order directing the dog to be destroyed". If the Order is not complied with, the council has no power of seizure of the dog and must take the keeper to court again for non-compliance with the destruction order. In the meantime, the dog is free to attack again. This article should be strengthened to read "when a Court makes an order directing a dog to be destroyed, the keeper of the dog must surrender the dog to the district council within 24 hours or have it humanely destroyed by a veterinary surgeon and evidence of this produced to the Council", or similar.

British Veterinary Association - 30 July 2010

The Clerk to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee,
Room 284, Parliament Buildings,
Stormont,
Ballymiscaw,
Belfast BT4 3XX

30 July 2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

Dogs (Amendment) Bill

I am writing in response to the call for comments on the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

The British Veterinary Association is the national representative body for the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom and has over 12,000 members. Its primary aim is to protect and promote the interests of the veterinary profession in this country, and it therefore takes a keen interest in all issues affecting the veterinary profession, be they animal health, animal welfare, public health, regulatory issues or employment concerns.

The BVA would like to formally and fully support the response from the North of Ireland Veterinary Association (NIVA). In particular we would like to stress to the members of the Committee the veterinary profession's support for compulsory microchipping and measures that promote responsible dog ownership, and our opposition to breed-specific legislation.

I note that NIVA members have offered to provide oral evidence to the Committee on these issues and would urge the Committee to take up this offer of scientific evidence backed up by a wealth of experience.

If you require any further information please contact Sally Burnell, Head of Media & PR, on 020 7908 6341 or sallyb@bva.co.uk

Yours sincerely,

Professor Bill Reilly
BVA President

Countryside Alliance - 30 July 2010

Greyhound Welfare NI - 30 July 2010

From: Mel Fraser
Sent: 30 July 2010 10:08
To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email
Subject: Comments on Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Attachments: ANVIL Dangerous Dogs Legislation, March 2008.pdf; ANVIL Dangerous Dogs Legislation - The Reality, May 2008.pdf

Dear Sirs,

We are not only disappointed but also very concerned that DARD has opted to retain, virtually without alteration, Northern Ireland's current dangerous dogs legislation. Our concerns arise from the following:

• This type of breed specific legislation (BSL) is based on nothing more solid than myth and prejudice.
• BSL fails utterly to deliver what it promises - enhanced public safety. This failure has been experienced in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Europe and around the world, and documented by the reputable evidence cited in (and listed at the end of) the attached ANVIL report of March 2008. DARD's own figures also bear out this failure and offer no justification for the legislation. Indeed, the contrary is the case.
• The legislation fails to consider or address the causes of dog bites and attacks on people.
• The ANVIL report of May 2008 provides a case study of the inhumane treatment which suspect dogs in NI become liable to under current legislation. (The dog in question, after almost 3 years in presumably the same inhumane conditions, has apparently been released by the courts to an animal rescue centre in the Republic of Ireland - this fact in itself raises questions about the hypocrisy underlying the legislation and its enforcement).
• Given the demonstrable failure of BSL in general and current NI dangerous dogs legislation in particular to improve public safety and offer increased protection against dog attacks, implementation of DARD's proposal in this regard would lead to a continued and unjustifiable waste of public money.
• Any attempt to justify its continued existence in terms of public safety would also entail the perpetration of a blatant deceipt on the tax-paying and rate-paying public.

Casting about for some means of justifying the retention of BSL, DARD has recently settled on the idea that the jaws of certain types of dog exert greater pressure when biting than do those of other dogs.

Someone has said that, up to now, we have had enforcement by tape measure. It appears we are now to progress to enforcement by pressure gauge.

We strongly urge the Committee to peruse the attached reports and examine closely the evidence and the facts surrounding BSL before allowing DARD to retain the status quo with regard to "dangerous dogs."

Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,

Mel Fraser
For Greyhound Welfare NI

Dangerous Dogs Legislation

A Report

ANVIL IRELAND

www.anvilireland.ie

Giving Ireland's animals a voice

PO Box, 10914, Dublin 22

Phone: 00353 (0) 861999512

e-mail: info@anvilireland.ie March, 2008

Dangerous dogs report. © ANVIL Ireland 2008

Dedication

Dedicated to the many family pets killed because of their looks, not their actions.

"If we want to prevent all bites, there is only one sure way and that is to ban all dogs. That is, of course, as unrealistic as trying to prevent bites by enacting breed-specific legislation." – J H Bandow

Foreword

ANVIL was established in response to, what many people felt, was an absence of representation of animals, small rescues, and individuals involved in animal rescue and welfare. Our mission is, to raise awareness of the problems at both a public and government level. An important aspect of our work is, to encourage public debate on the present status of all animals, (in particular companion animals) and the questioning of legislation and practices that fail to address their needs, or prevent their suffering.

The organisation intends to, examine the political and legislative system, establish where reform is needed, and push for this reform. We are building a network of compassionate and conscientious citizens who are committed to making animal welfare a social and political issue.

ANVIL Ireland is completely independent and is not a vehicle for any one welfare or interest group, and is an all Ireland organisation. Membership is open to anyone who is interested in achieving positive change for all animals using the democratic process. As a result, our supporters have a wide spectrum of views and expertise which may be called on. The face of animal welfare is changing in Ireland, and ANVIL is an example of this change.

The principle objectives of ANVIL Ireland:

• To Research the existing legislation and structures dealing with companion animals, identify any shortcomings and make recommendations for improvement.
• Carry out studies, make submissions based on our findings, and identify where further information or research is required.
• Raise awareness of the problems faced by animals and rescue groups, and make representations to Government on their behalf.
• Generate public and Government debate on animal welfare issues.
• Make available our information and research to Politicians, others involved in animal welfare and protection, and the public, to enable and improve informed debate.

Summary

As an example of breed-specific legislation, the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991:

1. targets allegedly dangerous dogs on the unsubstantiated assumption that aggressiveness can be predicted in terms of a dog's breed or type

2. is arbitrary and subjective in determining breed, and guilt is automatically presumed once a positive breed determination is made

3. gives cause for concern over the welfare of dogs detained while their breed designation is in dispute

4. does not deliver improved public safety or increased public protection

5. does not address the causes of dog bites and attacks on people

6. is based on preconceptions rather than hard evidence

On the information available, the threat to public safety in Northern Ireland originating from breeds categorised as dangerous is minimal.

The Order should be abandoned, with a moratorium placed on enforcement at least until the conclusion of the Ministerial review.

If solid evidence points to a need for the regulation of dangerous dogs, the Order should be replaced by generic, breed-neutral legislation based on owner responsibility. An improved dog licensing scheme should be introduced, complemented by public information and education campaigns.

Although there does not appear to be any clear evidence of a link between dogs used for fighting and attacks on people by "dangerous dogs", dog fighting laws with severe criminal penalties may be seen as a means of complementing breed-neutral dog control legislation.

Dog fighting offences are reportedly widespread and on the increase. This is not reflected in the conviction figures, which appear to show a lack of investigative and enforcement effort by the police.

Mel Fraser (member of the Animal Welfare Federation Northern Ireland), On behalf of ANVIL Ireland.

Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)

In 1990 and 1991, there was a sudden increase in the number of UK press reports of dog attacks on people, although there was no apparent rise in the number of dog bites. Initially, reports concentrated on the Rottweiler but in 1991 the emphasis shifted to the pit bull terrier. (1)

In an attempt to address the perceived threat to public safety, the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (DDO) prohibits, in practice, the ownership of "any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier."

The DDO is based on the unsubstantiated premise that aggression in a dog may be reliably predicted on the basis of its breed or "type"; and on the further unproven assumption that all dogs deemed to fall into the banned category have been "bred for fighting".

The DDO also contains an automatic presumption of guilt. If the prosecution alleges that a dog is an example of the type in question, "it shall be presumed that it is such a dog unless the contrary is shown by the accused…".

Whether or not a suspect dog displays aggressive tendencies or has a history of biting or aggression is of no relevance.

There are serious concerns surrounding the thinking which underlies the DDO and other forms of BSL around the world; BSL's effectiveness in protecting the public from dog bites and attacks; and its arbitrary and discriminatory consequences for both dogs and dog owners.

Dangerous dogs?

There is a widely shared consensus among organisations concerned with dog welfare in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere that breed is only one factor, and not a primary one, which may influence a dog's behaviour. It is generally accepted that the way a dog is brought up, socialised, trained and treated is more important than its breed or type. (2)

BSL completely ignores the influence on a dog's behaviour of the crucial role played by its owner and also its breeder. It is a common observation, however, that certain elements in society tend to own and use "pit bulls" as a macho accessory or badge of status.

A link has been confirmed between ownership of a high-risk dog and the increased likelihood that the owner will have a criminal record, engage in certain violent criminal and anti-social behaviours, and also own an "at-risk" dog, i.e. a poorly caredfor, neglected or abused dog. And "a neglected dog can more easily become aggressive relative to a dog whose needs are adequately met." (3)

For much of the twentieth century, pit bulls were seen as the epitome of the all-American dog. US President Theodore Roosevelt kept his pit bull in the White House. But the pit bull's image (in the US) was tarnished in the late 1980s after a series of highly publicised attacks. Extensive media coverage of severe attacks and deaths inflicted by pit bulls pushed public fear of the dogs to public hysteria. The pit bull's popularity began to grow among those looking for tough guard or status dogs that could be trained to attack. Pit bulls became the "current villains of the dog world" and the frequent targets of BSL.

Banning the currently perceived dangerous breed (if the ban is capable of successful enforcement) causes a rise in the popularity of other breeds that can be trained to attack, with the number of bites and fatalities per breed seeming to rise with the breed's popularity. BSL, however, regulates or bans only the breeds thought to be dangerous at a particular time.

As public perception shifts, the law either becomes irrelevant or needs to shift as well. An example of this slippery slope occurred in Germany, which began by banning only a handful of breeds and ultimately enacted a law regulating ownership of any dog standing over 15.7 inches tall and weighing over 44 lbs.

Moreover, if one breed or type is successfully banned, owners who want vicious dogs can easily circumvent the law by breeding and/or training a new vicious breed. "Any dog – literally any dog – can be a bad dog if the owner is a bad owner or the breeder is a bad breeder." (4)

At the heart of the problem is the responsibility or lack of it shown by owners and breeders, rather than any particular type of dog.

Pit bull terriers?

The DDO poses problems of dog breed identification for enforcement officials, the courts, and the general public. Whether an individual dog is an example of the "pit bull terrier type" is a matter of personal opinion, a subjective judgement as to whether an individual dog "looks the part" or not.

"Identification of a dog's breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog)." (5)

"As a result of the difficulty of distinguishing pit bull terriers from other breeds, many non-pit bull terriers in the UK have been seized by local authorities for failure to conform with the restrictions described in the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA)." (2)

Victims of bite attacks are often unlikely to be sufficiently knowledgeable to identify the breed responsible and, as a result of the reputation built up by media coverage, may use the term "pit bull" as a catch-all for any number of breeds.

There is a question mark over whether such a breed or type of dog is at all widespread, or even exists, in Northern Ireland and whether dogs liable to seizure under the DDO are not in reality Staffordshire Bull Terriers, crosses thereof or other bull breed crosses.

The term "pit bull" is applied quite loosely not only in common parlance but, more importantly, in interpretation and enforcement of the DDO, to refer to a variety of bull breed type dogs. (2)

In the US, where the term originated, " 'Pit Bull' does not describe any one particular breed of dog; rather, it is a generic category[1] encompassing the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier … the lack of finite standards results in variations among and within the three breeds, often making it difficult both to determine whether a particular dog should be categorized as a pit bull and to differentiate between pit bulls and other breeds." (4)

If we judge solely on those supposed pit bull terrier types which have featured in local media reports, seized dogs and other dogs portrayed as examples of the type appear to share few common physical characteristics beyond a general "staffie-like" or bull breed appearance.

It has been publicly acknowledged by enforcement officials in Northern Ireland that the seizure of well cared-for family pets with no known history of aggression, solely on the basis of their physical appearance, is commonplace. (6)

Owners of such dogs may well lack the resources or knowledge to challenge the seizure, or may well, out of a lack of understanding of the situation they find themselves in, feel intimidated into acquiescing in the decision.

Presumed guilty?

When dogs are seized under the DDO, owners may dispute the accuracy of the breed determination. Throughout the ensuing legal process, seized dogs are kept at undisclosed locations for prolonged periods, after which, depending on the decision of the court, some may be returned to their owners.

In a recent case in Northern Ireland, two dogs were allegedly kennelled in isolation, reported as "solitary confinement", for about a year. On finally recovering both dogs, the owner reportedly decided that humane destruction was the kindest outcome for one of the dogs owing to the effects of its extended kennelling.

In another recent case, the owners of 3 dogs successfully challenged their initial designation as pit bull types. The local authority appealed this verdict, which led to a series of hearings and a ruling in favour of the authority. A spokesperson for the owners indicated that the latter ruling would not be challenged. "We still believe the dogs are not a dangerous breed. They have been incarcerated for coming up to two years now and they have had enough. If we appealed, would that add another year to it?" (7)

In this particular case, the court confirmed the concerns raised by such reports, noting that the dogs had been "kept singly in secure kennel accommodation without any provision of exercise facilities. … I have concluded that the confined living conditions in which the dogs have been kept since seizure compromised the probative value of the expert testimony regarding their temperament and behaviour upon temporary release on a leash from their kennel accommodation." (8)

Keeping dogs in long-term solitary confinement without access to exercise is unacceptable. It impacts on at least two of the Five Freedoms – their freedom to express normal behaviour and their right to freedom from distress. Whether their welfare may or may not be compromised in other ways can only be guessed at in the absence of any public accountability.

The welfare problems associated with long-term kennelling are well established. (2)

Welfare considerations aside, the dogs' evidentiary value was directly compromised by the manner and conditions of their confinement.

In the UK, on average, dogs in this situation have been incarcerated for 2 years and 4 months, with the longest reported case being 7 years and with one dog dying of old age while in custody. (1)

Such instances raise serious questions about the welfare of seized dogs, whose owners are denied access to them and whose well being and conditions of care are not subject to independent scrutiny.

It seems as if owners come under pressure to capitulate out of concern for the way their animals are being kept, while the dogs pay a very heavy price for the automatic presumption of guilt.

Public safety?

The definition of dangerous dogs in terms of their breed or type has failed to offer greater public protection.

The number of people admitted to hospitals in England following dog bites almost doubled between 1996 and 2006, so the DDA has had no impact on public safety. (9)

A study of dog bite injuries treated at Dundee Royal Infirmary found that pit bulls are responsible for only a small proportion of dog attack victims dealt with by A&E departments. (10)

In the 3-month period before the DDA was implemented, 99 cases of dog bites were reported, 3% of which were from pit bulls. When the number of dog bites was examined in a 3-month period 2 years after the ban was implemented, there was no change in the number of reported dog bites (99 cases), and the number of cases involving pit bulls was similar (5% of bites).

Prior to the implementation of BSL, 24% of people admitted to a hospital with dog bite injuries were bitten by German shepherds, compared with 18.2% bitten by mongrels, and 6% bitten by "dangerous" breeds (pit bull terriers, Rottweilers and Dobermanns). Typical family breeds such as Labradors, collies, Jack Russell terriers, and cocker spaniels, were biting at higher rates than the "dangerous dogs".

The study also indicated that the DDA had little impact on the number of people hospitalised for dog bite injuries. (2)

After a number of fatal dog attacks in early 2000, 15 of 16 German states legislated the ban of several "fighting breeds," including the pit bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American Staffordshire bull terrier. A number of Canadian and other jurisdictions have also introduced forms of BSL.

"Rather than leading to clear reductions in the number of people bitten by dogs, the previous examples give cause to question the effectiveness of BSL as a strategy for reducing dog bites." (2)

In Spain, the Dangerous Animals Act 2000 included a list of dangerous dog breeds. An analysis of dog bite incidents in a region of northern Spain over a 10-year period from 1995 to 2004 found that the incidence of dog bites remained unchanged following implementation of the new legislation.

"Dangerous breeds" contributed to only a small proportion of bite injuries, while other breeds, such as the German shepherd and crossbreeds, accounted for the majority of incidents both before and after the legislation was introduced. The authors concluded that the legislation had no significant impact on the incidence or epidemiology of dog bites, and that BSL was unsuitable and unjustified. (11)

A study of the application of BSL in Australian jurisdictions has found that several other breeds out-rank the pit bull terrier in terms of attacks on humans. It concludes that the view of the pit bull terrier as a uniquely dangerous dog is not supported by the evidence – "there is no specific research to demonstrate that breeds with a fighting past are more aggressive toward people than other dogs" – and that BSL aimed at controlling it has not been justified.

"BSL may be justified and acceptable policy if it works to reduce significantly the number of dog attacks. There is no evidence from Australia or elsewhere that it does so." (12)

The following table shows the figures reported by Northern Ireland local authorities for dog attacks on people and for dangerous dog incidents investigated in each year from 2003 to 2006.

Year	Attacks on people	Dangerous dogs incidents investigated
2003	697	14
2004	783	13
2005	772	26
2006	764	198

There was a surge in the number of dangerous dog incidents investigated in 2006. This increase was largely accounted for by Belfast City Council, which recorded 105 (53%) of the total 198 incidents recorded province-wide.

In each of the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, Belfast recorded 0 incidents.

A number of other council areas reported substantial though somewhat less dramatic increases over previous years in 2006.

The categories Attacks on People and Dangerous Dog Incidents Investigated are not further defined so it is unclear what information each category includes or excludes.

If we assume that attacks by banned dogs are included in the Dangerous Dog Incidents Investigated category, the figures indicate that banned dogs represent a much less significant threat to public safety than other dogs. The ratio of dog attacks on people to incidents involving banned dogs (presumably not all of which would involve attacks) in the years from 2003 to 2006 was 50:1, 60:1, 30:1 and 4:1 respectively.

On the basis of local council returns, banned dogs were responsible for potentially 0 attacks on people in the course of the 4 years in question. Other dogs were responsible for an average of 754 attacks on people annually.

If we assume, on the other hand, that figures for attacks by banned dogs are included in the figures for Attacks on People, no useful information on attacks by dangerous dogs can be extracted from this data.

The BBC Newsline programme of 14 February 2008 reported[2] that 533 suspected pit bull terriers were seized in Northern Ireland in 2006 and 2007, the majority as a result of reports received from the public.

Of these, 504 were destroyed. Only 7 of the 533 were involved in attacks. In other words, only 1.3% of the banned dogs seized had a known history of aggression. The remaining 526 were seized on the basis of a subjective assessment of their physical appearance.

If the above-mentioned average of 754 attacks on people annually remained constant in 2007[3], the Newsline figures show that attacks by "pit bulls" in 2006 and 2007 represented a mere 0.46% of all dog attacks on people recorded by local authorities.

On this basis, "pit bulls", relative to other dogs, represent a negligible threat to public safety. A person is over 200 times more likely to be attacked by any other dog than by a banned dog.

This scenario is further confirmed by Belfast City Council's dog warden manager, who stated in October 2006 that "the majority of dog attacks relate to legitimate [sic] breeds. Indeed, none of the 135 reported attacks in 2005-2006[4] involved a pit bull terrier." (13)

In February 2007, he also noted that "Dangerous dogs on our streets continue to be a matter of great concern to the public and the council is committed to trying to tackle the issue in partnership with the police and USPCA."

He expressed concern that "the council`s powers to address this, however, are limited and we have already written to DARD expressing our concerns regarding the enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs legislation, particularly with regard to the identification of prescribed [sic] breeds."

Surprisingly, in view of his concern about the identification of banned dogs, he went on to stress that "the overwhelming majority of dog attacks reported to, and investigated by, the council do not involve illegal breeds such as pit bull terriers" and repeated that of the 135 reported attacks in 2005-06, none related to a proscribed dog.

In other words, 0% of dog attacks in Belfast in 2005-06 were attributable to a banned breed.

It is therefore unclear why pit bulls, in the same official's words, "continue to be a matter of great concern to the public." There is no evidence of an issue to be tackled.

Explaining his service's reluctance to offer amnesties for illegal dogs, he stated that "The USPCA works with our dog warden service on the identification issue and we will pursue a warrant to have a dog surrendered if we believe that dog is an illegal breed, and if the owner is unwilling to hand it over. … We believe our current policy has proved successful and we do not normally prosecute people who voluntarily hand over their dogs for destruction on the belief [sic] their pet is an illegal breed." (14 )

This final comment gives substance to the concern expressed above that dog owners may feel pressurised into acquiescing in a pit bull designation applied to a pet with no known history of aggression, in return, it would appear, for an offer of immunity from prosecution.

Given the multiple shortcomings associated with the DDO and the very low numbers of attacks associated with banned dogs, it is difficult to understand why, some 17 years after its introduction, a number of councils suddenly appear to be pursuing a more zealous approach to enforcement than was the case prior to 2006.

It is also difficult to avoid the conclusion that a climate of unwarranted public fear regarding "pit bulls" is being fomented, either inadvertently or deliberately.

On the basis of the data available, there is no public safety justification for the increasing numbers of "pit bull type" seizures, or for ongoing enforcement of the DDO.

BSL is ineffective, arbitrary and unjustified.

The DDO so lacks credibility that a moratorium should be placed on its enforcement until the outcome of the current Ministerial review is known. Over 500 dogs have already been put to death needlessly in its name in the last 2 years.

Dangerous Dogs Legislation (DDL) *

* (In this report, the term DDL refers exclusively to generic, non-breed-specific or breed-neutral dangerous dog control legislation)

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill proposed by Alex Neil MSP is an example of DDL. (See www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/MembersBills/index.htm )

Effective and enforceable legislation needs to be based on valid, reliable and relevant statistics. (4) (5) (12) There appears to be a serious lack of evidence available to inform a decision as to whether the introduction of a form of DDL is justified or necessary in Northern Ireland.

However, if some form of dangerous dog control is ultimately deemed necessary, then DDL determines whether a particular dog is vicious or dangerous and imposes ownership regulations based on the dog's prior behaviour – unlike BSL, which targets particular breeds based on the belief that they are inherently vicious or dangerous.

DDL seeks to reduce the threat that dangerous dogs pose to public safety by requiring owners of dogs that have been determined to be dangerous to abide by statutorily defined precautionary measures. It imposes regulations on owners by examining the behavioural history of a particular dog and owner rather than basing a determination of dangerousness on breed alone.

BSL fails to address the public safety issue because it targets all dogs of a specific breed or type regardless of past behaviour, rather than regulating a specific dog of any breed on the basis of the dog's – and owner's – poor conduct.

It ignores 3 basic facts:

1) All dogs can and do cause injury, regardless of breed. Breed alone is not a determiner of aggression against humans

2) Any dog can be trained and any breed can be bred to be aggressive. BSL creates a false sense of public security by over-simplifying the problem

3) BSL may have the perverse effect of increasing the risk by failing to deal with dangerous dogs which do not fall within the statutorily banned breed

In contrast, DDL takes account of these facts. The threat posed by a particular dog is assessed on the basis of prior aggressive behaviour rather than breed alone. In this way, only dogs which actually pose a threat are regulated, while owners of non-dangerous dogs are not targeted.

Enforcement agencies can concentrate on dealing with those dogs which pose the greatest threat to public safety, as objectively indicated by their behaviour, and resources are not divided between investigating complaints relating to behaviour and complaints relating to breed.

Finally, DDL is capable of striking a balance between protecting the public from dangerous dogs and respecting the rights of responsible owners. In other words, the law can acknowledge that ownership is a significant factor in determining a dog's biting propensity and overall aggressiveness, and balance the need to regulate or prevent irresponsible ownership for public safety purposes with the rights of responsible dog owners.

BSL, and breed-based bans in particular, fail in this regard. They not only ignore the effects of ownership and environment on a dog's behaviour but also ignore or eliminate the rights of responsible owners. BSL regulates or destroys dogs regardless of prior conduct and requires even responsible owners to sacrifice animals which, as is often the case with dogs, are members of their families.

DDL emphasises responsible ownership by targeting only those owners who are unable or unwilling to comply with public safety regulations.

In this way, DDL creates a fairer balance between the right of the public to be free from the threat of dangerous dogs and the rights of responsible dog owners to enjoy the companionship of their pets.

Legislation designed to reduce the number of bites and serious attacks must balance the need to protect society from dangerous dogs with the rights of responsible dog owners by emphasizing the need for and importance of responsible ownership.

Aided by strict enforcement and breed-neutral supplementary legislation, DDL can effectively and efficiently provide a solution. (4)

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill proposes regulating dogs that have been determined to be dangerous by means of, among other potential measures, mandatory permanent identification of such dogs. It is not clear, however, how a firm link is to be established between a particular dog and an owner in the absence of any system of licensing or registration.

Ireland, north and south, enjoys an advantage over Scotland and the rest of GB with respect to the implementation and enforcement of this type of legislation because GB does not have a dog licensing scheme either in place or in prospect. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland at least have a rudimentary scheme on which to build, and the general public is accustomed to the concept.

In Ireland, in order for a link between a dog and an owner to be established in the vast majority of cases, DDL could be much more readily underpinned by a stringently enforced dog licensing/registration scheme incorporating mandatory permanent identification of all dogs.

If properly planned and implemented, such a scheme would also offer the capability to monitor canine and breed populations and provide a source of data for use in the formulation of future policy on dogs.

Public awareness and responsible ownership

Any fresh legislation in this area needs to be supplemented by information and education campaigns to promote both general public awareness with regard to dogs and responsible dog ownership.

For example, of the 4,133 patients admitted to hospital in England in 2006 as a result of injuries from dog bites, 22% were children under the age of 9.

"If proposals to license ownership of dogs [in GB] had succeeded, we would at least have a national canine register to document which dogs show aggression and need closer supervision.

But even if the current laws were tightened, dog attacks would continue, because legislation does not get to the root of the problem of why the attacks occur. … There needs to be a change in the way as a society we manage dogs in the future."

"We must stop placing blame on the dogs themselves and focus attention instead on who holds the other end of the lead – or who isn't holding the lead, as the case may be. Most dog bites to children at home happen when the child interacts with the dog in the absence of adult supervision (European Journal of Pediatrics 2003; 162: 254-8).

It is clear that not all dog owners appreciate that children should not be left unsupervised with a dog."

"Educational programmes for children, such as the 'Prevent-a-bite' scheme in Australia (BMJ 2000; 320: 1512-3), have shown the potential to instil precautionary behaviour around dogs. Teachers and health visitors are in a position to introduce dog awareness programmes, such as the new Blue Dog project (www.thebluedog.org)." (9)

A 1991 study found that "most victims [of dog bites] are bitten by male dogs which they either own or have had frequent contact with, and the bite occurs in the dog's home. … Certain situations seem to be dangerous – for example, approaching or bending over dogs, especially if they are lying quietly; approaching them immediately after entering their territory; teasing or waking them; or playing with them till they become overexcited.

An underlying reason was evident in many bites that were judged by the victims to be unprovoked; if the public were more aware the number of these unfortunate injuries might be reduced " (15)

With regard to responsible ownership, "the importance of appropriate socialisation and training in reducing aggression problems cannot be overstated. … Responsible pet ownership may be the reason why experienced dog owners are less likely to encounter aggression problems with their dogs compared with first-time owners. " (2)

"Generic non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog's behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog's breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective. If dog owners are required to assume legal liability for the behavior and actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek professional help in training and socialising their pets. …

Education of dog owners can address several issues:

1) understanding breed profiles may assist owners in selecting the appropriate dog for their lifestyle and training abilities,

2) convincing owners to seriously consider the sex and reproductive status of their dogs is important because male and sexually intact dogs are more likely to bite than female and neutered dogs, and

3) teaching owners about the importance of socialization and training may decrease their likelihood of owning a dog that will eventually bite. …

Public education strategies should include school-based and adult educational programs addressing bite prevention and basic canine behavior, care and management. Programs should strive to ensure that dogs receive proper socialization, exercise, and attention; that they are given adequate food, water, shelter, and veterinary care; that they are neutered if they are not maintained for legitimate and responsible breeding purposes; and that they are trained humanely and confined safely." (5)

"Adults without dogs need to learn that dogs don't understand 'people's rights,' and that dogs should not be expected to act differently with different people. Adults also need to understand that young children should never be left alone with a dog (or a cat) without supervision, and that all children should be taught how to behave around dogs, particularly dogs they don't know.

So long as we have dogs living with us there will be people who get bitten. The most effective way to prevent bites is to encourage dog owners to become knowledgeable about their animals and to train and socialize them so that they can become good dog neighbours. …

Most legislation deals with bites after the fact.

If we want to prevent all bites, there is only one sure way and that is to ban all dogs. That is, of course, as unrealistic as trying to prevent bites by enacting breed-specific legislation." (16)

Dog Fighting Legislation

Dog fighting has long been illegal on animal welfare grounds, most recently under Section 19 of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (WoAA). The total abuse of animal welfare that dog fighting represents must surely remain the primary motivation behind its prohibition.

"While most pit bulls do not pose a threat to public safety, there are nevertheless some individuals that have been bred and trained for their eagerness and ability to fight." (2)

It is speculated that, in the US, "bites and fatalities inflicted by pit bulls may stem from the increased popularity of pit bulls as a status symbol and participation in illegal dog fighting. Owners may train their dogs to attack on command and may abuse the dog to enhance its aggression, thereby increasing the risk of a bite or a serious or fatal attack. Pit bulls that refuse to attack on command or fight in the ring may be abandoned or destroyed." (4)

Again, there appears to be insufficient data to determine whether dogs used in fighting activities in Northern Ireland pose a threat to public safety; or whether any apparently minimal threat that may exist stems rather from irresponsibility on the part of owners of status dogs.

Although media coverage may have created a direct link in the public mind between "dangerous dogs" and dog fighting, it is not clear that any such link either exists or is of any significance.

If a link can be shown to exist, dog fighting laws with severe criminal penalties are a means of reducing the number of dangerous dogs and therefore the number of dog bites and serious attacks. "Though, historically, fighting dogs were bred to eliminate tendencies of human aggression, the modern 'street' dog fighter does not appear to take such care in breeding or training.

Fighting dogs may be abused to encourage aggression or trained to fight in an unconventional or cruel manner, which may have the result – intended or otherwise – of fostering human as well as dog aggression. … legislatures should additionally target and punish conduct that marginally contributes to or encourages dog fighting, as such conduct increases the risk of a serious or fatal attack. … imposing penalties for conduct which directly impacts dog fighting therefore could have a negative effect on the practice and minimize the likelihood of a biting incident." (4)

New York legislation is typical of most states in the US. It is a felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000 to cause or train an animal to fight, or to commit a series of related offences. It is a misdemeanour punishable by 1 year in prison and a fine of up to $15,000 to own or keep an animal in circumstances evincing the intent to engage the animal in a fight.

Some states have tried to supplement such laws, for example by making it a serious offence to steal an animal for use in fighting, or requiring vets to report any dog injuries or deaths that may have been inflicted in a dog fight. (4)

So, laws prohibiting dog fighting and related activities may be seen as supplementing or complementing DDL. But they remain essentially a separate issue.

In the course of the BBC NI Spotlight programme of 30 August 2007, which investigated dog fighting activities in Northern Ireland and their links to other countries, the Chief Executive of the USPCA stated that "wherever you are in Northern Ireland, you're no more than 15 minutes away from an organised dog fighting group – they're in all the major towns, all the major cities in Northern Ireland."

The programme went on to reveal that there were at least 15 such gangs operating in the province, with 5 fighting kennels in Belfast alone and some 10 others dispersed around the country. It also reported that the USPCA Chief Executive "has been on the front line in the fight against the gangs for more than a decade."

By way of contrast, in the 10 years from 1996-97, a total of 2 people have been convicted of dog fighting-related offences in Northern Ireland, one in 2002 for participating in unlawful animal fighting under Section 19(1)(c) and one in 2004 for unlawful animal fighting under Section 19(1)(a) of the WoAA. (17)

The programme and the statistics portray two irreconcilable scenarios. The PSNI are the enforcement agency responsible for prosecuting animal fighting offences. If the Spotlight revelations are at all a reflection of the reality of the situation, then the statistics for dog fighting convictions appear to point to a need for a very substantial intensification of the investigative and enforcement effort of the police in this area.

Recommendations

1. Impose an immediate moratorium on enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 pending the conclusions of the current review.

2. Conduct an evidence-based study to ascertain the true scale of the threat to public safety posed by dog bites and dog attacks on people in Northern Ireland.

3. If the public safety situation justifies it, introduce an appropriate form of breed-neutral law for the control of dangerous dogs.

4. In any case, introduce a licensing/registration scheme for all dogs, encompassing mandatory permanent identification of dogs, with a requirement for notification of change of ownership and of owner details, and incentivating neutering of as many dogs as possible, with stringent enforcement and stiff penalties for licence evaders.

5. Supplement the above with public education programmes aimed at children, adults and dog owners to raise public awareness of appropriate behaviour around dogs and of the requirements of responsible dog ownership

6. Strengthen and, where necessary, supplement the existing prohibition on dog fighting. Press for intensified investigative and enforcement effort by the PSNI.

References

1. Dogs Trust, see www.dogstrust.org.uk

2. Ledger RA, Orihel JS, Clarke N, Murphy S, Sedlbauer M. Breed specific legislation: Considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommendations for alternatives. Canadian Veterinary Journal 2005; 46: 735-743

3. Barnes JE, Boat BW, Putnam FW, Dates HF, Mahlman AR. Ownership of high-risk ("vicious") dogs as a marker for deviant behaviors: Implications for risk assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2006; 21:1616

4. Hussain SG. Attacking the dog-bite epidemic: Why breed-specific legislation won't solve the dangerous-dog dilemma. Fordham Law Review 2006; 74; 5:2847-2887

5. Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2000; 217: 836-840

6. For example: UTV Insight, 19 November 2007; BBC Newsline, 14 February 2008

7. Belfast Telegraph, 15 February 2008.

8. See www.uspca.co.uk/PDF_Visuals/mid_antrim_sanctuary_court_report.pdf

9. Besser, R. Dog attacks: it's time for doctors to bite back. British Medical Journal 2007; 334: 425

10. Klaassen B, Buckley JR, Esmail A. Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency Department. Injury 1996; 27: 89-91

11. Rosado B, Garcia-Belenguer S, Leon M, Palacio J. Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2007; 2; 5: 166-174

12. Collier S. Breed specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2006; 1; 1: 17-22

13. Belfast City Council, see
http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/minutesdirectory/2006/1106/he16106s.doc

14. Belfast City Council, see www.belfastcity.gov.uk/news/news.asp?id=752

15. Shewell PC, Nancarrow JD. Dogs that bite. British Medical Journal 1991;303: 1512-1513

16. Bandow JH. Will breed-specific legislation reduce dog bites? Canadian Veterinary Journal 1996; 37: 478-481

17. PSNI

[1] Like setter, retriever or spaniel. It refers to any of a number of breeds of dogs and their crosses. (16)

[2] On the basis of information provided by all 26 local councils

[3] At the time of writing, the DARD figures for 2007 are not available.

[4] Refers to the period April 05 to March 06.

Dangerous Dogs Legislation

The Reality

ANVIL IRELAND

www.anvilireland.ie

Giving Ireland's animals a voice

PO Box, 10914, Dublin 22

Phone: 00353 (0) 861999512

e-mail: info@anvilireland.ie March, 2008

Dangerous dogs legislation, the reality. © ANVIL Ireland 2008

Dedication

Dedicated to Bruce and his family

"A myth, no matter how widely believed or how loudly repeated, is still just a myth."

"'Belief' means not wanting to know what is true."~ Nietzsche

Foreword

ANVIL was established in response to, what many people felt, was an absence of representation of animals, small rescues, and individuals involved in animal rescue and welfare. Our mission is, to raise awareness of the problems at both a public and government level. An important aspect of our work is, to encourage public debate on the present status of all animals, (in particular companion animals) and the questioning of legislation and practices that fail to address their needs, or prevent their suffering.

The organisation intends to, examine the political and legislative system, establish where reform is needed, and push for this reform. We are building a network of compassionate and conscientious citizens who are committed to making animal welfare a social and political issue.

ANVIL Ireland is completely independent and is not a vehicle for any one welfare or interest group, and is an all Ireland organisation. Membership is open to anyone who is interested in achieving positive change for all animals using the democratic process.

As a result, our supporters have a wide spectrum of views and expertise which may be called on. The face of animal welfare is changing in Ireland, and ANVIL is an example of this change.

The principle objectives of ANVIL Ireland:

• To Research the existing legislation and structures dealing with companion animals, identify any shortcomings and make recommendations for improvement.
• Carry out studies, make submissions based on our findings, and identify where further information or research is required.
• Raise awareness of the problems faced by animals and rescue groups, and make representations to Government on their behalf.
• Generate public and Government debate on animal welfare issues.
• Make available our information and research to Politicians, others involved in animal welfare and protection, and the public, to enable and improve informed debate.

Introduction

This report follows on from the ANVIL submission on Dangerous Dogs Legislation of March 2008 which suggested that as an example of breed-specific legislation, the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991:

1. targets allegedly dangerous dogs on the unsubstantiated assumption that aggressiveness can be predicted in terms of a dog's breed or type

2. is arbitrary and subjective in determining breed, and guilt is automatically presumed once a positive breed determination is made

3. gives cause for concern over the welfare of dogs detained while their breed designation is in dispute

4. does not deliver improved public safety or increased public protection

5. does not address the causes of dog bites and attacks on people

6. is based on preconceptions rather than hard evidence

On the information available to ANVIL at that time, the threat to public safety in Northern Ireland originating from breeds categorised as dangerous is minimal.

ANVIL suggested that the Order be abandoned, with a moratorium placed on enforcement at least until the conclusion of the Ministerial review.

This follow-up report highlights some of the unacceptable consequences of this legislation by presenting one case history. The experience outlined is probably common to other owners and dogs in Northern Ireland whose cases have not become publicly known.

Mel Fraser (member of the Animal Welfare Federation Northern Ireland), On behalf of ANVIL Ireland

Unnecessary Suffering?

The ANVIL report on Dangerous Dogs Legislation of March 2008 highlighted concerns (page 9) about the conditions in which alleged dangerous dogs whose breed designation is in dispute are kept.

The report drew attention to Judge Norman Lockie's comment at Antrim Court in February 2008 that three seized dogs owned by Mid Antrim Animal Sanctuary had been "kept singly in secure kennel accommodation without any provision of exercise facilities. …I have concluded that the confined living conditions in which the dogs have been kept since seizure compromised the probative value of the expert testimony regarding their temperament and behaviour upon temporary release on a leash from their kennel accommodation."

The only interpretation which can reasonably be placed on Judge Lockie's comment is that he attributes deleterious effects on the dogs' temperament and behaviour to the living conditions they were subjected to, i.e. to poor welfare.

The ANVIL report concluded that the conditions described by Judge Lockie were unacceptable in that they infringed at least two of the Five Freedoms, a framework of guiding principles developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) for the analysis of animal welfare within any system. The two freedoms infringed were:

• Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind.
• Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

Judge Lockie was merely stating the obvious.

Any responsible dog owner knows that dogs are social animals which need not only regular exercise but also companionship. However, these dogs "were starved of human affection, exercise and love – what kind of a life is that?"[1]

Incarceration under the conditions described by the judge cannot but have negative effects on their mental and physical well being.

In plain language, solitary confinement is a form of slow death by torture.

A case has come to light which tends to confirm that seriously inadequate welfare conditions are routine in such cases. It suggests that not only are the two abovementioned guiding principles breached but that the welfare of dogs in this situation may well be even more seriously compromised.

In addition to the two Freedoms already mentioned, the following are also apparently impacted in this particular case:

• Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
• Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.

Dangerous Dogs legislation in action

A 2-year-old dog known as Bruce was seized from his family home by officials of North Down Borough Council on 19th September 2007 under the Dogs (NI) Order 1983 as amended by the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991.

Bruce, a family pet, was in good health at the time of his seizure. The following photographs show him in his home environment.

Photos 1-6: Bruce before seizure, a much loved family pet

Photos 6 & 7: Bruce at home, prior to seizure

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

Bruce's owner was allowed access to him in October/November 2007. This visit gave the owner cause for concern about his well being.

Access was permitted again on 11th December 2007, when an independent veterinary report commissioned by the owner noted:

• trauma to the tip and every joint of his tail
• that he was underweight
• dermatitis on the feet – generalised erythroderma and pyoderma
• crusting dermatosis to the left ear
• pustular, crusting dermatitis to the left rump
• a healing circular lesion on the bridge of the nose (Woods negative)
• suspected hookworm infestation
• suspected sarcoptic mange

Photographs taken on 11th December illustrate Bruce's condition at that point:

Photo 1: Obvious lesion on bridge of nose

Photo 2: Loss of condition and weight

Photo 3: Close-up of lesion on nose

Photo 4: Bruce with owner

Photo 5: Bruce with family

On 18th January 2008, his owner was informed by a Council official that the lesion on Bruce's nose had almost healed.

However, by 13th March 2008, when the owner was again granted access to the dog, Bruce's condition had deteriorated to that illustrated by the following photographs.

His owner has stated that, having previously been a friendly, happy, outgoing dog, he was by now so traumatised and fearful that it took about a quarter of an hour just to entice him out of the cage used to transport him to the meeting.

Series of photos taken of Bruce on 13th March 2008 which clearly illustrate the deterioration of the dog's condition.

Photo 1: Several inches of his tail had been amputated

Photo 2: The lesion on his nose was much worse

Photos 3, 4, 5: Series of close-ups of nose lesion

Photos 6, 7, 8: A number of sores were apparent on his legs

In light of this evidence, a complaint under Section 13 of the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) 1972 was lodged in respect of Bruce at Bangor police station on 11th April 2008 against North Down Borough Council.

The problems illustrated by the most recent photographs appear to be directly attributable to a combination of draconian conditions of confinement and poor animal husbandry and welfare management.

It must be remembered that Bruce has never been shown to be in any way dangerous.

His general appearance, however, means that he is assumed by the law to be inherently dangerous.

Those charged with his care presumably operate in blind acceptance of this assumption.

But even truly dangerous dogs are entitled to be treated with the same humanity, dignity and care as any other animal.

Is any effort made to test (humanely) the temperament of dogs seized under the Order and held while a court decision is reached?

Is the accredited knowledge and expertise that would enable them to do so available to local authorities?

The following quote on livestock welfare from the FAWC website applies equally to other animals, including dogs:

"Stockmanship, plus the training and supervision necessary to achieve required standards, are key factors in the handling and care of livestock. A management system may be acceptable in principle but without competent, diligent stockmanship the welfare of animals cannot be adequately safeguarded. We lay great stress on the need for better awareness of welfare needs, for better training and supervision."[2]

The recommended elements appear not to have been present in this case.

As one of the sample photographs shows, North Down Borough Council was prepared to release a "dangerous" dog from confinement to be reunited off-lead with his family. While welcome, this betrays an inconsistent and contradictory approach to dealing with the serious threat allegedly posed by the dog. It contrasts sharply with the approach that must be taken with him when he is in kennels.

There does not appear to be any statutory requirement for alleged dangerous dogs to be held in solitary confinement. Indeed, this method of confinement is potentially illegal, since unnecessary suffering is its inevitable consequence.

The practice can only continue because there is scant opportunity for public scrutiny, and details of where such dogs are held are kept secret.

Bruce was not and is not a dangerous dog in the sense that he has ever bitten or attacked anyone. He was most likely seized following a report from a member of the public, many of whom have been deluded into believing that dogs of roughly his shape and appearance are by definition dangerous.

Part of the enormous price Bruce has had to pay for months of solitary confinement and sub-standard care is plain to see. Photographs will not make clear, however, the price paid in terms of his mental health.

How and why did a public body charged with his care allow a healthy dog to descend over a period of some six months to the condition shown?

These questions require answers.

North Down Borough Council is primarily responsible for the welfare and wellbeing of this dog while in their care.

The Council in turn entrusted Bruce's care to the USPCA and he was held at their kennels at Bessbrook, near Newry, throughout the period in question, from the time of his seizure until at least 31st March 2008.[3]

As DARD is the government department with ultimate responsibility for the oversight and implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Order, they must share at least some of the responsibility.

DARD may be seen as being morally responsible for this and any similar cases of unnecessary suffering under the Order unless there is a thorough investigation into how this happened, why it happened and who is responsible, and steps are taken to ensure it does not happen again.

As details such as Judge Lockie's remarks or of cases like Bruce's begin to emerge into the public domain, the authorities expose themselves to the possibility of being seen to sponsor and condone animal cruelty.

During our last meeting with DARD officials in January 2008, the Ministerial review of dangerous dogs legislation was discussed. In our subsequent report to DARD we recommended a moratorium on enforcement of this legislation as a prelude to revoking it completely. We would now also ask that DARD acknowledge the potential consequences of the manner in which the powers it delegates to local authorities are exercised.

In the meantime, Bruce continues to endure solitary confinement. One way or another, he may very well not survive to enjoy the benefit of a change in the law, but other innocent dogs and their families will eventually be spared the indescribable and unnecessary suffering inflicted on them in the name of the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991.

[1] http://www.antrimtimes.co.uk/news/No-reprieve-for-death-row.3789322.jp

[2] http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm

[3] Information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Newtownabbey Borough Council - 30 July 2010

From: Garth Fenning
Sent: 30 July 2010 16:48
To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email
Subject: Amendment to Dog Control Legislation
Attachments: Response to Dogs amendment bill.docx; Dog Consultation Response.doc

Please find attached the consultation responses to the proposed amendments to the existing Dog Control legislation.

Newtownabbey Borough Council (NBC) endorses the response drafted on behalf of the NICEHOG by NIDAG however Council would reiterate its opposition to the introduction of a compulsory micro-chipping scheme while retaining the current requirement for the issue of an identification tag when a licence is purchased.

NBC's amendment to its original response and to the NIDAG document is highlighted in red.

Regards,

Garth Fenning
Dr Garth Fenning
Principal Environmental Health Officer
(Pollution Control)

1. Response to Dogs (Amendment) Bill

This response is prepared on behalf of NICEHOG group by the Northern Ireland Dogs Advisory Group (NIDAG). NIDAG wish to thank the Department of Agriculture and welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment bill as introduced. These comments should be read in conjunction with previous responses made to the initial consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation issued November 2009. This response has been prepared following a meeting with Department officials on Friday 25th June 2010.

2. Compulsory Micro-chipping

The concerns expressed previously regarding compulsory micro-chipping have not been addressed by the bill although it is acknowledged that it is intended to resolve these detailed issues by way of secondary legislation. NIDAG would appreciate the opportunity to work closely with Department officials in the preparation of secondary legislation on this matter which should include an appropriate transition period prior to the introduction of compulsory micro-chipping.

Such legislation must deal with the issues of data accessibility, co-operation between data base providers and enforcing authorities and data accuracy including the requirement to update ownership details in the event of transfer of a dog or change of address. Any proposed code of Practice covering the operation of databases should carry an approved status.

If compulsory micro-chipping is to be introduced, consideration should be given to the option of dispensing with the requirement for district councils to also issue licence identification tags as this in effect is a duplication of effort and an additional cost. For those authorities that wish to retain a dual system it is suggested that this may be made discretionary.

It is Newtownabbey Borough Council's view however that there is no operational advantage in a compulsory micro-chipping scheme running in conjunction with a legal requirement for a licensed dog to wear an identification tag and places a huge financial and administrative burden on council in issuing these tags.

3. Licensing of Dangerous Dogs

No comments are offered in respect of paragraph 3 of the proposed bill. NIDAG remains concerned over the difficultly of obtaining satisfactory insurance cover within Northern Ireland to satisfy this licence condition.

4. Licence Fees

NIDAG would support an above inflationary increase to £25.00 per ordinary licence, and acknowledge the necessity for concessionary rates for those on means tested benefits. Concessions should be given to encourage responsible dog ownership and these should be in line with comments made in the original consultation response. The increased licence fee is required to reflect the costs involved in the administration of the dog licensing system.

The Bill refers to concessions being granted in respect of a sterilised dog. Legislation should clearly state the evidence required to be submitted to the licensing authority should the owner wish to avail of this option (A letter or certificate from a veterinary practitioner).

It is disappointing to note that the suggestions put forward regarding an increased fee for block licences have been disregarded. As a minimum this should be a multiple of the single licence fee e.g. 2.5 times and a reduced single fee per dog thereafter. This is in line with the initial response submitted that there needs to be a greater increase in the fee for a block licence, and that a sliding scale should pertain for differing number of dogs retained by block licence holders.

It is recognised that provision has been made "with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel to amend the licence fees. It is suggested that fees be reviewed either on an annual, three or five year cycle rather than not being specified.

5. Contingent Destruction Orders where no prosecution

No comments are offered in respect of paragraph 5 of the proposed bill.

6. Setting on or urging dog to attack

It is requested that the proposed legislation makes it clear that the offence of dog fighting is dealt with under animal welfare legislation.

7. Attack by a dog on a person or another dog

Paragraph 7 of the bill refers. It is suggested that this offence of a dog attacking another dog be qualified by including the following words or similar. "Failure to make a reasonable attempt to prevent a dog from attacking or causing an injury to another dog".

8. Control conditions on dog licences

NIDAG welcome the proposed control conditions, appeal, review, transfer arrangements and contraventions.

9. Contingent Destruction orders on conviction

Paragraph 9 of the bill refers. NIDAG offer no comment.

10. Entry on to land to prevent or end attack by dog on another dog

NIDAG offer no comment on this paragraph.

11. Fixed Penalty offences

NIDAG welcome the opportunity to deal with contraventions of the proposed new control conditions by way of fixed penalty notice.

12. Payment of Fixed Penalty to Council & use of fixed penalty receipts

NIDAG welcome this proposal for fixed penalty receipts to be retained by councils for the purpose of the dog control service.

13. Amount of fixed penalty

NIDAG suggest that the level of fixed penalty should be commensurate with that proposed in the Clean Neighbourhoods Bill (£75.00). Alternatively, the level of fixed penalty should be left to the discretion of each individual authority together with discount for prompt payment.

Appendix 1: Consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation: consultation response form

Please use this form for submitting your responses and comments. If you are completing an electronic version of this form, it should be saved in Word format and emailed to: joel.loughridge@dardni.gov.uk.

Alternatively you can post a hard copy of the completed form to: Joel Loughridge, Dog Control Bill Team, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Room 933, Dundonald House, Belfast BT4 3SB.

The closing date is: 1 February 2010

Your details:

Name: Garth Fenning

Organisation: Newtownabbey Borough Council

E-mail address: gfenning@newtownabbey.gov.uk

Postal Address: Newtownabey Borough Council Mossley Mill Newtownabbey BT36 5QA

Consultation Questions

Compulsory micro-chipping

Q.1: Do you agree that micro-chipping should be made a compulsory condition of a dog licence?

Yes (in principle). There are a number of advantages associated with micro chipping which local councils would be supportive of. It provides identification which cannot be lost assuming the database can always be accessed. It can provide a medical history of the dog including neutering, can reduce the risk of theft and provides identification for working dogs that do not wear collars and tags. However, there are also a number of disadvantages in requiring compulsory micro chipping. There is an initial cost to the owner and on-going maintenance fees to maintain and update the database e.g. change of address, sale of dog to new owner, medical history, etc. Procedures similar to that operated by the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) would be necessary to ensure a degree of accuracy. Councils do not have control over the existing databases. There are a number of different databases in operation within the United Kingdom. By making it compulsory to have a dog micro chipped it is in effect promoting a private sector business. Such companies would have to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. In order that councils could access these databases new administrative procedures would have to be put in place. There may be charges levied by these companies should Councils wish to access these databases to verify details. Additional costs would be incurred by Councils through the purchasing and maintaining of universal scanners for all enforcement officers. Councils would however encourage dog owners to have their dogs micro chipped. However, Councils recognise the level of expertise held by the Department of Agriculture in implementing and maintaining such databases in respect of domestic farm animals. Should the Department fund and maintain a new database for this specific purpose that could also accommodate those dogs which are already held on other third party databases thus overcoming the difficulties outlined above, Newtownabbey Borough Council could support compulsory micro chipping as proposed. It is Newtownabbey Borough Council's view however that there is no operational advantage in a compulsory micro-chipping scheme running in conjunction with a legal requirement for a licensed dog to wear an identification tag and places a huge financial and administrative burden on council in issuing these tags.

Early intervention

Q.2: Do you agree that councils should be able to impose conditions on the licences of individual dogs in order to intervene early to control problem behaviour?

Yes (in principle), however, robust enforcement of the current legislation should allow councils to deal with most situations. We believe that there should be a change to the legislation to clarify the requirement to have a dog "under control" in any public place. This should be carried out on a risk based assessment for each location. Further, any new/amended legislation should require all dogs to be kept in a secure location. There is merit in considering the imposition of certain conditions onto a licence holder where on complaint and investigation the potential for a breach of the Order to occur is identified. Such conditions could be imposed via a procedure similar to the issue of an "improvement notice" under current health and safety and food hygiene legislation. However, it would be necessary to have a formal independent appeal mechanism in place where a licence holder refuses to accept any proposed condition. In addition, it will be necessary to apply a penalty in respect of failure to comply with a condition by way of a fixed penalty or prosecution as with any other offence under the Order. Paragraphs 4.6 and 4.9 of the consultation introduce an element of contradiction. Straying is already an offence under the 1983 Order while Article 2(2) Dogs (NI) Order 1983 defines a dog attack on a person as "(a) attacking a person or (b) behaving in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked". Contrary to the claim in paragraph 4.5, new administrative structures would be required in order to ensure that due process was followed in imposing conditions, following the appeals process and undertaking enforcement procedures.

Q.3: Do you agree with the range of licence conditions to control behaviour specified in chapter 4 of the consultation paper? Are there controls which should be removed or added?

Yes (in principle) although the process of imposing conditions requires a defined legal process. We believe that the following conditions have merit should individual circumstances dictate: That the dog; (1) be muzzled in public; (2) be kept on a leash in a public place, as defined by legislation; (3) be kept in a secure location; (4) be micro chipped (see response to question 1), (5) be neutered (this should also pertain to bitches being spayed) and/or, (6) must be kept in such a manner so as to prevent a breach of the Order. Concern is expressed regarding the proposed training requirement for both owners and dogs. Has the Department considered any particular training courses and the standards of same? How would trainers be monitored and courses accredited? Are there sufficient trainers in the area to provide the services or are councils expected to provide this service? It is believed that there is not the infrastructure currently in place to support the use of such a condition. Newtownabbey Borough Council is not convinced of the merit of including re-homing as a condition. The removal of a dog from an individual should be a matter for the courts.

Options for the licence fee

Q.4: Do you support the preferred option ii (an inflationary increase in the licence to £12.50 with protection for vulnerable groups)? If not, what would you propose?

Yes to the proposed inflationary increase, but no to widening the range of groups that are eligible for a concessionary fee. Newtownabbey Borough Council feels that phasing the increase in over a two year period would reduce the financial burden on dog owners. The current legislation allows for the issue of an abatement licence at a 50% reduction of the current licence fee (article 7(5) The Dogs (NI) Order 1983 refers). The conditions applicable are that the person must be over 65 years and live alone and the dog is kept in his/her possession. Councils would support a change in the definition as to eligible persons to include anyone over 65 years and that the dog is kept in his or her possession. At present the current percentage of abatement licences issued per council is approximately 5%. We would support the issue of a licence for a first dog free of charge with the full fee applicable to all subsequent dogs. It is estimated that the average percentage of the population falling within the proposed definition eligible for this concession is 15%. It may be argued that concessions should be given to encourage responsible dog ownership, however the cost of a licence fee is insignificant in comparison with the costs of keeping a dog over its lifetime (estimated by the RSPCA at >£5600 over a 12 year life) that any concession is of minimal significance.

Q.5: Do you agree that the cost of a block licence should increase in line with inflation to £32? If not, what would you propose?

Yes. However it is recommended that the block licence fee be increased to reflect the numbers of dogs per licence and not as at present an unlimited number. For ease of administration it is recommended that charges devised for block licences should follow the illustration in the table below. Proposed Block Licence Fees Number of Dogs per Block Licence Proposed fee £ 3 - 5 2.5 X the single licence fee > 5 £10 per each additional adult dog The definition of a block licence (Article 8 Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983) should also be reconsidered removing the requirement of Kennel Club registration. This would allow a person with three or more dogs to obtain a block licence. It is considered that no further concessions be made to these licences as it would result in an excessive administrative burden to Councils.

Exemption of prohibited dogs

Q.6: Do you agree that councils should have the power to exempt a dog of a banned type where they are satisfied it is not a risk, thus avoiding the need for court proceedings?

Yes. Newtownabbey Borough Council would support this in principle with the caveat that the Department of Agriculture would set up an independent arbitration panel to which Councils and owners of such dogs could refer to for a decision. It is important that independence is maintained by Council enforcement officers. Such a panel would also ensure consistency of approach and negate the need for training and expert competency being maintained at Council level. In addition the Department would have to pursue and provide the options for owners of dogs of a banned type to acquire and hold a valid insurance certificate with an adequate level of public liability cover similar to that required for the Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. It may also be necessary to attach further conditions to the licence to restrict the number of such dogs under the control of one person whilst out in a public place and the transfer of such dogs to another without notifying the licensing authority.

The level of penalties for offences under the 1983 Order

Q.7: Do you agree that fines under the 1983 Order should be increased in line with the standard scale?

Yes. All offences should be increased in line with the standard scale.

Fixed penalties

Q.8: Do you agree that all fixed penalties under the 1983 Order and the new Dog Control Bill should be set at £50? If not, what alternative do you propose?

Yes.

Payment of fixed penalties directly to councils

Q.9: Do you agree that payments of fixed penalties should be made to councils to help enforce dog control legislation rather than to the courts?

Yes. All fixed penalty payments in respect of dog control enforcement should be retained by Councils and the income ring-fenced to offset the costs involved in providing and maintaining that specific service.

New offences

Q.10: Do you agree that it should be an offence to allow a dog to attack another dog?

No. This would need to be clearly defined to ensure that dog fighting is excluded from this specific legislation but remains a separate and distinct offence under The Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. It is in the nature of dogs to show aggression to other dogs. Gathering sufficient evidence to prove such a case in court could prove difficult. Adequate provision exists to deal with such incidents through the civil courts where the burden of proof is of a lower standard (on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt) with respect to damage to property.

Q.11: Do you agree that keeping or being in charge of a dog that attacks and injures a person should be an aggravated offence, whether it happens in a public place or on private property?

Yes. In addition, the powers of entry of authorised officers should be reviewed to include immediate entry to private property, in order to investigate serious incidents without the need seek a warrant. It should also be an offence for an individual to obstruct or assault a Council officer while enforcing any provisions of the Order.

The potential economic impact of these proposals

Q.12: Do you agree that the analysis of the evidence given in the accompanying partial Regulatory Impact Assessment accurately describes the potential impacts of these proposals?

Yes. However see responses to questions 1-11

Q.13: Are there other potential impacts we may not have anticipated here or in the accompanying partial Regulatory Impact Assessment?

See responses to questions 1-11

Potential impact of these proposals on different groups

Q.14: Do you agree that the analysis of the evidence given in the accompanying Equality Impact Assessment accurately describes the potential impacts of these proposals?

Yes.

Q.15: Are there other potential impacts we may not have anticipated in the accompanying Equality Impact Assessment?

No

Q.16: Do you have any other comments or alternative proposals, or any additional background information?

Newtownabbey Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation issued by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on 23 November 2009. A response has been provided to each of the questions 1-15 as detailed above. In addition, a number of comments have been made with respect to the information presented in Sections 2 and 3 pages 4 -11 as follows. Section 2: Current Legislation There are several items within this summary of the current legislation which may require clarification or need to be amended. 2.3 Exemptions from Licensing The consultation refers to; "a puppy, if it is kept by the person who owns or keeps the bitch that gave it birth". Article 5(a) of the Order exempts from licensing; "a dog under the age of six months where that dog is kept by the person who at the time of its birth was the keeper of the bitch which gave it birth". 2.4 Block Licences The consultation states that a "block licence" covers premises where more than three dogs are kept, if; At least one of them is an unsterilized bitch kept for breeding, or, At least three are registered pedigree dogs. The Order refers to; At least three unsterilized bitches, any one of which is used for breeding, or, Not less than three dogs which are registered with the Kennel Club or with such other organisation as the Department may, by order, specify 2.8 Dangerous Dogs The consultation states that a council dog warden may "seize any dog, of whatever breed or type, which appears to present a serious danger to the public". Article 25C (c) of The Order states; "an officer may seize… any dog in a public place (whether or not one to which that Article or such an order applies) which appears to him to be attacking any person".

Comments on Section 3: Need for Changes to the Legislation

Stray and Unwanted dogs

Table 1 shows the number of licences issued, the number of unwanted dogs collected and the number strays impounded from 1999 – 2008.

The increase in the number of dogs licensed, and the reduction in the numbers of stray and unwanted dogs impounded may be viewed as indications of the effectiveness of councils in administering the current legislation together with an increasing social responsibility of dog owners in general.

Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the number of stray dogs by population figures. It alleges that Northern Ireland has the highest number of stray dogs and an 'unacceptably high number of stray and unwanted dogs destroyed' by councils per head of population. It is contended that these figures are not comparable. Table 1 refers to stray dogs and table 2 refers to strays and unwanted dogs combined. The number of unwanted dogs for the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales is unknown.

The estimated dog population in each geographical area is unknown. The fact that there is different dog control legislation for each area is not taken into consideration. The figures published by Dogs Trust are gathered by a voluntary survey whereas district councils in Northern Ireland are required to provide statistics on dog control to the Department on a quarterly basis.

A more reliable indicator for the number of dogs destroyed would be a percentage of all dogs impounded, taking into consideration the above factors.

Attacks on People and Livestock

Tables 4 and 5 refer to the number of attacks on people and livestock. Such attacks always remain a concern for any enforcing authority.

Unlike the previous tables there are no comparable figures for the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales. The number of fatalities from dog attacks is not included. Northern Ireland has an estimated dog population of 150000, out of which 1100 were involved in an attack in 2008 (less than 1%). Of the 795 reported attacks on people in 2008, 59 attended hospital (8%) 28 of which were aged 16 or under (47%).

Enforcement Costs

Table 6 gives examples of enforcement costs and licence fee income for the financial year 2007 - 2008. The cost of enforcing the legislation far exceeds the revenue raised through licensing alone. Newtownabbey Borough Council feels that penalties for offences should be reviewed and rigorously enforced when cases are brought before the courts. In order to get a better reflection of the costs all councils should be surveyed over a 5 year period (so that costs are not skewed by legal costs) with the costs to be included in providing the service clearly specified.

The document does not include figures of enforcement actions taken. Enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order remains one of the most difficult and contentious areas for councils.

Thank you for taking time to respond to this consultation

Publication of responses

In line with the Department's policy of openness, at the end of the consultation period copies of the responses we receive may be made publicly available. The information they contain may also be published in a summary of responses.

If you do not consent to this, you must clearly request that your response be treated confidentially. Any confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system in e-mail responses will not be treated as such a request.

You should also be aware that there might be circumstances in which we will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Northern Ireland Companion Animal
Welfare Committee - 30 July 2010

From: Steve Goody
Sent: 30 July 2010 13:01
To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email
Subject: Dogs (Amendment) Bill
Importance: High

Dear Sir

I am responding on behalf of the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Committee (NICAWC) in response to the request from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in relation to the Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

Microchipping

2. (3) (c) (i) - should specify electronic transponder (microchip) compliant with ISO 11784 and 11785. Further that it should be registered on a database meeting the requirements set out below.

Contents of database

1. (1) The database must contain the following information in relation to each dog registered—

(a) name and address of the owner, or owners where there is joint ownership;

(b) a contact telephone number for each owner;

(c) name of the dog;

(d) microchip number;

(e) breed of dog;

(f) sex of the dog;

(g) year of birth of the dog; and

(h) a reference to any other dogs registered under the owner's name on the database.

(2) The database operator must record or update this information within 5 working days of receipt of the information.

(3) For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 3, "working day" means any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which in England is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971(a).

Accuracy

2. The database operator must have in place a checking system to ensure that any information inputted is accurate.

Access to information

3. (1) The database operator must—

(a) answer all telephone calls received in normal working hours on all working days;

(b) provide the information in paragraph 7 free of charge to authorised third parties during all normal working hours; and

(c) charge a reasonable rate for the telephone call.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph 1(a) and (b) "normal working hours" means the hours between 9am and 5pm.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph 1(b), "authorised third parties" means—

(a) any police constable;

(b) any representative of the Secretary of State; or

(c) any representative of the local authority.

Contingency provisions

4. The database operator must—

(a)have adequate computer software and hardware to store the information in the database;

(b) maintain a secure electronic backup of all of the information stored in the database; and

(c) make provisions for the transfer of the information contained in the database to another database operator if the database ceases to operate.

(d) be compliant with EU ISO standards.

Setting on or Urging a Dog to Attack

6. (28) (3) (a) - replace with 'the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown'.

Grounds for Imposition of Control Conditions

30A (4) Insert 'the date on which it is served and a statement that the order comes into effect on that date'.

Control Conditions

30B After (e) There should be a general statement to the effect that 'but this list is not exhaustive'

That concludes our submission.

Yours sincerely

Steve Goody
Chairman, Northern Ireland Animal Welfare Committee

NI Companion Animal Welfare Committee (NICAWC)

Brief for the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Introduction of representatives from NICAWC:

• Stephen Goody – Chairman of NICAWC
• David Wilson – NICAWC member
• Brian Bingham – NICAWC member

NICAWC

Members of the Committee are drawn from organisations whose role is to deal with companion animals in NI and from all sectors. Members include The Blue Cross, The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA), The Dogs Trust, Assisi Animal Sanctuary and many others.

It has as its objectives:

• To represent an informed view on companion animal welfare issues to enable effective introduction of legislation by influencing the NI Assembly, local authorities and key opinion formers
• To promote collaborative working amongst member and other companion animal welfare organisations
• To be recognised as a well informed coalition of organisations on legislation governing the ownership and welfare of companion animals in NI

Dogs (Amendment) Bill

1. NICAWC broadly welcomes the Dogs (Amendment) Bill and congratulates the Minister and her officials on the proposals. In particular, we welcome:

• The intention to introduce compulsory microchipping
• The extension of the exemption from licensing to include all assistance dogs, subject to more general concerns regarding compulsory dog licensing
• The introduction of certain concessionary rates, subject to more general concerns regarding compulsory dog licensing
• The introduction of the proposed exemptions referred to under clause 5 in regard to dogs seized under Article 25C
• The introduction under clauses 6,7 and 8 of an increased range of offences relating to dog attacks
• The proposed introduction of dog control notices setting out conditions to which the owner must comply in respect of keeping the dog
• The introduction of fixed penalties and their ring fencing – subject to certain concerns

Dog Welfare in NI

The Dogs Trust 2009 annual survey of the UK's stray dog population highlighted a number of important facts in relation to the situation in NI (of the 26 authorities in NI, all 26 responded to the survey).

• In NI, there is an average of 1 stray dog per 196 people. The highest proportion anywhere in the UK
• It is estimated that there were 8,600 stray dogs in NI '08-'09 of which 3,190 were euthanased. By far the highest proportion anywhere in the UK

The Department for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) provided the following information:

• The total number of dogs in private ownership (as estimated by DARD) is approximately 312,000 – with the incidence of multi dog owning households being higher in NI when compared with the rest of the UK
• Councils licensed almost 119,000 dogs in 2009 – fewer than half the total number of dogs in NI

NICAWC has the following concerns:

• Compulsory dog licensing has not served to substantially reduce the number of stray and abandoned dogs in NI. Further, it has not substantially reduced the number of dogs being needlessly euthanased as compared with the rest of the UK – where no such licensing schemes exist
• Whilst the issue of ring fencing funds generated from an enhanced system of fixed penalty notices being paid to the district council is to be applauded, we would wish to see those funds ring fenced specifically for the purposes of supporting/enforcing the legislation and improving the welfare of dogs in NI
• Whilst the proposals to introduce compulsory microchipping is to be warmly welcomed, microchips used should be ISO 11784 and 11785 compliant. Further that microchips and data relating to the implanting of those microchips should be registered on a database meeting specified requirements

Stephen Goody
Chairman, NICAWC
October 2010

North of Ireland Veterinary Association -
30 July 2010

FAO The Clerk to the Committee

The North of Ireland Veterinary Association welcomes the amendments to the Dogs Bill as a significant step towards increasing responsible dog ownership. In particular, we would like to single out for praise the clauses relating to compulsory micro-chipping, early intervention on behavioural issues (control orders and fixed penalty notices), and the increase in the dog licence fee with concessions for certain categories of owner.

With regard to micro-chipping, NIVA strongly supports this. Permanent identification, particularly by microchip, has become increasingly common over the past decade, and is the most effective means of reuniting a stray dog with its owner. It has a number of advantages over the use of a collar and tag which are often left off or slip off. Collars can also be easily removed from stolen dogs. Permanent identification is effective at all times and is virtually impossible to alter or remove. The veterinary profession promotes responsible pet ownership and can explain to owners the benefits of permanent identification for dogs. All dogs should be permanently identified by microchip before the first change of ownership or at first veterinary examination if earlier. It is worth mentioning however, that the success of such a scheme is entirely dependant on the maintenance of a database that is readily accessible to vets, dog wardens, welfare associations etc. We would welcome an opportunity to present further information of microchips and micro-chipping when secondary legislation relating to this is being drafted; the site chosen for the chip, the skill of the operator/level of training required, and the choice of chip and its readability are all important criteria on which vets have a wealth of knowledge and experience.

With regard to control orders and fixed penalty notices, the amount of money raised in each geographical area through fixed penalty notices should be monitored to prevent local authority staff becoming over zealous in using this as an income stream. This money should also be ring-fenced for the use of the local council specifically to support and enhance the role of the dog warden and must not be sidelined off to support other initiatives. We believe that, in the long term, behavioural rehabilitation and training is likely to produce the best results in behavioural problems in dogs. In the many cases, the most appropriate control order might require the owner to seek advice or professional help in re-training their dog, but there should be guidance as to whom the owners should approach as there is a wide variety in the level of service offered by many behavioural "experts". However, we appreciate that measures required may vary considerably and each case should be considered individually. Whilst muzzling is an option if the dog has been exhibiting aggression towards humans, keeping a dog muzzled or on a lead all the time in public is likely to reduce its ability to show a normal range of behaviours, and this measure should only be used where the risk of undesired behaviours remains during or despite rehabilitation training. Clause 30B (e), relating to control conditions, states that "the dog (if male) be neutered before the end of the period of 30 days from the date on which the notice takes effect." We note that the potential influence of neutering on behaviour is complex. Generally, behaviours such as aggression are a learned response to specific contexts rather than being related to sexual activity. We would therefore suggest that unless the offensive behaviour occurring in males appears specifically at the onset of oestrus in females, neutering should only be ordered on the advice of an appropriately qualified behaviourist or a veterinary surgeon.

The inclusion of a reduced licence fee for older people and those on income-related benefits is welcomed, as is a reduction for neutered dogs. This latter measure will help to significantly reduce the appalling numbers of stray dogs in Northern Ireland; the destruction of large numbers of unplanned and unwanted healthy dogs should be a cause of shame to all of us and it provides the vet with one of his/her most loathsome duties.

Clauses relating to dog attacks in one's own home are valuable additions as evidence suggests that most incidences of human directed aggression in dogs occur within the home environment and towards family members or those known to the dog. For example, 62% of bite incidents in a survey in the Netherlands took place in non-public areas (Cornelissen and Hopster 2009). As a supplementary measure (and not for inclusion in the amended Bill) we would like to see more effort being put into the education of children about their behaviour around dogs as this can also be a contributory factor in dog attacks. Schemes such as the Blue Dog initiative have proven results and support for such a scheme would be a valid use of money raised through fixed penalty notices. With regard to attacks on private property, we are reassured that no offence is committed if the victim is trespassing – this is an important caveat.

We feel there is one significant area of weakness in these amendments surrounding the continued dependence on a breed specific element. We cannot support breed specific legislation, not least the lack of an adequate definition of the Pit Bull Terrier type, the impossibility of proving that a dog is a Pit Bull Terrier and the fact that breed specific legislation may lull the general public into believing that dogs not on the list of prohibited breeds must therefore be "safe". All breeds have the potential to harm, and this potential can be exacerbated by a number of external factors, including irresponsible ownership. In particular clause 25 A (c) "any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this Article by an order of the Department, being a type appearing to the Department to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose". Determining whether a dog is of a type bred for fighting is bound to be a subjective and therefore always contentious decision, and we would support a move towards penalising the deed and not the breed.

The North of Ireland Veterinary Association has a membership comprising of vets working in all areas of the profession (private practitioners, state vets, research vets etc.) and is the territorial division of the British Veterinary Association which represents over 12000 vets. We would welcome an opportunity to present evidence to the Agriculture committee on these proposed amendments.

Kind Regards,

Brian McAuley BVSc MRCVS
President - NIVA

Trevor McConville - 30 July 2010

From: Trevor McConville
Sent: 30 July 2010 14:34
To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email
Subject: Welfare of Animals Bill

Good Day

I understand there is a draft Welfare of Animals Bill that will be under consideration in September 2010. I am a member of the public and am responding to the call for public comment.

My comments would be in relation to increasing fees, chipping and tail docking for dogs.

It is my view that increasing fees may well increase revenue from responsible dog owners but will certainly not make a jot of difference to the many irisponsible owners that sadly make up the greatest proportion of dog owners in NI.

The bill should make it a legal requirement for chipping and registration of seller before anyone can sell a dog. Registration should have a fee attached eg £500. Exemption could be arranged upon application in the case of unexpected pups but only following neutering etc of the dog/bitch involved. Details of the seller and buyer should be recorded. Confirmation by the buyer should be obtained. The consequence of not complying with the requirement for the seller should be a significant statutory min. fine eg £ 5000 per occasion. This would go a long way to reduce the financial gains made by unscrupulous puppy farms. I would expect the number of unspayed/non-neutered dogs at large to reduce.

I would also like to comment on the proposal to ban tail docking for dogs. I would be involved with a number of working dogs throughout the shooting season and have witnessed some breeds of dogs working in heavy cover. The tail action of dogs and the nature of cover they frequent can be very troublesome and traumatic to certain breeds. In particular those breeds that primarily flush birds. I am thinking of the various breeds of Spaniels and HPR dogs. The sight of dogs with heavily bleeding tails and the potential for complications is not very pleasant. May I suggest that tail docking for cosmetic effect/reason be banned but that an exemption be permitted and even encouraged for those animals within certain breeds that will be worked in heavy cover. This exemption need only apply to dogs bred for and expected to be worked in cover. Please give this aspect of my e-mail full consideration.

Sincerely

Trevor McConville

Kennel Club - 31 July 2010

Response to Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development consultation on Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Submitted on Friday 31st July by: The Kennel Club, 1-5 Clarges Street, Piccadilly, London W1J 8AB, tel: 020 7518 1020, email Emily.jeffrey@thekennelclub.org.uk

The Kennel Club is the UK's largest organisation dedicated to the health and welfare of dogs. Within its broad remit the Kennel Club aims to protect and promote in every way the general improvement of dogs.

The Kennel Club runs a large number of programmes and makes investments through its Charitable Trust in education and health initiatives, to help dog owners across the UK to have healthy happy dogs, living long lives with responsible owners.

The Kennel Club also provides the Secretariat for the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), a wide-ranging group representing animal welfare, local authorities, police and veterinary professional organisations. DDASG has been considering the issue of dangerous dogs legislation, public protection and dog welfare for many years and has lobbied for changes to current legislation.

Section 2 – Microchipping & licensing

The Kennel Club absolutely supports measures to encourage responsible dog ownership, including compulsory microchipping (a recently approved change in policy). The Kennel Club owns and runs Petlog, the largest microchipping database in the UK, which currently holds 4.2 million records and reunited over 100,000 pets with their owners last year, proving this method is extremely successful in tracking down pet owners.

However the Kennel Club does not believe that the dog licence itself is an effective tool for tackling the range of issues identified by DARD with regard to control of dogs such as worrying livestock or straying. Indeed statistics provided by DARD for an earlier consultation show a significant decrease in the number of stray dogs being impounded year on year since 1999. The total number of strays per 100,000 population clearly shows this number is still significantly higher in Northern Ireland than in England or Scotland – neither of which operates a dog licensing scheme.

Outside of Northern Ireland it is widely accepted that dog licensing schemes have failed to adequately address irresponsible dog ownership or straying. In England, for instance, the scheme was abolished in 1987 at a time when only half of all owners were thought to hold a licence. Given this experience and other DARD statistics in this consultation the Kennel Club is of the view that the use of dog licences in Northern Ireland has, thus far, failed to reduce the prevalence of straying and incidences of attacks on humans and livestock to an acceptable level.

With regard to reducing the number of stray dogs collected and impounded in Northern Ireland the Kennel Club believes that compulsory microchipping is anyway preferable to licensing as this provides a permanent and more reliable means of identification although it believes there should be exemptions in exceptional circumstances such as on medical grounds. Irresponsible dog owners who currently fail to obtain a dog licence despite the legal requirement to do so have a greater incentive to microchip their dogs because this increases the likelihood of being reunited with their dogs following an accident, theft or straying and are thus more likely to microchip than license under compulsion.

Finally, the Kennel Club believes compulsory microchipping must also be accompanied by better education of the public on their responsibilities as dog owners for instance to ensure an adequate level of welfare and complete a minimum level of training.

Section 5 - Control of Dogs

The Kennel Club is totally opposed to breed specific legislation, which in England has failed to protect the public, has had serious, negative consequences for animal welfare and has proven extremely difficult and expensive to enforce.

Whilst we are aware that breed specific legislation is already in place in Northern Ireland we view this Bill as an opportunity to address what we consider to be serious flaws in the existing law.

The Kennel Club believes genetics (breed) plays only a small part in the temperament of an individual dog. Scientific studies from around the world illustrate that environment has a far greater effect. Reported incidents show that a high number of dog bites (by any breed) are a result of the irresponsible actions of owners, who have either not taken steps to train their dog correctly, or have trained them to behave aggressively. In England admissions to hospital Accident & Emergency units have risen by 79% in London and by 43% nationally over the last five years, proving that dog attacks are now more likely and/or more severe than they were prior to the introduction of breed specific legislation. Any legislation based on genetics that ignores the influence of the dog's keeper on its behaviour is therefore likely to be ineffective.

Currently breed specific legislation frequently results in dogs that have shown no signs of aggression being euthanized or remanded in police kennels for months and even years on end whilst awaiting examination, confirmation of breed and trial. This is extremely detrimental to the dog's welfare and has often resulted in dogs with a stable, non-aggressive temperament displaying severe behavioural problems due to the inevitable lack of socialisation they receive whilst kenneled on police premises. Not only does this contradict animal welfare legislation, it is also extremely costly. For instance, London's Metropolitan Police have spent £10 million in the last 3 years alone seizing, kenneling and euthanasing dangerous dogs.

Banning breeds has also had the effect of pushing the problem underground and creating 'status' dogs, actually incentivising the deliberate training of dogs to be aggressive.

The Kennel Club welcomes the new power proposed allowing a district judge or magistrate to allow a dog deemed as dangerous to be allowed to return to its owners under a range of conditions. However, the Kennel Club is extremely concerned that a district judge or magistrate may order a dog's destruction without any form of trial or prosecution. Whilst the Kennel Club would agree it is better to assess the dog and carry out a prosecution as soon as possible after an attack there must be some form of trial in order to ensure the judgement is considered, fair and just.

Section 6 & 7 – Setting on or urging a dog to attack / Attack by dog on a person or another dog

The Kennel Club welcomes the new offences to cover: setting a dog on another person; urging a dog to attack another person; setting a dog on or urging a dog to worry livestock; setting a dog on or urging another dog to attack or injure another dog.

The Kennel Club is also pleased to see these sections cover private as well as public property, which we view as essential to better protect the public, and provides for some common sense exemptions for instance in the case of police dogs, where a dog attacks a trespasser etc.

Section 8 – Control conditions on dog licences

As the Secretariat for the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) the Kennel Club has itself lobbied for a range of control conditions which can be used to help reduce the risk of a dog attack. We view this approach as an absolute necessity in any attempt to legislate to reduce the incidence of aggression in dogs. However, the Kennel Club does believes control conditions can be applied to individual dog owners and their dogs without the use of a licensing system – though still administered by local authorities – and itself proposed these for inclusion in the Dog Control Bill currently progressing through Parliament in the UK.

However, the Kennel Club has concerns about the following proposed control conditions to be introduced:

• Dog to be kept under control in public
• Dog to be kept in yard, building, or enclosure

With regard to the former, the Kennel Club is concerned about the proposed phrasing of 'under control'. Our previous extensive experience of working on access legislation in England & Wales such as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has proven that whilst being very prescriptive in legislation can cause difficulty in itself, such loose phrasing as this can be equally counterproductive as it can be widely interpreted and often leads to confusion amongst dog owners and walkers as well as creating difficulty for those tasked with enforcing of the law.

Under Section 8, 30B(b) the Kennel Club therefore proposes the use of the term 'effective control' similar to that defined in the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 which is far clearer for both the dog walker and the dog warden to understand and enforce, and states:

"a dog shall be considered to be under effective control provided (it) is kept on a lead whether fixed or extendable, or if not on a lead, the person in charge of the dog remains aware of its actions and the dog will return to him reliably and promptly on command."

With regard to the latter condition to keep a dog in a yard, building or enclosure, the Kennel Club is concerned that implementing this control condition could actually contradict a dog's welfare for instance if it prevents a dog being able to exercise, seek shelter or shade. The use of less prescriptive wording such as 'to be kept on secure premises' specifying that the owner must take action to ensure as far as possible the premises cannot be accessed except by the owner or without the owner's permission would be preferable.

Finally the Kennel Club is grateful to the Committee for seeking this input and allowing the opportunity to put forward our views on the Bill. We look forward to working proactively over the coming months with the Committee, DARD and other organisations with an interest in the implementation of this draft legislation to achieve the best possible outcome for all concerned.

Communications Workers' Union - 2 August 2010

30th July 2010

The Clerk to the Committee,
NI Assembly Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284, Parliament Buildings,
Stormont, Ballymiscaw,
Belfast BT4 3XX

Dear Sir/Madam,

CWU Comments on the Northern Ireland Assembly Proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

The NI Assembly Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development invited comments on the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill which had been developed by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) is one of the UKs largest Trade Unions, representing 250,000 workers including those employed by Royal Mail Group and British Telecom Group. 100,000 of those workers including 70,000 Royal Mail and Parcelforce Worldwide delivery workers and 30,000 BT Engineers are vulnerable and are exposed to the risk of Dog Attacks on a daily basis. Around 6000 Royal Mail and Parcelforce,

Postal workers are attacked by dogs every year in the UK whilst delivering the Mail, packets and parcels as well as 300 to 400 British Telecom Engineers. Many require hospital treatment and many receive serious disabling injuries and disfigurement. Some are forced to give up their job. Two Postal workers (one at Christmas 2007 and one at Christmas 2008) were nearly killed in savage attacks and thousands of others have suffered horrific physical and psychological injuries. As a result the CWU launched its "Bite-Back" Campaign in early 2008 with the objective of modernising, updating and strengthening the Dangerous Dogs Laws in the UK, improving enforcement and calling for harsher penalties. The Law on dangerous Dogs as it currently stands and its enforcement by the Police, Dog Wardens and the Courts has proved to be totally ineffective in protecting CWU members as dog attack numbers have risen and injuries have worsened.

The Communication Workers Union is therefore a major stakeholder in respect of the subject matter of the control of dangerous dogs and the accountability of irresponsible, reckless and negligent owners. The CWU been campaigning hard across the UK since the launch of our 'Bite-Back' campaign in early 2008, fighting for the Union's primary objectives which are; to get in place UK wide Laws that better prevents dog attacks on Postal Workers, to get the dog control laws to apply everywhere, including private property and premises where Postal delivery staff have to go, to see the introduction of new preventative Dog Control Notices (Dog ASBOs), to bring in measures to make owners more accountable and responsible for the actions of their dogs, for better enforcement of the Law by the Police and Local Authorities, for harsher sentences by the Courts for offending dangerous dog owners, for the introduction compulsory Insurance cover and compulsory licensing and Microchipping of all dogs. The CWU campaign has been based on raising awareness and highlighting the serious problem we have with attacks by dogs on Postal Workers, other workers, Children and the public which can be very serious incidents with the real risk of severe injury and disfigurement.

The CWU has attended several meetings with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), the Minister's Officials and the Dog Control Bill Team to make representation on this matter and CWU responded in full to the DARD Public Consultation. The CWU would like to record our gratitude to the Minister, her Officials and teams for their time, support, assistance and positive response to this matter and our concerns which is of great important to the members of our Trade Union.

It has been apparent for many years that the existing Dangerous Dogs legislation doesn't work effectively in controlling dangerous dogs and dealing with irresponsible owners and leaves many victims with no remedy in criminal law. The law urgently needs revising to help protect the general public, workers and children as well as dog welfare. The CWU has been lobbying the UK Governments of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for these changes through our "Bite-Back" Campaign. The CWU therefore welcomes the NI Assembly's positive proposals to tackle the issue of Dangerous Dogs by changing the Dangerous Dogs Law in Northern Ireland. The CWU welcomed the DARD Consultation and welcomes the NI Assembly Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill and welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed revised dangerous dogs law.

The changes should be focused on enabling all enforcement agencies to target the worst offenders and the most aggressive dogs bearing in mind that the vast majority of dog owners are law abiding and they too will welcome such changes.

With an estimated 10 million dogs in the UK there is an absolute and urgent need for effective dangerous dogs legislation to replace the current laws which are both complex, ineffective, outdated, unworkable and fail to deal with bad owners.

The key message is that any dog can show aggression, particularly if it is not owned responsibly plus handled and trained properly. Therefore legislation that provides the tools to target irresponsible, careless and reckless ownership both before an animal becomes a serious problem with new preventative measures as well as after an attack are very welcome.

The legislation needs to modernise the existing rules and regulations on dogs and therefore this is a very worthwhile and necessary initiative. The proposed bill should give local authorities and the Police the legislative tools to deal with the growing problem of out-of-control dogs and deal effectively with attacks by dangerous dogs in private places as a criminal offence.

The CWU is obviously delighted that the Scottish Parliament has already passed a new law earlier this year. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act which is due to come in to force in February 2011.

The CWU is also delighted regarding the prospect that the Northern Ireland Assembly have introduced the Dogs (Amendment) Bill which could soon become an Act also come into force in 2011. The CWU would urge the NI Assembly to push ahead with earliest introduction of new Dangerous Dogs Legislation to replace the current ineffective existing measures and the growing dangerous dogs problem of a significant number of aggressive dogs, in the hands of irresponsible owners who need to be dealt with, so enabling all enforcement agencies to effectively target the worst offenders and rebalancing the law in favour of the victims.

The existing Dangerous Dogs Laws have been in place for over a decade. Those laws have never been effective or effectively enforced which has resulted in the current situation. Changes must take account of the needs of the agencies that will be required to enforce the law and they must ensure the necessary mechanisms are in place to ensure the proposed changes can be implemented effectively because a law that is not enforcedis not a law at all!.

Dog Attacks on private property are a major concern of the CWU. 70% of the 6000 Dog Attacks on Postal workers every year occur on private property (private land, roads, drives, lanes, paths, gardens, farms, commercial premises, unadopted land etc) amounting to over 4000 of those attacks. Postal workers, Telecom workers or any public service and other workers that provide services to home owners and residents must be protected effectively from dog attacks and owners must be made aware that if their animals attack workers they could in future be prosecuted and held legally responsible and so provide the victims with a remedy in criminal law.

The CWU firmly believes that the NI Assembly Minister of Justice must give new guidance to the Courts to introduce tougher, consistent punishments for owners of dogs, dangerously out of control and causing injury.

Along with this we need to see the new regime of new Dog Control Notices (DCNs), giving Police and Dog Wardens extended, proactive enforcement powers.

The Dangerous Dogs law needs to be revised primarily with the aim of placing more responsibility on the owners of badly behaved dogs. Importantly the onus needs to be placed on the owners, not the dogs, so as to ensure they are properly controlled. The new Dangerous Dogs Law also needs to place a sharper focus on the "deed and not the breed". The existing breed specific legislation has completely failed to deal with the problem of growing numbers of dangerous dogs and increasing numbers of dog attacks including young children being killed, maimed and disfigured in the home. Six children under 5 have been killed in dog attacks in the home, on private property since 2006.

CWU Specific Comments and suggestions on the Proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

• Generally the CWU is very impressed with the overall composition of the Bill and it appears considered and very much based on encouraging more responsible dog ownership rather than penalising dog owners.
• CWU supports the idea of a dog licensing system that is tied in to compulsory microchipping. The key issue being that with an annual licensing system the details of the owner can be kept up to date on a database and we would comment that the question of maintaining a database in Northern Ireland will be key to making the new legislation work.
• CWU supports the idea of microchipping, in combination with Licensing, Microchipping on its own is a one-off thing owners may not update details connected with the microchip but will have to in relation to the Licence. Microchipping will enable lost, stolen or stray dogs to be returned promptly to its owner. The Microchip technology enables a significant amount information to be stored. A significant advantage of compulsory microchipping is that it would enable clear identification of a dog's owner when prosecution is being considered. We would suggest that the proposed change in legislation should clarify that the person to whom a microchip is registered is responsible for the welfare and actions of the dog in which it is implanted.
• CWU welcomes the extension of the fee for licensing as we feel this may better cover the true costs of administering such a system. We support the increased dog licence fee to £12.50 (with concessionary rates for the elderly, those on benefits and owners of neutered dogs) so that councils can recover more of the cost of their dog warden services and thereby ensure sufficient resources and enforcement.
• CWU very much welcomes the introduction of the ability to exempt prohibited types of dogs as it brings it into line with the rest of the UK. We also welcome the proposed simplification of the exemptions system which will avoid the costly, time consuming systems elsewhere in the UK, will allow exemptions to be made without the need for a Court Order and will enable the enforcing officers to decide on leaving dogs with their owners where the dog isn't a danger whilst at the same time strengthening of the strict exemption conditions under which a dog of a prohibited type might be exempted from the ban. CWU is opposed to the continuation of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and welcomes the growing acceptance of "Deed Not The Breed" as not all prohibited types of dogs are dangerous and where appropriate these animals should be allowed to be kept by their owners rather than taking them away to kennels at cost to the tax payer and causing unnecessary stress to the dog.
• CWU welcomes the fact that the law will apply everywhere on private as well as public land and premises and offences under clause 7 covers both public and private places.
• CWU Welcome the requirement for local authorities to report new dogs in their area to each other and thus ensure better cross-border enforcement (under clause 30).
• The CWU welcomes the introduction of new Dog Control Orders and welcomes the unique, radical approach to of providing the scope for dog wardens to attach the control order conditions to a dog licence where a dog's behaviour has been unruly and given cause for concern.
• While it is clearly appropriate for local authorities Dog Wardens to be the main enforcers of the lower level offences under this Bill, including control orders, we would suggest there remains the discretion for the police to also be able to enforce where it is deemed appropriate and we would suggest that the necessary amendment to be made to allow direct police enforcement also. We believe that this is an option favoured by the Police.
• CWU welcomes the new offence of failing to prevent a dog from attacking and injuring another person's dog.
• CWU welcomes the new system of fixed penalties for licence and minor offences.
• CWU welcomes the proposed increased fines and penalties for serious offences. We would suggest however that the NI Assembly Minister of Justice must give new guidance to the Courts to introduce tougher, consistent punishments for owners of dogs, dangerously out of control and causing injury.

CWU would wish to raise one further issue not covered in the Proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill and request that the NI Assembly Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development give it careful consideration. We would suggest the introduction of Compulsory Third Party Insurance cover and No fault Personal Injury Compensation Scheme.

CWU supports a requirement that all dogs are covered by third-party liability insurance. Those in the media mainly that are opposed to such an idea labelled the idea as a "Stealth Tax" or "Tax on Dogs" which according to those criticising the proposals would penalise pensioners and responsible dog owners forcing them to pay out Insurance sums quoted as high as £600 each to insure their pets. Sadly, this gross exaggeration and distortion for irresponsible myth making reasons detracted attention away from a very important issue.

CWU believes insurance is affordable and necessary for dog owners and that it will be a very effective means of addressing serious issues in relation of engendering responsible ownership as well as ensuring protection for dog attack victims. Compulsory third party liability insurance is a sensible precaution to protect both human and animal victims of dog attacks. Many household insurance policies will include this as long as the dog is in the insured person's control at the time. There are also membership schemes such as the one Dogs Trust offers where for just £20 a year, £10 for over-60's, any dog within the household has third party liability insurance up to a million pounds per claim.

The fact is that many dog owners are uninsured or untraced when Dog Attacks occur and injury results. Dog attack victims with serious injuries have no civil remedy for Personal Injury compensation if attacked by animals which are not indemnified. For example the CWU had two members seriously injured in dog attacks, left with similar injuries short and long term. One received over £100,000 compensation because the owners were insured and rich people. The other received nothing because the owners were penniless drug addicts and criminals. That's just not right or acceptable in a fair society.

Britain has long been a nation of animal-lovers who are happy to spend large amounts of money on their perfect pet. A report published by the "Independent" in 2007 stated that the lifetime average cost of owning a dog, according to Sainsbury's Bank, stood at £9,000 and this is increasing by around 5 per cent a year which gives a cost of £10,400 for 2010. The RSPCA stated that people need to be sure they can meet all the animal's needs – including the financial cost, which can often be much higher than people think. Halifax Insurance reported that Britons had spent £2.6bn buying cats and dogs in the five years 2002 - 2007. Churchill Insurance stated that depending on size and breeds, in terms of amount of food required and susceptibility to ailments that necessitate treatment, the lifetime cost of dog ownership ranged from £18,000 to £33,000. Therefore £20 per year for Third Party Insurance cover or £10 if over 60 years old is very small amount to pay.

The CWU respects all points of view and have heard various arguments against the idea of compulsory third party insurance for all dogs on the basis that (a) it's a stealth tax or (b) it's a dog tax or (c) it's a tax on responsible owners or (d) only 'responsible' owners will be prepared to take out the insurance and irresponsible owners won't insure their dogs irrespective of any legislation so therefore it's pointless introducing it. In answer to these points the CWU would argue that if a Country had to base its decisions on introducing Laws only when 100% compliance was guaranteed, then we would have no laws at all and instead would have a state of 'bedlam'. For example there are 28 million motorists on the UK's road and the number of people caught driving without insurance has increased by almost a fifth in the last two years with around 1.2 million uninsured drivers on our roads today (1 in 10 of all drivers). However, no one is suggesting that we abandon compulsory Motor Insurance because of the 1.2 million who won't comply.

There are now 10 Million Dogs in the UK and having considered the points in opposition to the proposals the CWU remains strongly in favour of compulsory third party liability. We would also suggest that this scheme is backed up with an insurance fund of last resort to be established similar to the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) scheme, based on a 'no fault scheme' funded by insurance industry reserves which guarantees that the victims of Dog attacks obtain compensation where the Dog owner is uninsured or the insurer cannot be traced. This would ameliorate the current injustice and show clear compassion for victims and protect the rights of injured Postal workers and other Utilities workers and similar employees attacked whilst at work, visiting private and commercial premises. Under this scheme it would be compulsory for all UK insurers selling Pet insurance to be signatories to the agreement. The Scheme would meet the liability to pay compensation for claims for personal injury for Dog Attacks where owners are uninsured or untraced.

Yours sincerely

Dave Joyce
Communication Workers Union
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer

Lawrance Rafferty - 15 September 2010

From: Laurence Rafferty
Sent: 15 September 2010 19:07
To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email
Subject: Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Hi,

This e-mail is regarding the new Dog Control Legislation currently being discussed in the Assembly. I have included a comprehensive overview of the subject in this e-mail and also submitted a 42 page document to the Assembly. I also have a website at www.talk-big.com

Where possible I have included examples that prove the point I am making. Using per review science and credible sources.

As a voter I feel that my rights have been trampled on and I am not being listened to by the Assembly, I equally feel that I am living in a Corporatocracy with big business represented by slick PR cut outs in the forms of NGO's masquerading as charities and impartial groups. If all legislation is passed this way then it is no surprise we are in the trouble we are in.

If you have time perhaps you would review the information I have provided below, it outlines how big business is using Animal Welfare NGO's to circumnavigate the precautionary principle, and it is aided and abetted by the Assembly.

It is little wonder people have no faith in politics if this is the way legislation is driven through in the narrow interests of big business against ordinary people.

If this goes through I will feel the Assembly is a failed institution and will no longer have either public or private support for it. You have not only lost my vote, I will have lost confidence in the whole process of current Government because all the main parties are the same on this issue and they have all sang from the same hymn sheet from day one about this issue. Where is the representation for dog owners as opposed to welfare groups set to make money out of legislation?

Health Issues:

Self Interested RFID Industry body MAG supplying figures for safety against EU guidelines for making new legislation which require a degree of certainty about risk which does not currently exist, because no lifetime studies have been done, and current self report data is likely to be massively underreported. Worse, a series of peer reviewed science by experts in this field point to a correlation between implants and soft tissue sarcomas STS (Cancer).

Some serious problems with this system:

1. Current data relies on vets reporting adverse reactions to the BSAVA via a form downloaded from their website. Most vets don't even know that microchips cause adverse reactions because it is not highlighted to them as something to look for. You can only diagnose what you are aware of. http://vet.sagepub.com/content/43/4/545.full , http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/156/4/1455

2. It is not a legal requirement to report reactions. It will not be a legal requirement to report reactions if this law is passed. Since autopsies or biopsies would need to done to find a reaction it is unlikely they would be reported at all. Blood tests and x-rays do not currently show this problem. So this is an unsuitable way to gather information. Here is actual evidence from a lady whose dog died and then tried to report a reaction. Does it sound like anyone cared? http://www.noble-leon.com/letters/microchip-implants-technological-solution-or-21st-century-nightmare.html . This lady's dog was the one mentioned in the Veterinary Pathology Journal mentioned above. It can be read online so clearly it isn't a fake.

3. Chris Laurence of MAG told me that if cancer wasn't found at the site of the chip then it couldn't be related to the chip, this is clearly at odds with what specialists are saying about metastasis and soft tissue sarcomas. This calls into question the whole reporting process when the chairman of the body gathering data doesn't know that STS can spread. Here is a link to research specialists that say he is wrong. I have our conversation on recorded if anyone would like to hear it. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22soft+tissue+sarcomas%22%2B%22metastasis%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

4. Dog Implants can currently be implanted by anyone including members of the public. The courses are a joke and in one case a course provider passes people by webinar for the fee £145. http://www.smartpetsgroomingschool.co.uk/microchipimplantcourse/ ,

5. Dog implants are implanted in zone a, the same place dogs are injected; there is a high chance of a needle nicking an implant and injuring a dog.

6. Dogs like to roll on their backs a lot, the implant could get damaged by this. As described in Liposarcoma associated with a glass foreign body in a dog. McCarthy PE, Hedlund CS, Veazy RS, Prescott-Mathews J, Cho DY.Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70803, USA. Comment in: J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996 Oct 15;209(8):1379. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755980?dopt=Abstract

7. Damage to humans working with Microchipped Dogs. The dog microchip may be electronically inert if not biologically inert, but the equipment used to detect and stimulate the microchip implant is certainly not. It focuses radio waves onto the dog which may be dangerous for the dog, but equally it focuses radio waves onto humans holding the dog, particularly the person restraining the animal. These focused waves will be hitting the body of the person doing the restraining for several minutes at a time periodically throughout the day. It will be mandatory for vets to check microchips for ownership I presume. Unlike mobile phones which sit inactive in this regard for a large proportion of the time, they are periodically pinged by the cell tower, but not transmitting all the time they are switched on. This is evidenced by the whirring sound you get if you sit close to a radio receiver with a cell phone turned on. The microchip scanner in the Veterinary surgery will used on every dog under new rules, thus subjecting the Vets and Veterinary Nurses to much more RFID waves and EMF than nearly anyone has been subjected to before. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1717281.stm , http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/677256.stm , http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2992921.stm , http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8637466.stm , http://www.mobile-phones-uk.org.uk/sar.htm , http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/public-health-the-hidden-menace-of-mobile-phones-396225.html , http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/southkorea/en/Leeka_Kheifets_principle_.pdf , http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=Governments%2Bhave%2Bthe%2Bduty%2Bto%2Badopt%2Bpreventive%2Bmeasures%2Bin%2Border%2Bto%2Bavoid%2Bharm%2Bbefore%2Bscientific%2Bevidence%2Bis%2Bestablished&sa=X&ei=mVUOTIadA5qQ4gaYjuyxDA&ved=0CBMQgwM . This has not been proved safe for vets and helpers who will spend hours every day scanning dogs and therefore themselves with low frequency RFID waves.

Security Issues:

1. Microchip scanning equipment is easy to acquire or make. It is not regulated and allows anyone easy access to your data because it doesn't require contact. Chips can be read secretly and that information can then be used. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2749/1/1/ , http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid.html

2. In the Panarama programme that showed the Farmer's Boys, the largest Dog Fighting club in Northern Ireland. It proved microchips are completely useless at stopping dog fighting and dangerous dogs because the Farmers Boys imported Pit bulls as Boxer crossbreds through two borders and then fought the dogs. The undercover journalist actually imported a dog called Nipper which was a tested fighting dog which meant he would have had marks, yet the dog crossed three borders without detection. The dog was moved from Helsinki to Dublin then up to Northern Ireland, then he moved the dog again to England. It was a fully microchipped Pitbull from a fighting kennel and no one picked this up. These chips don't work for dangerous dogs because they didn't work in the past. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&as_qdr=all&q=Yes%2C+he+is+chipped+already.+There+is+the+microchip+number.+site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

3. Cloning a microchip is simple, welcome to some new revenue for criminals. http://www.cq.cx/verichip.pl , http://www.cq.cx/vchdiy.pl .(Please note verichips have the same security and features as dog microchips.) http://talk-big.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=61 , Mag Member CoreRFID Actually sell the equipment to anyone right off the shelf http://www.rfidshop.com/ipaq-114--sdid-lf-rfid-kit-2582-p.asp . All anyone need do is to clone tags for popular dog breeds and that will be one license for every 20 dogs. Since breeds look the same no one will be any the wiser and to all intents and purposes the dogs are in the system. Even worse the owner need not know their dogs chip has been cloned because contact isn't required it can in theory be done from 45cms away from the skin. For more information look at http://talk-big.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=61

4. Victims of domestic abuse and terrorism will be easier to track down. The databases tell the current address of any dog tag. Once the tag is given out the number can't be changed. This means ex partners will be able to use the current number to track down spouses. Since all they have to do is pay £145 to do a webinar course and they can then query the database and get address details this will be very dangerous indeed in domestic abuse cases. This puts a target on any pet owners back that cannot be lifted. http://talk-big.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=61 , http://www.pettrac.co.uk/microchip-implanters/texttrac-microchip-reunification.asp

The Third Party Technique at work?

Dogs Trust were the key drivers in pushing for compulsory Micro chipping, the Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust is Chris Laurence, fair enough, Chris is also in PAC Pet Advisory Committee, they advise Parliament, Chris is also chairman of MAG Microchip Advisory Group, they are an RFID industry group comprised of Database Owners, Major Implanters and Major Manufacturers. They supplied self report figures to the consultation team that they admit have been seriously underreported since 2003. This is clearly against the EU precautionary principle upon which all legislation is supposed to be based. Papers published in mainstream scientific journals have a lot more credibility than self report data provided by MAG industry group and the charities which have taken their figures at face value, in this case the main advocate and Dogs Trust veterinary director actually works for MAG. The fact that these figures were allowed at all was a disgrace. It is worth noting that one member of MAG estimates profits from Microchipping at between 200% to 400% for implanters, that member is the Pet Microchip Company Ltd.

Sources (Every source listed links to source evidence, I am not asking you to take my word, I am proving what I am saying):

1. Dogs Trust - Compulsory Microchipping Campaign http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dogs+trust+complusory+microchipping&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

2. PAC Pet Advisory Committee
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=PAC+Pet+Advisory+Committee+chris+laurence&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

3. MAG Microchip Advisory Group - Membership is: Manufacturers; Distributors; Databases; Major purchasers; Major implanters. This demonstrates that figures supplied were not independent or scientific and therefore should have been ruled out. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=membership+is%3A+Manufacturers%3B+Distributors%3B+Databases%3B+Major+purchasers%3B+Major+implanters.+&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

4. Underreporting of adverse reactions 2003 BSAVA Microchip Report 2003 http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/BSAVAMicrochip.html

5. A list of Peer Review Scientific papers that demonstrate reasonable cause for concern about the effects of RFID microchips have been included in the following link. http://talk-big.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=59 . This link takes you to a clickable list of the papers and where they can be found online.

6. I had a telephone conversation with Chris in which he made the following admission, "Undoubtedly, I think drug reactions or anything where you have a voluntary reporting system is inevitably going to be underreported, it would be stupid to deny that, because when your talking about practicing vets they, a proportion will be responsible enough to report reactions, equally there will be a proportion that won't and we try very hard all the distributors try very hard to get people to report reactions. I have written as chairman a couple of articles, I have one going in next month saying, pointing out to people that they should be reporting reactions. I have written to veterinary record they have been clear that people should be reporting reactions, so there is a positive push to get people to report things, you are always going to get underreporting anyone who tells you are not going to get underreporting is talking through their backside basically." Did he tell the consultation team his figures were underreported? Did he tell them that underreporting was mentioned in reports by MAG as early as 2003? Did he tell them his Industry grouping has not addressed the issue of underreporting in their figures in seven years? If he did why are these figures being used? These are the very same figures Chris used to justify the safety of Microchips. Do they now sound credible to you? You can listen to that here http://www.talk-big.com/underreporting.mp3 , it was virus checked before uploaded and is in MP3 format.

7. The EU precautionary Principle -
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/00/96&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en "5. Decision-makers need to be aware of the degree of uncertainty attached to the results of the evaluation of the available scientific information. Judging what is an "acceptable" level of risk for society is an eminently political responsibility. Decision-makers faced with an unacceptable risk, scientific uncertainty and public concerns have a duty to find answers. Therefore, all these factors have to be taken into consideration. In some cases, the right answer may be not to act or at least not to introduce a binding legal measure. A wide range of initiatives is available in the case of action, going from a legally binding measure to a research project or a recommendation. The decision-making procedure should be transparent and should involve as early as possible and to the extent reasonably possible all interested parties."

Making it compulsory to microchip all dogs when a percentage will get Cancer is wrong, especially when you are passing the law on the strength of a self report scheme carried out by an industry body set to make a fortune out of it.

Source: Who is involved in MAG:
http://talk-big.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=58

For more details about this or any other aspects visit my website.
http://talk-big.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=56

If you are set on passing this law I would be interested in having the details of where I can make a formal complaint about abuse of process within the Assembly.

Kind regards

Lawrance Rafferty info@talk-big.com / info@k9pe.com

Appendix 4

Memoranda and Papers from the Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development

Appendix 4 - Memoranda and Papers from Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

DARD Consultation Paper on Proposed Provisions of the Draft Bill November 2009

Letter to Clerk to the Committee 1 November 2010

Letter to Clerk to the Committee 8 November 2010

Letter to Clerk to the Committee 12 November 2010

Letter to Clerk to the Committee 16 November 2010

DARD Consultation Paper on Proposed Provisions of the Draft Bill November 2009

Consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation

The Department for Agriculture and Rural Development has published a consultation paper setting out proposals for changes to the legislation governing the control of dogs.

Copies of the consultation paper can be obtained by telephoning 028 9052 4654 or by writing to the address below. The document is also available in the consultation section of the Department's website www.dardni.gov.uk. Alternative formats of the document are available on request.

Seeking your views

This consultation provides an important opportunity to improve dog control and the Department is seeking views from members of the public and all interested parties on the proposals set out in the consultation paper. The Department also intends to hold a number of consultation workshops. Details of dates, times and venues of these events will be available on the Department's website in due course.

The consultation period will run from 23 November 2009 to 1 February 2010.

Draft Equality Impact Assessment and partial Regulatory Impact Assessment

Alongside the consultation paper, the Department has also published a Draft Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) and a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) evaluating the potential social and economic impact of these proposals.

We would welcome your views on these documents, which can also be obtained by telephoning 028 9052 4654 or by writing to the address below. The Draft EQIA or the partial RIA are also available on our website www.dardni.gov.uk. Alternative formats of the documents are available on request at the address or number listed below.

How to respond

If you wish to take part in the consultation, you can respond to the consultation paper, the Draft EQIA or the partial RIA using the response form included in the consultation paper and available separately on-line.

Please use the response form (included in the consultation paper and available separately on-line) for submitting your responses and comments. If you are completing an electronic version of the form, it should be saved in Word format and emailed to: joel.loughridge@dardni.gov.uk.

Alternatively you can post a hard copy of the completed form to:

Joel Loughridge
Dog Control Bill Team
Room 933, Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
Belfast
BT4 3SB

Freedom of information

In line with the Department's policy of openness, at the end of the consultation period copies of the responses we receive may be made publicly available. The information they contain may also be published in a summary of responses.

If you do not consent to this, you must clearly request that your response be treated confidentially. Any confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system in e-mail responses will not be treated as such a request.

You should also be aware that there might be circumstances in which we will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Contents

List of Tables

Minister's Foreword

Réamhrá Ón Aire

Innins frae tha Mïnnystèr

1 What is this consultation about and who is carrying it out?

The Minister's review of dog control legislation

Areas outside the scope of this consultation

What will the department do with the consultation responses?

What is the deadline for comments?

What comments are requested?

Confidentiality

2 The current legislation

What does the current legislation say?

3 Need for changes to the legislation

Straying

Attacks on people

Attacks on livestock

Attacks on other dogs

Enforcement costs

Enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs (Ni) Order 1991

4 Proposals for change

Compulsory micro-chipping

Early intervention

Options for the licence fee

Exemption of prohibited dogs

The level of penalties for offences under the 1983 order

Fixed penalties

Payment of fixed penalties directly to councils

New offences

5 The potential economic impact of these proposals

6 Potential impact of these proposals on different groups

7 How to respond to this consultation

List of Tables

Table 1: Licensed, unwanted & stray dogs 1999 – 2008

Table 2: Stray dogs by population figures

Table 3: Stray and unwanted dogs destroyed

Table 4: Attacks on people and livestock 1999 – 2008

Table 5: Hospital admissions by age

Table 6: Enforcement costs and licence fee income (2007 - 2008)

Table 7: New offences and penalties

Minister's Foreword

In November 2007, following a number of high profile dog attacks and concerns that existing legislation governing the control of dogs has not had the desired effect, I announced a wide-ranging review of all aspects of dog control here.

As part of that review, I met and considered submissions from a broad range of stakeholders including the PSNI, Councils and welfare groups including the USPCA, the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, as well as dog breeders, elected representatives and interested individuals.

My review highlighted the serious problem we have with attacks by dogs on people. In 2008 there were 795 dog attacks and this figure has remained at 700 or more since 2000. These can be very serious incidents – I think of the attack on a 75 year old lady and her dog by two Rottweiler dogs in Ebor Street in South Belfast in July 2009 and the attack in 2007 on a young girl at a holiday park near Dervock in County Antrim. There is a real risk that a child or vulnerable adult could be killed in this type of serious attack and I am determined to do everything I can to prevent that happening and to avoid the risk of severe injury or disfigurement.

We also continue to have an unacceptable number of straying dogs. While the number of dogs impounded by councils has fallen by 30 per cent over the last decade, the number remains much too high. Around 7,930 dogs were impounded by local councils in 2008 and the number of stray dogs per head of the population is higher here than in the south of Ireland, England, Scotland, or Wales.

To address these problems, I propose to extend the existing legislation and introduce enhanced dog control measures that will:

• support responsible dog ownership through compulsory micro-chipping and a more robust and effective dog licensing regime;
• focus on prevention through earlier intervention to reduce the number of dog attacks on people;
• make it an offence to allow a dog to attack another dog; and
• increase penalties for offences.

During my review, councils suggested that the dog licence fee, which has not changed since 1983, should be increased to better reflect the cost of the dog warden services they provide. I agree that the licence fee should be increased to meet a greater proportion of the costs of the dog warden service but that there should also be incentives for responsible dog owners and protection for the elderly and those on benefits. My preferred proposal for the licence fee does this.

This consultation document sets out my proposals in more detail and invites your suggestions and comments. This consultation provides an important opportunity to improve dog control and I would urge you to consider the issues and proposals carefully and give us your views.

Michelle Gildernew MP MLA
Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development
November 2009

Réamhrá ón Aire

I Mí na Samhna 2007, i ndiaidh roinnt ionsaithe d'ardphróifíl ó mhadraí agus imní ann nach raibh an reachtaíocht a mhair le smachtú madraí a rialú ag dul i bhfeidhm mar is ceart, d'fhógair mé athbhreithniú fadtréimhseach ar gach gné de rialú madraí anseo.

Mar chuid den athbhreithniú sin, bhuail mé le roinnt geallsealbhóirí go ndearna mé mo mhachnamh ar aighneachtaí uathu, lenar áiríodh an SPTÉ, Comhairlí agus grúpaí leasa lenar áiríodh an USPCA, Cumann na mBothán agus Iontaobhas na Madraí, chomh maith le tógálaithe madraí, ionadaithe atá roghnaithe agus daoine aonair a bhfuil spéis acu ann.

Léirigh m'athbhreithniú an fhadhb mhór atá againn maidir le hionsaithe madraí ar dhaoine. Sa bhliain 2008 bhí 795 ionsaí ó mhadraí ann agus d'fhan an figiúr seo thart ar 7000 nó a thuilleadh ó 2000. Is féidir leis na heachtraí seo a bheith iontach tromchúiseach go deo - smaoiním ar an ionsaí ar sheanbhean 75 bliain d'aois agus ar a madra ag dhá rótvaidhléir ar Shráid Ebor i nDeisceart Bhéal Feirste i mí Iúil 2009 agus ar an ionsaí sa bhliain 2007 ar chailín óg ag páirc saoire gar don Dearbhóg i gContae Aontroma. Tá baol mór ann go marófar leanbh nó duine fásta atá i mbaol mar gheall ar an chineál seo ionsaithe thromchúisigh agus tá mé meáite ar gach rud agus is féidir liom a dhéanamh ionas nach dtarlóidh sé seo agus nach mbeidh riosca dianghortaithe ná máchaile ann.

Go fóill beag tá líon do-ghlactha againn de mhadraí fánacha. Cé gur tháinig laghdú ar líon na madraí ar ghaibhnigh comhairlí iad le 30 faoin chéad le deich mbliana anuas, tá an líon ró-ard go fóill. Ghaibhnigh comhairlí áitiúla thart ar 7,400 madra fhánacha sa bhliain 2008 agus tá líon na madraí fánacha in aghaidh an chinn sa phobal níos airde anseo ná i nDeisceart na hÉireann, i Sasana, in Albain ná sa Bhreatain Bheag.

Le dul i ngleic leis na fadhbanna seo, molaim go gcuirfimis leis an reachtaíocht atá ann faoi láthair agus bearta méadaithe chun madraí a rialú a thabhairt isteach a:

• thacóidh le húinéireacht fhreagrach madraí trí mhicrishlisiú riachtanach agus le córas níos láidre agus níos éifeachtaí maidir le ceadúnú madraí.
• dhíreoidh ar chosc trí idirghabháil níos luaithe chun líon na n-ionsaithe ó mhadraí ar dhaoine a laghdú;
• a dhéanfaidh mar chion é má dhéanann madra amháin ionsaí ar mhadra eile; agus
• a mhéadóidh pionóis mar gheall ar choireanna.

Le linn an athbhreithnithe, mhol comhairlí gur chóir go méadófaí an táille ar cheadúnas madraí, nár athraíodh ón bhliain 1983, ionas go léireodh sé ar bhealach níos fearr costas na seirbhísí maorachta madraí a sholáthraíonn siad. Aontaím gur chóir táille an cheadúnais a ardú le cion níos airde de na costais na seirbhíse maorachta madraí a chomhlíonadh ach gur chóir go mbeadh dreasachtaí ann le haghaidh úinéirí madraí agus cosaint ann le haghaidh daoine scothaosta agus iad siúd a fhaigheann sochair. Is amhlaidh go ndéanann mo thogha molta é seo.

Leagtar amach sa cháipéis chomhairliúcháin seo mo chuid moltaí ar bhealach níos mionsonraithe agus fáiltíonn sé roimh do chuid moltaí agus barúlacha. Soláthraíonn an comhairliúchán seo deis thábhachtach le rialú madraí a fheabhsú agus mholfainn duit machnamh a dhéanamh ar na ceisteanna agus ar na moltaí agus do chuid barúlacha a thabhairt dúinn.

MICHELLE GILDERNEW MP CTR
Aire Talmhaíochta agus Forbartha Tuaithe
Samhain 2009

Innins frae tha Mïnnystèr

Eftèr a wheen o by-ordnar daeins whaur doags haes set tae fowk, an tent fur tha wye tha laas tae tha fore thenoo adae wi tha owerance o doags haesnae haed tha ootcum we wur leukkin, in November o 2007 Ah pit oot wurd o a throch-gaun scance o aa maittèrs effeirin til tha owerance o doags hereawa.

Fur pairt o that scance, Ah foregaithert wi a hale clattèr o yins leukkin tha gate o't, an cast ower thair inpittins, takkin in tha PSNI, Cooncils an curns fur tha tent o doags, takkin in tha USPCA, tha Kennel Club an tha Doags Trust, forbye yins rairin doags, lectit forespaikers an bodies thair lane 'at leuks tha gate o tha maittèr.

Ma scance brocht oot tha sair pall we hae wi doags settin tae fowk. In 2008 the' wur 795 doags at ganshed, an tha soum o daeins tha like o this haes hel at 700 or mair frae 2000. Thae daeins can be unco sair – Ah mine o tha ganshin o a 75 yeir auld guidwife an her doag wi twa Rottweiler doags in Ebor Raa in Sooth Bilfawst in Julie o 2009, an tha ganshin o a weelass in 2007 at a leesure pairk nixt Dervock in tha Coontie o Antrim. Ye wudnae wunnèr gin a wean or waik fu-grou'd bodie wus kïlt deid in a sair ganchin tha like o this, an Ah'm gaein hale-heidit tae dae aa Ah'm fït tae dae furtae kep thon fae cumin aboot an tae jeuk tha likelie o an unco mishanter or marguillyin.

Forbye, we hae ower monie lowse doags yit. Tha mair tha nummer o doags steekit in wi tha cooncils haes gan doon 30 in ilka hunnèr ower tha ten yeir gane, tha soume o thaim's ooty al hans yit. Aboot 7,400 doags wus steekit in wi tha locyal cooncils in 2008, an tha nummer o lowse doags fur ilka yin o oor resydentèrs is mair hereawa nor in tha sooth o Airlan, Inglan, Scoatlan or Wales.

Furtae yokk til thae palls, Ah'm ettlin at eikin til tha laas tae tha fore thenoo an at inbrïngin fairit laas fur tha owerance o doags at's fït tae:

• uphaud richt gates o awnin doags throch garrin fowk inpit a lectric chïp in thaim an wi mair reengin an feckfu owerance o tha doag leeshins;
• ettle at keppin skaith throch reddin shuiner furtae brïng doon tha nummer o doags settin tae fowk;
• mak it agin tha laa tae lat a doag set tae anither doag; an
• eik tae tha wytes fur brakkin tha laa.

Throch ma scance, cooncils mintit 'at tha doag leeshins chairge, at haesnae chynged frae 19 an 83, shud be eikit tae furtae mak it mair shuitit tae tha coast o tha doag keppers wark it sillers. Ah compluther wi tha eikin o tha leeshins chairge furtae siller a bïgger feck o tha coasts o tha doag keppers wark, but forbye thar shud be repetes fur yins 'at guides thairsels weel in awnin doags an hap fur tha eildit an yins oan fennin frae tha govermint. Tha mintin Ah'd rether hae fur tha leeshins chairge daes this.

This rede o apen discoorse pits forrit ma mintins wi mair wittins an leuks yer ain mintins an thochts. This apen discoorse gies ye a bïg inlat tae fair tha owerance o doags an Ah'm fur threapin at ye tae cast ower thae maittèrs an mintins eident-like an gie us yer takins.

MICHELLE GILDERNEW MP MLS
Mïnnystèr o Fairms an Kintrie Fordèrin
November 2009

Consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation

1. What is this consultation about and who is carrying it out?

1.1 The purpose of this consultation is to seek views on proposals for changes to the legislation governing dogs and dog control issues here.

The Minister's review of dog control legislation

1.2 In November 2007, following a number of high profile dog attacks and growing concern that at least some of the legislation governing the control of dogs may not have been as effective as intended, the Agriculture Minister, Michelle Gildernew MP MLA, announced a review of the legislation and its enforcement. This was a wide ranging review that looked at all aspects of dog control.

1.3 During the review a range of issues were identified. The main issues were the need to support more responsible dog ownership, to promote micro-chipping, to have a more prevention-driven approach to dog control through earlier intervention, to address the issue of attacks by dogs on other dogs, to allow councils to charge a more realistic dog licence fee and to have tougher penalties for irresponsible dog owners.

1.4 The proposals outlined in this consultation document attempt to address those issues.

Areas outside the scope of this consultation

1.5 This consultation does not cover dog fighting, dog breeding or dog fouling. Dog fighting is an offence under the Welfare of Animals (NI) Act 1972, and the proposed new Welfare of Animals Bill being brought forward by the Department will strengthen the powers available to deal with those engaged in this criminal activity. Dog breeding establishments are currently regulated under the Dogs Order (NI) 1983. The new Welfare of Animals Bill will enhance the standards required to protect and improve the welfare of dogs in breeding establishments. Dog fouling is an offence under the Litter (NI) Order 1994.

What will the Department do with the consultation responses?

1.6 The Department will fully consider your responses to this consultation and take them into account in making any changes to the laws on dog control here.

What is the deadline for comments?

1.7 Comments should be received by 1 February 2010.

What comments are requested?

1.8 This consultation document asks a number of specific questions. These relate to the proposals for changes to legislation and to the potential impact of the proposals on different groups of people or on business here.

1.9 The questions appear throughout the body of the document but are also collected in a separate Appendix (Appendix 1) in a form that you can use to respond to us either by e-mail or by post.

1.10 It would be helpful if you would make clear the capacity in which you are responding – for example, as an officer or representative of an organisation, or as a private individual. If you are responding on behalf of any organisation, it would help if you explained the nature of your organisation.

1.11 Please feel free to answer all the questions or only those that are relevant to you or your organisation. You may also include any background information you wish in support of your answers or suggest alternative proposals for actions on the dog control issues identified here.

1.12 If you do have alternative proposals, it will help us to consider them if you also supply us with any background information on which they are based.

1.13 The consultation is accompanied by a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). This sets out a preliminary assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposals. Views on the impact assessment and its underlying assumptions are also welcomed.

Confidentiality

1.14 In line with our policy of openness, at the end of the consultation period copies of the responses we receive may be made publicly available. The information they contain may also be published in a summary of responses.

1.15 If you do not consent to this, you must clearly request that your response be treated confidentially. Any confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system in e-mail responses will not be treated as such a request. You should also be aware that there might be circumstances in which we will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

2. The current legislation

What does the current legislation say?

2.1 The control of dogs is currently governed by the Dogs (NI) Order 1983. This is called 'the 1983 Order' in the rest of this document. The 1983 Order allows councils to license dogs and to deal with dogs that stray, worry livestock or attack people. The 1983 Order sets the dog licence fee at £5 and allows the Department to change the licence fee and to increase the fee for unsterilized dogs. The level of the licence fee has not been reviewed since 1983.

2.2 Under the 1983 Order it is an offence for any person to keep a dog without a licence authorising him or her to keep that dog. Licences are issued by councils for dogs kept by people aged 16 or over who live in that council area and are not disqualified from keeping animals under the Welfare of Animals (NI) Act 1972. As a condition of the licence, a dog must wear collar tags identifying the dog and its owner.

2.3 Dog licences are renewable on an annual basis but are not currently required for:

• a puppy, if it is kept by the person who owns or keeps the bitch that gave it birth;
• a guide dog;
• a dog for sale in a licensed pet shop;
• a dog kept by a person who holds a block licence under the 1983 Order; or
• a police dog.

2.4 The 1983 Order also provides for a 'block licence' which covers premises where more than three dogs are kept, if:

• at least one of them is an unsterilized bitch kept for breeding;
• at least three are registered pedigree dogs; or at least three of them are used as guard dogs elsewhere, and the premises are registered as guard dog kennels.

2.5 The 1983 Order also provides for the registration by councils of guard dog kennels and breeding establishments.

2.6 Under the 1983 Order, the keeper or person in charge of a dog is guilty of an offence if the dog attacks a person or worries livestock. It is also an offence to set a dog on, or to urge a dog to attack, a person or livestock.

2.7 The Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991 ('the 1991 Order') amended the 1983 Order to designate certain types of dogs that it is an offence to possess – the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa. The 1991 Order was later amended to also ban the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero.

2.8 The 1991 Order makes it an offence to breed, sell, offer for sale or make a gift of a dog of a banned type and allows council dog wardens to seize any dog that appears to be a dog of a banned type and apply to a court for an order authorising its destruction. It also allows council dog wardens to seize any dog, of whatever breed or type, which appears to present a serious danger to the public.

2.9 The Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order (NI) 1991 provided for exemptions for individual dogs of a banned type to be granted by a court if the dog was not considered to be a danger and if certain strict conditions were met. This exemption was available for only a limited time after the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991.

2.10 The Dogs (Amendment) Act (NI) 2001 removed that time limit and allowed the owner of a dog that is the subject of a court destruction order to apply for an exemption from destruction.

2.11 Councils are responsible for enforcing all aspects of dog control legislation here, including the legislation on dangerous dogs. Council dog wardens enforce the rules on dog licensing, collect stray and unwanted dogs and provide dog pound facilities, investigate reports of dog attacks and livestock worrying and deal with dogs of a type banned under the 1991 Order (such as pit bulls). Dog wardens also have an important advisory role in helping dog owners to look after their dogs responsibly and stay within the law.

3. Need for changes to the legislation

3.1 The Minister's review has identified a number of ongoing issues which may require changes to the 1983 Order and related pieces of legislation.

Straying

3.2 The number of dogs licensed has increased steadily over the past ten years, while there has been a fall in the numbers of strays impounded by councils here, from 11,532 in 1999 to 7,930 in 2008 – a drop of over 30 per cent. The number of unwanted dogs collected by councils has also fallen substantially.

3.3 The information supplied by councils on licensing, strays and unwanted dogs is set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Licensed, unwanted & stray dogs 1999 – 2008

Year	Licences issued	Unwanted dogs collected	Strays Impounded
1999	85,478	3,948	11,532
2000	81,512	4,027	10,154
2001	80,734	3,689	9,150
2002	89,664	2,990	8,635
2003	91,115	2,532	9,163
2004	94,909	2,519	9,145
2005	95,367	2,680	8,918
2006	102,991	3,108	8,842
2007	106,287	3,488	8,767
2008	114,208	2,889	7,930

3.4 However, as Table 2 demonstrates, we still have the highest number of strays impounded per head of population of any part of these islands – 470 strays for every 100,000 people here. This is significantly higher than in Wales, more than twice the level in the south, and three times higher than in England or Scotland.

Table 2: Stray dogs by population figures

Region	2008 Estimated no. of strays collected	Population	Strays per 100,000 population
north of Ireland	7,930	1,686,448	470
south of Ireland	7,942	4,459,300	170
England	67,048	49,138,831	137
Scotland	7,565	5,062,011	149
Wales	9,674	2,903,085	333

Table 3: Stray and unwanted dogs destroyed

Region	Dogs destroyed 2008	No. Per 100,000 population
south of Ireland	10,069	226
north of Ireland	3,486	207
England	2,131	4
Scotland	97	2
Wales	269	9

The figures in Table 2 and 3 are drawn from local authorities here and in the south. Figures for England, Scotland and Wales are those published by the Dogs Trust.

3.5 An unacceptably high number of stray and unwanted dogs are destroyed here and more, relative to our population, than in, England, Scotland and Wales though fewer the south of Ireland (see Table 3).

Attacks on people

3.6 There is a continuing problem with attacks by dogs on people. Over the last ten years, the number of dog attacks on people here has remained fairly constant, averaging around 745 each year (Table 4.)

Table 4: Attacks on people and livestock 1999 – 2008

	Attacks on livestock	Attacks on people
1999	387	666
2000	320	741
2001	308	730
2002	296	732
2003	363	697
2004	312	783
2005	264	772
2006	294	764
2007	330	774
2008	406	795

3.7 The number of admissions to hospital with a diagnosis of 'struck or bitten by a dog' has also remained fairly constant at around 60, as illustrated in Table 5.

Table 5: Hospital admissions by age

	2005/06	2006/07	2007/08
16 and Under	35	28	28
17 and Over	29	23	31
Total	64	51	59

3.8 These figures suggest that children of 16 and under are significantly more likely than adults to be admitted to hospital because of dog attacks, as they make up around 25 per cent of the population here but account for more than half of all admissions.

Attacks on livestock

3.9 One of the main aims of dog control legislation in the past has been the need to reduce the incidence of dogs attacking or worrying livestock. However, the 1983 Order appears to have had limited effect. Figures for 1999 - 2008 show no clear trend, although 2008 saw many more incidents than previous years as illustrated in Table 4.

3.10 In 2007, 330 incidents were investigated by council dog wardens here, while in 2008 the figure rose to 406, the highest level in almost 10 years. As a single 'incident' may cover injury to multiple animals or the miscarriage by pregnant animals not otherwise injured, the cost to farmers can be very high.

Attacks on other dogs

3.11 Dog attacks on people and livestock are offences under the 1983 Order but attacks on other dogs are not. Consequently, no information on attacks on other dogs is collected. However, a number of incidents in recent years have highlighted the severe impact that dog attacks on other dogs can have.

Enforcement costs

3.12 Councils are responsible for enforcing all aspects of dog control legislation here. However, the costs of enforcement of dog legislation through the dog warden system are far in excess of councils' income from dog licensing. The data available from a sample of councils in Table 6 illustrates this.

Table 6: Enforcement costs and licence fee income (2007 - 2008)

Council	Licence income (£s)	Dog control costs (£s)	Licence income as % of costs
Antrim	15,672	73,830	21
Armagh	16,000	112,837	14
Belfast	56,142	682,586	8
Ballymena	37,067	101,061	37
Fermanagh	20,000	84,791	24
Ballymoney	13,600	106,000	13

3.13 The 1983 Order provides for fixed penalties for a number of offences, allowing council dog wardens to deal with minor infractions without prosecution. Offences which may attract a fixed penalty include keeping a dog without a licence, allowing a dog to stray and failing to have a dog correctly identified on its collar.

3.14 Under the 1983 Order, payment of a fixed penalty is made to the courts and not to councils, and so fixed penalties do not contribute to meeting the costs of dog warden services.

Enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991

3.15 Under the 1983 Order, as amended by the 1991 Order, council dog wardens are obliged to seize any dog they identify as a dog of a banned type. They then apply to a court for an order authorising its destruction.

3.16 The Dogs (Amendment) Act (NI) 2001 allows an owner of a dog prohibited under the 1991 Order (such as a pit bull), which is the subject of a court destruction order, to apply for an exemption from destruction.

3.17 The legal process, coupled with disputes in court over whether a dog is or is not a dog of a banned type, can lead to lengthy and expensive court cases. The kennelling of dogs for prolonged periods as a result can also have a significant impact on the welfare of the animal.

4. Proposals for change

Compulsory micro-chipping

4.1 Many of those who contributed to the Minister's review felt strongly that making micro-chipping compulsory would support and encourage responsible ownership by permitting ready identification of dogs and therefore helping to address a range of issues including the problem of straying, worrying of livestock, impounding of strays and destruction of unclaimed and abandoned dogs.

4.2 It is therefore proposed to make micro-chipping a condition of the issue of a dog licence.

Question 1: Do you agree that micro-chipping should be made a compulsory condition of a dog licence?

Early intervention

4.3 The Minister's review identified a need for some means of early intervention where there is evidence of problems with a dog's behaviour, or with the ability of an owner to control a dog, before such problems result in serious incidents such as attacks on people or livestock.

4.4 Organisations including the Kennel Club argue that where a dog has been involved in a major incident, there have often been earlier control problems. If dog wardens had powers to deal with problems at an earlier stage, more serious incidents might have been prevented. Early intervention could also reduce repeat offending.

4.5 It is therefore proposed to change the law to allow dog wardens to address problems with the control or behaviour of a dog by attaching conditions to that dog's licence. This would build on the existing licensing arrangements to allow earlier intervention by dog wardens without the need to put new administrative structures in place.

4.6 The types of behaviour that might give early warning of more serious control problems and therefore justify the imposition of conditions on the dog licence could include:

• aggressive or intimidating behaviour towards people or other dogs; and
• incidents of straying.

4.7 The conditions applied would provide protection for the public and seek to bring the behaviour of the dog under control. These conditions could include requiring that the dog:

• be muzzled in public;
• be kept on a leash in public;
• be kept in a secure location;
• be neutered;
• be re-homed.

4.8 The dog and its owner could also be required to undergo a course of training.

4.9 These controls would not replace the existing court-ordered penalties for breaches of dog control legislation but would allow councils to intervene, where problems become apparent, before any breach occurs.

Question 2: Do you agree that councils should be able to impose conditions on the licences of individual dogs in order to intervene early to control problem behaviour? Question 3: Do you agree with the range of licence conditions to control behaviour specified in this section? Are there controls which should be removed or added?

Options for the licence fee

4.10 The annual fee for a standard dog licence has remained at £5 since 1983.

4.11 The Minister's review identified three main options for the dog licence fee:

i. the licence fee could remain as it is (£5);

ii. the licence fee could rise in line with inflation;

iii. the licence fee could be increased so that it covers more of the cost to councils of the dog warden systems.

4.12 Option (i), which involves leaving the licensing system as it is, will not address the issues identified in the Minister's review. At £5, the licence fee does not encourage responsible dog ownership and does not cover the costs of dealing with strays and other important aspects of the dog warden service. The current system also lacks any incentive to neuter dogs, a key element of responsible dog ownership.

4.13 The preferred option, option (ii), is to increase the licence fee in line with inflation. This would mean that the cost of a standard licence would be £12.50. To mitigate the impact of this rise, a dog licence for those aged 65 and over would be free for the first dog and pegged at the current fee of £5 for each additional dog. Concessions would also be offered to those on certain means tested benefits and to the owners of neutered dogs, as an incentive to responsible dog ownership.

4.14 Consideration has been given to the scope under option (iii) for an increase in the licence fee to around £25, with the same concessionary rates as option (ii). This option would enable councils to recover more of the costs of the dog warden service they provide. However, many stakeholders have suggested that a higher fee could lead to an increase in abandoned and destroyed dogs.

4.15 Therefore, under the preferred option:

• those aged 65 and over will be entitled to a free dog licence for one dog, with the licence pegged at £5 for any additional dogs;
• the cost of a dog licence to those on means tested benefits will be pegged at £5;
• the cost of a dog licence to owners whose dog is neutered will also be pegged at £5;
• the full cost dog licence fee will increase in line with inflation to £12.50.

Question 4: Do you support the preferred option ii (an inflationary increase in the licence to £12.50 with protection for vulnerable groups)? If not, what would you propose?

4.16 Like the level of the standard licence fee, the block licence has not been reviewed since 1983. As with the preferred option on the cost of the standard licence fee, it is proposed to increase the block licence in line with inflation from £12.50 to £32.

Question 5: Do you agree that the cost of a block licence should increase to £32 in line with inflation? If not, what would you propose?

Exemption of prohibited dogs

4.17 As explained in chapter 2, The Dogs (Amendment) Act (NI) 2001 allows an owner of a dog prohibited under the 1991 Order (such as a pit bull) which is the subject of a court destruction order, to apply for an exemption from destruction. Such an exemption can be granted by a court if the dog is not considered to be a danger and if certain strict conditions are met – including that the dog will be:

• neutered;
• insured;
• kept in a secure place; and
• kept muzzled and leashed when in public.

4.18 The prolonged nature of the court proceedings required before an exemption can be granted may result in a dog spending a lengthy period in a dog pound which may harm the dog concerned and put a sizeable cost burden on ratepayers.

4.19 It is proposed to address these welfare and enforcement issues by streamlining the current arrangements through a change in the law to permit councils to exempt dogs of a banned type (where they are satisfied that the dog's behaviour gives no cause for concern), using the licensing system to impose the strict conditions outlined above on the dog and its owner. This would avoid lengthy court cases.

4.20 However, where a council considers that a dog of a banned type is a risk the option to seek a destruction order through the courts would remain as it is at present.

Question 6: Do you agree that councils should have the power to exempt a dog of a banned type where they are satisfied it is not a risk, thus avoiding the need for court proceedings?

The level of penalties for offences under the 1983 Order

4.21 The proposals for new legislation should reduce the number of offences being committed. However, there remains a need to ensure that penalties for licensing, straying and other control offences such as attacking people or livestock are robust enough to deter irresponsible dog owners.

4.22 The 1983 Order specifies the penalties for a number of licensing and control offences. The level of these penalties has not changed since 1983. The Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991 created new offences, with fines on conviction expressed by reference to the standard scale established by the Fines and Penalties (NI) Order 1984.

4.23 Fines set at levels on the standard scale were increased by the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1994. This means that fines for some dog control offences have an upper limit of £5,000, while those set by the 1983 Order but not linked to the standard scale remain at the 1983 maximum level of £50 or £200.

4.24 For consistency, it is proposed to address this discrepancy by setting all fines by reference to the standard scale of the Fines and Penalties (NI) Order 1984. This will increase key penalties to a more appropriate level, improve the deterrent effect of those penalties and simplify the enforcement framework available to council dog wardens.

4.25 Under these proposals, fines on summary conviction for the offences of failing to display a registration certificate at a guard dog kennel or refusing to give a name or obstructing or delaying an officer would rise from £50 to £500. Other licensing and control offences under the original 1983 Order would rise from £200 to £1,000.

Question 7: Do you agree that fines under the 1983 Order should be increased in line with the standard scale?

Fixed penalties

4.26 Fixed penalties provide enforcement agencies with an effective and visible way of responding to low-level offences. In the absence of such fixed penalties, regulators must rely heavily on prosecution as a means of enforcement. This can lead to a 'compliance gap', where such enforcement is costly and time consuming.

4.27 The 1983 Order provides for fixed penalties for a number of offences – for instance, failing to have a licence or allowing a dog to stray. During the Minister's review, council officials suggested that the current levels of fixed penalties were too low. For example, the fixed penalty for keeping a dog without a licence is currently £25.

4.28 It is therefore proposed to re-set all fixed penalties to £50. This is in line with penalties issued under the Department of Environment's Litter (NI) Order 1994, which is also enforced by councils and covers litter and dog fouling. This will increase the level of fixed penalties for most of the offences that are punishable without prosecution under current dog control legislation. This change would further simplify the enforcement work of council dog wardens, provide a greater deterrent to irresponsible dog owners and improve the transparency of the enforcement regime.

4.29 It is also proposed to provide for £50 fixed penalties for certain new offences introduced by a new Dog Control Bill, such as failure to observe any control conditions attached to a dog licence by a dog warden.

Question 8: Do you agree that all fixed penalties under the 1983 Order and the new Dog Control Bill should be set at £50? If not, what alternative do you propose?

Payment of fixed penalties directly to councils

4.30 Under the 1983 Order, payment of a fixed penalty is made to the courts and not to councils. In the case of the Litter (NI) Order 1994, fixed penalties for litter and dog fouling offences are collected and used by councils themselves for the purposes of enforcing litter and fouling regulations.

4.31 Submissions from some councils during the Minister's review called for similar powers under dog control legislation which could be used to support the work of dog wardens. It is therefore proposed to change the legislation so that receipts from fixed penalties would be collected by councils rather than by the courts and could only be used for the purposes of enforcing dog control legislation.

Question 11: Do you agree that payments of fixed penalties should be made to councils to help enforce dog control legislation rather than to the courts?

New offences

4.32 The ability to intervene early with aggressive behaviour will be an important element in reducing attacks. It is therefore proposed to make a new offence of failing to meet any control conditions attached to a dog licence.

4.33 Under the 1983 Order no action can be taken to deal with attacks by dogs on other dogs, even if the attack demonstrates aggression. The frustration felt in circumstances where there is no redress against the owner of a dog that attacks another dog only adds to the fear and grief caused by injury to, or loss of, a family pet.

4.34 Of particular concern would be an attack on a dog working as a guide dog for a person with a visual impairment or as any other kind of assistance dog.

4.35 It is therefore proposed to introduce two new offences:

• allowing a dog to attack another dog; and
• setting a dog on another dog.

4.36 Proposed levels of penalties for these new offences are set out in Table 7 below.

Table 7: New offences and penalties

Offence	Proposed new level of fine	Fixed Penalty available?	Proposed new fixed penalty
Failure to meet any control conditions attached to a dog licence	£1,000 (equivalent to Level 3 on the standard scale)	Yes	£50
Allowing a dog to attack another dog	£1,000 (equivalent to Level 3 on the standard scale)	No	N/A
Setting a dog on another dog	£2,500 (equivalent to Level 4 on the standard scale)	No	N/A

4.37 Under this proposal, an attack on any dog could carry a maximum penalty of £1,000 for allowing such an attack to happen and £2,500 for setting a dog on another dog.

Question 12: Do you agree that it should be an offence to allow a dog to attack another dog?

4.38 It is also proposed to review the existing 'aggravated offence' of being the keeper of a dog that attacks and injures a person in a public place. Under the 1983 Order if an attack – even a serious one – takes place in a private place, such as a dog's own home, the maximum penalty is six months imprisonment and/or a statutory maximum fine. If a similar attack happened in a public place (the 'aggravated offence') imprisonment could be for a term of up to two years.

4.39 However, many of the recent high profile dog attacks on children have taken place in the dog's home. It is therefore proposed to amend this provision so that an attack which causes injury, wherever it happens, could be considered an aggravated offence and attract the higher level of penalty.

Question 13: Do you agree that keeping or being in charge of a dog that attacks and injures a person should be an aggravated offence, whether it happens in a public place or on private property?

5. The potential economic impact of these proposals

5.1 A partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has been drawn up in line with guidance issued by DETI, and considers the potential economic impact of the options for changes to dog control legislation that were identified by the Minister's Review.

5.2 The various options identified in the Minister's review were evaluated in the light of the available evidence to ensure that the most effective options could be identified.

5.3 This evaluation is set out in the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment that accompanies this consultation document as Appendix 2.

Question 14: Do you agree that the analysis of the evidence given in the accompanying partial Regulatory Impact Assessment accurately describes the potential impacts of these proposals? Question 15: Are there other potential impacts we may not have anticipated here or in the accompanying partial Regulatory Impact Assessment?

6. Potential impact of these proposals on different groups

6.1 These proposals aim to strike an appropriate balance between promoting responsible dog ownership and ensuring access for all to the companionship and sense of security that dog ownership can provide.

6.2 Section 75 of the NI Act 1998 requires the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to have due regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity –

• between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;
• between men and women generally;
• between persons with a disability and persons without; and
• between persons with dependants and persons without.

6.3 In addition, without prejudice to the above obligation, public authorities must also, in carrying out their functions, have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. Specifically, the Department is required to:

• assess whether there are differences in the way a policy impacts upon statutory equality categories described above; and
• identify where there are means to better promote the equality of opportunity and good relations.

6.4 These issues are addressed in the draft Equality Impact Assessment attached to this document as Appendix 2.

Question 16: Do you agree that the analysis of the evidence given in the accompanying Equality Impact Assessment accurately describes the potential impacts of these proposals? Question 17: Are there other potential impacts we may not have anticipated in the accompanying Equality Impact Assessment?

7. How to respond to this consultation

7.1 Appendix 1 restates the consultation questions asked in previous chapters in a form you can use to respond to us. You may also use the blank page at the end of that form to add any other comments you may have on the issues discussed here.

7.2 You can respond to this consultation, or request hard copies, by writing to:

Joel Loughridge
The Dog Control Bill Team
Animal Health and Welfare Policy Division
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 933 Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
Belfast
BT4 3SB

7.3 Alternatively, you may wish to read the consultation documents online and respond by e-mail to joel.loughridge@dardni.gov.uk.

7.4 The deadline for responses to this consultation is 1 February 2010.

Letter to Clerk to the Committee
1 November 2010

Animal Health & Welfare Policy Division
Dog Control Bill Team

Paul Carlisle Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development Room 284 Parliament Buildings Belfast BT4 3XX

Room 657c Dundonald House Upper Newtownards Road Ballymiscaw Belfast BT4 3SB Tel: 028 90524297 Email: john.terrington@dardni.gov.uk Your reference Our reference Date: 1 November 2010

Dear Paul

Committee Queries on the Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Thank you for your letter of 28 October to Joe Cassells.

I attach the Department's responses to the queries set out in the Committee's consideration template.

As always, the Bill Team is on hand to meet you should that be helpful.

Yours sincerely

John Terrington
Dog Control Bill Team

Attachment: Completed Committee consideration template.

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Committee Stage of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Consideration of Bill Clauses – 1st Draft – Committee Consideration

Clause	Explanation	Issues	Dard Response	Outcome	Committee Comments
Dog Licenses
Clause 1 - Exemptions	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 2 - Microchipping	This introduces a requirement to have a dog implanted with a microchip before any licence or transfer certificate is issued and empowers the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to make subordinate legislation regulating a system of compulsory microchipping.	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following issues:
		Legitimacy of the Bill in passing additional responsibilities to local councils. The Committee would wish the Department to take legal advice on this matter;	First, the Bill creates no new statutory responsibilities for local councils here. The Assembly is competent to legislate on any devolved matter. The matter of which Department brings forward the legislation is a matter for the Executive, which agreed to the introduction of the Bill by the Minister (as DARD is the Department responsible for the principle legislation, the 1983 Dogs Order).
			The Minister made a declaration of legislative competence in May 2010, based on legal advice that the Bill was within the legislative competence of the NI Assembly. Since the Minister's declaration of legislative competence, the institution of the role of Attorney General has altered the process for establishing competence: the Attorney General will see the Bill, and any amendments, before consideration stage.
		The contribution of compulsory microchipping to reducing the numbers of stray dogs;	The Department refers to its answer to the same query from the Committee (see question 2 of the query sheet issued following the Committee meeting of 21 September 2010.) The permanent identification through microchipping of all dogs will allow owners to be held more accountable than at present. Taken alongside stiffer fixed penalties and better-resourced enforcers, microchipping will mean that careless or irresponsible owners are more likely to be identified and penalised, and more likely to be deterred from non-compliance.
			Other provisions of the Bill address the issue of straying more directly: control conditions will allow councils to enforce changes to the management of a dog that has strayed, so reducing recurrence and, again, stiffer fixed penalties and a better-resourced enforcement regime will act as a deterrent. In addition, a small change in the wording of the Dogs Order (by Schedule 1 of the Bill) removes the requirement for a warden to actually witness a dog in the act of straying, and allows enforcement to be based on other evidence of the offence. This has been a longstanding proposal of many councils. Finally, a microchipped stray is more likely to be returned to its owner, meaning that fewer strays will be destroyed.
		The linking of microchips to licences and the need for dual systems;	The current legislation (the 1983 Dogs Order) recognises that licensing is simply about registration i.e. it is a licence to own a dog. The 1983 Order in turn recognises the need for a separate system of identification and this is done through the requirement (in subordinate legislation) for licensed dogs to be tagged. The Dogs (Amendment) Bill updates that requirement in line with technological advances to include microchipping as microchipping is a system of identification, like collar tagging. Registration fees support the dog warden service and record the fact of ownership. Identification systems like the tag (or the microchip) attach to the dog itself, allowing it (and its owner) to be identified in the event of straying incidents or other problems. Both 'systems' are needed because identification systems don't help fund dog warden services and registration alone doesn't help with identifying a stray or tracing its owner.
		The additional resources required to operate duplicated systems; and	No additional resources are required. As noted above the 'systems' are not duplicates. The Bill does not require local authorities to operate any 'system' other than the existing licensing system.
		The need for a central database (preferably one maintained by DARD)	A central database run by the Department would be: unnecessary, as the licensing and identification functions are already provided for by the existing arrangements; in breach of guidance on government spending on services already provided for by the market; and costly, with set up and operating costs of such a database likely to be prohibitively expensive. This would be wasteful of public expenditure given that existing arrangements provide for single point-of-contact access to microchip databases on an EU-wide level.
Clause 3- Licensing of Dangerous Dogs	This provides that a district council may licence a dog of a type prohibited by the Dogs Order only if that dog has been exempted from the prohibition in Article 25A(3) of the Dogs Order	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following: Amendment to remove breed specific legislation and make the offence relevant to the deed, not the breed.	It is recognised that 'breed specific legislation' (BSL) has provoked opposition from some quarters. However, many other stakeholders feel passionately that these dogs pose too great a risk to public safety. Only one council called for a repeal of the ban. The Minister does not propose to bring forward an amendment that would legalise pit bills as she has made clear her determination to protect the vulnerable, particularly children from dog attacks that may lead to serious injury or death, based on evidence that such dogs have a high pain threshold and a jaw structure developed specifically for fighting.
			Maintaining the ban on certain types of dogs, allied to the introduction of control conditions for any dog whose 'deed' has warranted it, so that it can be managed flexibly at an early stage is, in the Minister's view, the best way to achieve this. Furthermore, existing legislation also allows that where, in the judgement of a court poses no threat if properly controlled under strict conditions, a dog may be exempted.
Clause 4 - Fees	This amends the Dogs Order to provide for an increase in the fee payable for a dog licence and for certain concessionary rates. It provides for an increase in the fee payable for a block licence (that is, a licence held in respect of three or more dogs kept for breeding, sporting, show or other specified purposes.) It also empowers the Department, with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel, to make subordinate legislation amending the level of fee payable	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration as the implications of having one system (as detailed at Clause 2) would have a major impact on the level or need for fees.	The Department reiterates that microchipping does not duplicate the functions of the licensing (registration) system. Registration fees support the dog warden service and record the fact of ownership. Identification systems like the tag (or the microchip) attach to the dog itself, allowing it (and its owner) to be identified in the event of straying incidents or other problems. The abolition of the dog licence would leave dog warden services unfunded (except by increased subvention by non-dog-owning ratepayers.) Fees for microchipping, even if offered by councils, could not cover the cost of the wider dog warden service. Without a funded dog warden service, the benefits of universal microchipping are unlikely to be fully realised.
Control Of Dogs
Clause 5 – Contingent Destruction orders where no prosecution	This amends the Dogs Order to provide that, where no person is to be prosecuted for an offence under the Order in respect of a dog seized under Article 25C(1)(a) (that is, a dog of a prohibited type) that dog may be exempted from the prohibition (under strict conditions) provided that a district judge (magistrates court) is satisfied that the dog will not be a danger to the public	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration (as per clause 3)	As noted in respect of clause 3, it is recognised that 'breed specific legislation' (BSL) has provoked opposition from some quarters. However, many other stakeholders feel passionately that these dogs pose too great a risk to public safety. Only one council called for a repeal of the ban The Minister does not propose to bring forward an amendment that would legalise pit bills as she has made clear her determination to protect the vulnerable, particularly children from dog attacks that may lead to serious injury or death, based on evidence that such dogs have a high pain threshold and a jaw structure developed specifically for fighting
			Maintaining the ban on certain types of dogs, allied to the introduction of control conditions for any dog whose 'deed' has warranted it, so that it can be managed flexibly at an early stage is, in the Minister's view, the best way to achieve this Furthermore, existing legislation also allows that where, in the judgement of a court poses no threat if properly controlled under strict conditions, a dog may be exempted.
Clause 6 – Setting on or urging a dog to attack	This amends the Dogs Order to make it an offence to set a dog on or urge it to attack a dog owned by another person, and to make the act of setting a dog on another person or on livestock an offence whether it occurs in a public place or on private property	The Committee would wish the Department make article 28(3)(b), as introduced by clause 6,subject to affirmative resolution rather than negative resolution	At the Committee's request, the Department will bring forward an amendment to the Bill (amending Article 54 of the 1983 Order) so that order-making powers under Articles 25(2)(f), the new 28(3), 29(2) and 33(3)(c) of the 1983 Order would be subject to the draft affirmative control procedures The amendment will provide for all orders that are not subject to negative resolution to be subject to "the approval in draft" control
			The Commitee will be aware that these amendments may produce a significant administrative burden (on both the Department and on the Assembly itself) in relation to some future orders. For example, minor amendments to an existing order under any of these provisions will need to be by order subject to approval in draft (even though the original order was subject to negative resolution). It may also be the case that the Department will not be able to include material under different powers in the same order as before, because it is not good practice to combine orders subject to approval in draft and negative procedure in the same instrumen
		The Department has also indicated that the Minister might re-examine the issue of extending the restriction in respect of attacks on people, livestock or other dogs	The Minister has agreed that the new offences of setting a dog on, or urging it to attack, another dog, and of owning a dog that attacks and injures another dog, could be extended to include other companion animals owned by another person At the Committee's request, the Department will bring forward an amendment to the Bill to this effect.
Clause 7 – Attack by dog on a person or another dog	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill		See response on clause 6 above.
Clause 8 – Control conditions on dog licenses	This inserts a new Article 30A into the Dogs Order, which enables district council dog wardens to attach certain control conditions to the licence of a dog where the officer has reason to believe that an offence under the Dogs Order has been committed in respect of that dog. A new Article 30B provides that the potential control conditions available to a dog warden under this clause are that the dog concerned should be: securely fitted with a muzzle when in public; kept under control when in public; when not under control, be kept securely confined; be kept from any specified place; or if male, be neutered.	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following matters: written guidance should be agreed and made available to enforcement officers and councils as soon as is possible; and education and training courses should be provided as additional options for control conditions.	The Department is already engaged with representatives of dog warden services on guidance across the range of the Bill's provisions. Guidance will be agreed and published before the relevant provisions of the Bill are commenced. At the Committee's request, the Department will bring forward an amendment to the Bill to include a requirement that a dog and its owner undergo a suitable course of training. A similar control is included in section 2(6)(e) of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010.
	A new Article 30C provides for appeal to a Magistrate's Court against the imposition of any control conditions and a new Article 30D for the right of an owner to request a review by the district council of any control condition. A new Article 30E applies where the keeper of a dog whose licence is subject to control conditions gives or sells the dog to another person, and requires the original keeper not to part with possession of the dog unless he has notified his district council of the intended transfer of ownership of the dog and the name and address of the new keeper. Failure to comply with this requirement will be an offence liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
	The new Article 30 also requires a district council receiving notice of the transfer of ownership of a dog whose licence is subject to control conditions to inform the new owner of that fact and give that new owner any advice it considers appropriate; and, where the new owner resides in the district of another council, to inform that other council of the transfer of the dog into its district. A new Article 30F provides that a breach of any control condition shall be an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale
Clause 9 – Contingent destruction orders on conviction	This clause amends the Dogs Order to provide that, where a person has been convicted of an offence under Article 25A of the Order (that is, breeding or breeding from, selling or exchanging or giving as a gift or having possession of a dog of a prohibited type) and the court is satisfied that the dog concerned will not be a danger to the public, the dog may be exempted under strict conditions	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration (as per clause 3)	As noted in respect of clauses 3 and 5, it is recognised that 'breed specific legislation' (BSL) has provoked opposition from some quarters. However, many other stakeholders feel passionately that these dogs pose too great a risk to public safety. Only one council called for a repeal of the ban. The Minister does not propose to bring forward an amendment that would legalise pit bills as she has made clear her determination to protect the vulnerable, particularly children from dog attacks that may lead to serious injury or death, based on evidence that such dogs have a high pain threshold and a jaw structure developed specifically for fighting.
			Maintaining the ban on certain types of dogs, allied to the introduction of control conditions for any dog whose 'deed' has warranted it, so that it can be managed flexibly at an early stage is, in the Minister's view, the best way to achieve this. Furthermore, existing legislation also allows that where, in the judgement of a court poses no threat if properly controlled under strict conditions, a dog may be exempted.
Clause 10 – Entry onto land to prevent or end attack by dog on another dog	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Fixed Penalties
Clause 11 – Fixed penalty offences	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 12 – Payment of fixed penalties	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 13 – Use of fixed penalty receipts of council	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 14 – Amount of fixed penalty	This provides for an increase in fixed penalties under the Dogs Order to £50 and empowers the Department to make subordinate legislation amending the level of fixed penalties under the Order	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following matter: aligning the fixed penalty system with that proposed in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill	At the Committee's request, the Department will bring forward an amendment replacing the Bill's provisions on the level of fixed penalties with provisions that parallel those for dog fouling contained in the DOE's Clean Neighbourhoods Bill. This would provide for a maximum £75 fixed penalty with reductions for early payment, and for scope for councils to set different levels of penalty within limits set by the Department.
Clause 15 - Interpretation	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 16 - Minor and consequential amendments and repeals	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 17 - Commencement	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 18 – Short Title	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Schedule 1 – Minor and Consequential Amendments	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill

Letter to Clerk to the Committee
8 November 2010

Room 657c
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
Belfast
BT4 3SB

Tel: 028
Fax: 028 90524297
Email: john.terrington"dardni.gov.uk

Your reference
Our reference
Date: 8 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Paul

Committee Queries on the Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Thank you for your letter of 3 November to Joe Cassells.

I attach the Department's responses to the queries set out in the Committee's consideration template. I address the issues raised in your letter below.

Microchipping and licensing

As the Department has stated previously, we do not believe that the introduction of universal microchipping duplicates the existing licensing system in any way. The 1983 Dogs Order and its subordinate legislation already provide for both licensing and identification of dogs. The introduction of compulsory universal microchipping will simply use modern techniques of identification to help reunite lost and stray dogs with their owners, and help hold irresponsible owners to account.

Microchipping and straying

As the Department has pointed out previously, microchipping in itself will not reduce the number of stray dogs. But the permanent identification through microchipping of all dogs will help owners be reunited with their dogs and will allow owners to be held more accountable. Taken alongside stiffer fixed penalties and better-resourced enforcers, microchipping will mean that careless or irresponsible owners are more likely to be identified and penalised, and more likely to be deterred from non-compliance.

Other provisions of the Bill address the issue of straying more directly: control conditions will allow councils to enforce changes to the management of a dog that has strayed, so reducing recurrence and, again, stiffer fixed penalties and a better-resourced enforcement regime will act as a deterrent.

Resource implications of universal microchipping

The Department does not see how the introduction of compulsory universal microchipping itself will place any burden on councils/ratepayers. The Bill does not require councils to carry out any activity that they do not already undertake. In fact, the Bill increases the resources available to council dog warden services by increasing the licence fee and allowing councils to retain income from fixed penalties. Moreover, any improvement in the identification of impounded dogs will reduce collection and kennelling costs to councils.

Asked to identify any resource issues raised by any of the Department's proposals in the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment issued for public consultation in November 2010, 13 of the 17 councils that responded to this question said they identified no additional economic impacts (eight councils did not provide an answer to this question). Only four councils felt that the Department's proposals would involve some additional resource requirements.

Compulsory universal microchipping will impose a cost on dog owners. This is appropriate, since dog ownership imposes a social cost. But the cost of microchipping a dog represents a tiny fraction of the annual cost of keeping a dog.

Non-compliance

Compliance relies on appropriate enforcement and suitable deterrents. The Bill will improve enforcement by providing additional resources through the increased licence fee (up to an additional £1m per annum) and the retention of receipts from fixed penalties. This income is ring-fenced for enforcement of the Dogs Order.

The introduction of incentives to neuter and the new control measures available to wardens will in turn reduce many of the problems that wardens face, thereby freeing resources to deal with irresponsible dog owners.

The owner of an unmicrochipped (and therefore unlicensed) dog will be committing an offence punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Finally, the Bill increases the level of the fixed penalty for offences such as not having a licence, not displaying the required licence and identification tags or owning a dog that strays.

Including microchipping in the licence fee

The Department has explored many options for the implementation of compulsory universal microchipping, including the possibility of including the cost in the licence fee. However, while this may minimise the cost to owners and provide an incentive to comply, the costs would be passed onto councils. In consultation, many councils commented that the costs of microchipping should be borne by owners rather than councils.

Linking microchipping to the licence application would place a significant burden on council resources. Currently licences can be applied for in person, by post or in some cases on-line and this service is largely delivered by administrative staff and not wardens. The cost to ratepayers and licence fee payers would be increased if councils were required to carry out the microchipping process, even where the chips were free. If the fee for licensing (and chipping) a new dog was the same as that for just licensing already-microchipped dogs, then the owners of the latter are being asked to pay the same fee for a lower level of service.

Of course, if councils wished to offer a microchipping service, it would certainly be possible for them to offer it at whatever subsidised rate they chose. Nothing in the Bill would prevent this.

Banned breeds

The Department is aware of the concerns raised by some members regarding 'breed specific legislation' (BSL). During consultation, the Department considered these concerns, along with those of others that the dogs that are currently banned pose a great risk to public safety.

One of the concerns raised by some oppose the ban, as reflected by some in the Committee, is about the cost of enforcement. It is important to note that the Department consulted on a proposal that would shift the onus for exempting dogs of a banned type onto councils, and therefore remove any need for councils to take prosecutions (except where they believed that the dogs should not be exempted). This proposal was not welcomed by key stakeholders, including councils, the majority of whom were in favour of the ban in some form (where only a court could decide on whether a dog could be exempted from the prohibition) and indeed only one council explicitly called for repeal of BSL here.

As the law stands, a dog identified as, for example, a pit bull type by a dog warden is presumed to be a pit bull. The owner of a seized dog has of course the right to challenge that identification if he or she thinks a mistake has been made, and can bring the evidence to prove it. Councils can only take a prosecution when it is in the public interest to do so, and when the evidence makes it more than likely that the prosecution will be successful and costs will be recovered. Delays in the justice system are an issue beyond the scope of the Bill to address.

A repeal of the ban and proposal to allow owners to keep the 'banned' breeds under certain strict conditions was one of the options considered by the Department during policy development. However, such an amendment would still be a form of breed specific legislation (BSL) and would therefore remain open to criticism by BSL opponents. An extension in this proposal to parallel the position in the south, where a large number of larger breeds (including alsations and rottweilers) are subject to controls would require additional resource to enforce, while any perceived problem in the identification of pit bull type dogs would remain a problem and any owner whose dog was not kept under such controls, and was prosecuted, could as before challenge that identification in court.

Proposed amendments

The amendments requested by the Committee are set out in the attached Annex A, along with explanatory text.

The amendment extending the Bill's provisions on attacks on other dogs to other domestic animals provoked a reconsideration of Articles 28 and 29 of the 1983 Dogs Order, especially following Mr Simpson Gibson's query on 2 November as to whether the law provided a defence for a person who set his dog on a trespasser. The Department's response – that there was no such defence – did not take account of the fact that the offence of setting on or urging a dog to attack is defined as occurring in a public place. Therefore an owner setting his dog on an intruder would not be guilty of an offence under the 1983 Dogs Order. The new Article 29 proposed in the attached amendments removes the public/private place distinction, but expressly provides that an owner setting his dog on a trespasser would not be guilty of an offence in line with existing legislation.

The Committee will be aware that all amendments are subject to the agreement of the Attorney General and approval of the Executive.

Yours sincerely

John Terrington
Dog Control Bill Team

Attachments:

Annex A: Amendments.
Annex B: Query Sheet.

Annex A

Amendments to the Dogs (Amendment) Bill

During its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee has asked the Department to bring forward a number of amendments to:

(1) amend the fixed penalty system established by the 1983 Dogs Order to parallel that proposed for dog fouling offences in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill;

(2) introduce training as a possible control condition;

(3) extend the proposed offence of so-called 'dog-on-dog' attacks to cover other domestic animals; and

(4) provide that certain order-making powers in the Bill attract the affirmative rather than the negative resolution Assembly control procedure.

With the Agriculture Committee's agreement – and pending the consent of the Executive and Attorney General – these amendments will be tabled by the Minister at consideration stage.

The amendments are set out and discussed under appropriate headings below.

(1) Fixed penalties.

The Department proposes that the Bill be amended as follows:

Clause 14, page 9, line 26 leave out from 'in pursuance' to end of line 32 and insert 'to a district council in pursuance of a notice under Article 36 in respect of an offence to which Articles 36 to 38 apply—

(a) is the amount specified by the district council; or

(b) if no amount is so specified, is £75.

(2) A district council may under paragraph (1)(a) specify different amounts in relation to different offences.

(3) A district council may make provision for treating a fixed penalty payable to that council in pursuance of a notice under Article 36 as having been paid if a lesser amount is paid before the end of a period specified by the council.

(4) The Department may by regulations make provision in connection with the powers conferred on district councils under paragraphs (1)(a) and (3).

(5) Regulations under paragraph (4) may (in particular)—

(a) require an amount specified under paragraph (1)(a) to fall within a range prescribed in the regulations;

(b) restrict the extent to which, and the circumstances in which, a district council can make provision under paragraph (3).

(6) The Department may by order substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being specified in paragraph (1)(b).'

This would allow for councils to set fixed penalties at a level to suit local circumstances (within limits set by the Department) with a standard £75 fixed penalty if councils do not wish to set their own. It also provides for reductions for early payment.

(2) Training as a control condition.

The Department proposes that the Bill be amended as follows:

Clause 8, page 6, line 12, at end insert—

'(f) that the keeper, with the dog, attend and complete a specified course of training in the control of dogs before the end of the period of 6 months from the date on which the notice takes effect.

(2) In paragraph (1)(f) "specified" means specified, or of a description specified, in the notice under Article 30A.'

Clause 8, page 6, line 30, leave out '30B(e)' and insert '30B(1)(e) or (f)'

Clause 8, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

'(9) If a control condition imposed by virtue of section 30B(1)(e) or (f) is complied with to the satisfaction of the council, the council shall—

(a) remove the condition from the notice served under Article 30A; or

(b) (if there are no other control conditions imposed by the notice) cancel the notice,

and shall notify the licence holder in writing of that fact.'

The amendment to Clause 8, page 6, line 12 provides for a council to require an owner to attend a training course (to be specified by the notice attaching the control condition) and allows the owner a period within which to comply with this condition.

The amendment to Clause 8, page 6, line 30 provides for appeal against training as a control condition to follow the arrangements made for appeal against neutering.

The amendment to Clause 8, page 7, line 27 provides that, unlike the other potential control conditions, training – like neutering – is a determinate action rather than a continuing requirement, and so provides that the condition shall no longer be attached to the licence once the requirement has been fulfilled.

(3) Attacks on domestic animals.

Clauses 6 and 7 are amended to extend the proposed offence of so-called 'dog-on-dog' attacks to cover other domestic animals.

Amendments made by these clauses to Articles 28 and 29 of the 1983 Dogs Order to include attacks on other domestic animals provoked a reconsideration of those Articles, especially following Mr Simpson Gibson's query during scrutiny on 2 November as to whether the law provided a defence for a person who set his dog on a trespasser.

The Department's response – that there was no such defence – did not take account of the fact that the offence (in the 1983 Dogs Order) of setting on or urging a dog to attack is defined as occurring in a public place. Therefore an owner setting his dog on an intruder would not be guilty of an offence under the 1983 Dogs Order. The new Article 29 (clause 7) proposed here removes the public/private place distinction, but expressly provides that an owner setting his dog on a trespasser would not be guilty of an offence, in line with current legislation.

The Department proposes that the Bill be amended as follows:

Clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 16 to 31 and insert—

' "Attacks on livestock and certain other animals

28.—(1) Any person who sets a dog on—

(a) any livestock, or

(b) any other animal owned by another person,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(2) If a dog—

(a) worries livestock, or

(b) attacks and injures any other animal owned by another person,

the keeper of the dog and, if it is in the charge of a person other than its keeper, that person is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) This Article does not apply to a dog while being used—

(a) for police purposes;

(b) for such other purposes as the Department may by order specify.

(4) A person is not guilty of an offence under this Article by reason of anything done by the dog if at the material time—

(a) the livestock or other animal is trespassing on any land; and

(b) the dog is—

(i) kept by, or in the charge of, the occupier of that land; or

(ii) in the charge of a person authorised by the occupier to remove the livestock or other animal from that land.

(5) The keeper of a dog shall not be convicted of an offence under paragraph (2) if he shows that at the material time the dog was in the charge of some other person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog." '

This provides that it is an offence to set a dog on livestock or other owned animals, or to own a dog which worries livestock or attacks other owned animals. It provides that this offence does not apply to police and certain other dogs and that no offence is committed where the animal attacked was trespassing on land occupied by the dog's owner (or the dog's owner is authorised by the occupier to clear the animal from the land).

An amendment to clause 7 of the Bill creates a new Article 29 which follows a similar structure to deal with attacks on people:

Leave out clause 7 and insert—

'Attacks on persons

7. For Article 29 of the Dogs Order (attacks on persons and worrying livestock) substitute—

"Attacks on persons

29.—

(1) Any person who sets a dog on any other person is guilty of an offence or, if the dog injures the person attacked, an aggravated offence, under this paragraph.

(2) If a dog attacks any person, then—

(a) the keeper of the dog; and

(b) if it is in the charge of a person other than its keeper, that person,

is guilty of an offence or, if the dog injures the person attacked, an aggravated offence under this paragraph.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) or (2) other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

(4) A person guilty of an aggravated offence under paragraph (1) or (2) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(5) This Article does not apply to a dog while being used—

(a) for police purposes;

(b) for such other purposes as the Department may by order specify.

(6) A person is not guilty of an offence under this Article if at the material time—

(a) the person set on or attacked is trespassing on land; and

(b) the dog is—

(i) kept by, or in the charge of, the occupier of that land; or

(ii) in the charge of a person authorised by the occupier to remove that person from that land.

(7) The keeper of a dog shall not be convicted of an offence under paragraph (2) if he shows that at the material time the dog was in the charge of some other person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog.".'

Finally, clause 8 of the Bill (control conditions on dog licences) is amended to take account of this revision of Articles 28 and 29 of the 1983 Order:

Clause 8, page 5, line 11, leave out sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—

'(c) Article 28(1) or (2) (dog attacking livestock or certain other animals); or

(d) Article 29(1) or (2) (dog attacking person).'

(4) Changes to Assembly controls

A number of amendments are needed the amendment to change certain order-making powers in the 1983 Order, replacing negative with affirmative resolution procedures.

There are two forms of affirmative control. The more common one which is almost invariably used in new legislation is the 'draft affirmative' version. The older 'subject to affirmative resolution' model is rarely used these days but appears in older legislation.

The Dogs Order contains a number of 'subject to affirmative resolution' controls. The Bill adds some 'approval in draft' controls. The relevant amendments to the Bill provide for all orders that are not subject to negative resolution to be subject to the 'approval in draft' control. This will enable the Department to combine all or any of these orders in one instrument if necessary.

As noted, a series of amendments are needed to achieve this. First, a new Article 54 of the Dogs Order sets out comprehensively which orders are subject to the approval in draft control:

New clause

After clause 14 insert—

'Assembly control of orders made by Department

14A. For Article 54 of the Dogs Order substitute—

"Orders

54.—

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), orders made by the Department under this Order are subject to negative resolution.

(2) No order shall be made under Article 7(6), 8(4), 23(7)(b), 25(2)(f), 25(4), 25B(1), 28(3)(b), 29(5)(b), 33(3)(c), 35(2), 38(6) or 46 unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.".'

All existing references in the 1983 Dogs Order to 'subject to affirmative resolution' are then repealed. This is achieved by amending schedule 2 of the Bill:

Schedule 2, page 11, column 2, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—

'In Article 8(4) the words ", subject to affirmative resolution".

In Article 23(7)(b) the words ", subject to affirmative resolution,'.

In Article 25(4) the words ", subject to affirmative resolution,".

In Article 25B(1) the words ", subject to affirmative resolution,".'

'In Article 35(2) the words "subject to affirmative resolution,".

In Article 46 the words ", subject to affirmative resolution,".'

Finally, an amendment is needed to remove a reference to orders subject to approval in draft from the Bill:

Clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out from 'and' to end of line 26

The net result is that all orders mentioned in the new Article 54(2) are subject to approval in draft by the Assembly.

Minor and consequential amendments

The restructuring of the 1983 Order's Articles 28 and 29 means that references to Article 29(1) elsewhere in the 1983 Dogs Order need to be amended. This is achieved by an amendment to Schedule 1 of the Bill:

Schedule 1, page 11, line 6, at end insert—

'2A. In Articles 25C(2)(a) and 33A(1) for "29(1A)" substitute "29".'

Paragraph 4 of the same schedule is no longer required, as Article 54 (which it amended) has now been wholly replaced:

Schedule 1, page 11, line 9, leave out paragraph 4

Finally, certain consequential amendments to the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Order follow from the amendments to Article 28 and 29 of the 1983 Dogs Order (these replace provisions first introduced by the 1991 Order) and from the new Article 54 on approval in draft. Schedule 2 of the Bill is amended to repeal the relevant provisions.

Schedule 2, page, 11, line 21, at end insert—

'The Dangerous Dogs Article 4.
(Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (NI 21) Article 7(3) and (4).'

Annex B

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Query Sheet

Date of Committee Meeting: 2 November 2010	Agenda Item: 3 – Dogs (Amendment) Bill	Response Required by: noon, 8 November 2010
Query Detail: 1. Can the department advise how many (and which) of the current EU Member states have banned specific breeds? 2. Can the department provide the Committee with accurate details regarding: The total number of stray dogs (by Council area) for the last three years; The total number of stray dogs (by Council area) euthanized over the last three years; The total number of strays (by Council area) re-housed within Northern Ireland over the past three years; The total number of strays (by Council area) exported to either England, Scotland Wales or the Republic of Ireland 3. Can DARD provide documentary evidence from the 26 Councils confirming that they will not require any additional revenues to implement the conditions of this Bill? 4. In the event that the dual processes of microchipping and licensing are in operation following enactment of this Bill, can DARD confirm that a charge will not be levied in respect of the current identification tag? 5. Can the Department confirm that all types of dog, and not just those banned, are capable of inflicting very serious injury to vulnerable people, including children?
Departmental Response: (please attach additional comments to this sheet) 1. Can the department advise how many (and which) of the current EU Member states have banned specific breeds? Four member states currently have banned specific breeds: Denmark, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Seven member states currently have restrictions in place on specific breeds: Austria (in some cities), France, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Romania and Spain. Other major countries to have a ban on specific breeds include Norway and Australia. Many cities in the US and Canada have banned specific breeds, as has one US state and one Canadian province. 2. Can the department provide the Committee with accurate details regarding: The total number of stray dogs (by Council area) for the last three years; The total number of stray dogs (by Council area) euthanized over the last three years; The total number of strays (by Council area) re-housed within Northern Ireland over the past three years; The total number of strays (by Council area) exported to either England, Scotland Wales or the Republic of Ireland See Attached Sheet. 3. Can DARD provide documentary evidence from the 26 Councils confirming that they will not require any additional revenues to implement the conditions of this Bill? The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which was consulted on alongside the policy proposals, makes the following statement: "Councils may face small increases in administration costs, which should be offset by the increase in licence fee income and income from fixed penalties for some licensing offences…any additional administrative cost is likely to be borne early in the roll-out of the new regulatory regime and be more than balanced by increased income from dog licensing and from the collection of fixed penalties. Existing staff resources – in particular council dog wardens – should be sufficient to enforce the proposed changes. No requirement for additional skills or equipment is envisaged." Asked to identify any resource issues raised by any of the Department's proposals in the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment, 13 of the 17 councils that answered this question said they identified no additional economic impacts. Only four councils felt that the Department's proposals would involve some additional resource requirements. All council responses were ratified by elected representatives. The Department does accept that the current licence fee does not provide for the full cost of enforcing existing statutory requirements and therefore the Bill increases resources by raising the licence fee to £12.50. 4. In the event that the dual processes of microchipping and licensing are in operation following enactment of this Bill, can DARD confirm that a charge will not be levied in respect of the current identification tag? The cost of the identification tag is already included in the licence fee and there is no proposal to change this statutory provision. 5. Can the Department confirm that all types of dog, and not just those banned, are capable of inflicting very serious injury to vulnerable people, including children? The Department recognises that any dog can cause injury and therefore Clause 8 of the Bill allows dog wardens to apply control conditions to dogs whose behaviour breaches the 1983 Dogs Order. This represents a "deed" approach to dogs legislation that has been widely called for. Article 25B of the 1983 Dogs Order provides for the Department to put restrictions on other types of dogs that appear to it to present a serious danger to the public. Furthermore, the Department feels that the risk posed by the types currently banned is qualitatively greater than that posed by other types; based on evidence that such dogs have a high pain threshold and a jaw structure developed specifically for fighting (a point acknowledged by VETNI in evidence to the Committee).
Committee comments:

Continuation Sheet Question 2

Table 1: total number of stray dogs (by council area) for the last three years.

	2007			2008			2009
Dealt with	Impounded	Reclaim	Dealt with	Impounded	Reclaim	Dealt with	Impounded	Reclaim
Antrim	354	244	88	282	241	81	281	244	70
Ards	323	315	187	263	263	183	251	234	124
Armagh	670	670	122	603	603	118	436	436	100
Ballymena	193	199	81	162	181	70	219	173	84
Ballymoney	134	127	51	120	105	41	108	97	33
Banbridge	327	188	52	302	190	53	317	113	39
Belfast	1037	1037	404	939	939	393	668	668	251
C' Ergus	163	163	116	162	162	108	212	158	115
C'reagh	316	214	105	253	197	88	245	215	120
Coleraine	535	209	90	590	215	103	510	201	93
Cookstown	136	136	30	164	164	30	144	144	31
Craigavon	792	756	139	848	789	147	667	654	129
Derry	603	444	74	760	404	85	585	327	84
Down	810	726	133	757	686	138	713	622	135
Dungannon	447	447	37	515	515	42	502	502	53
Fermanagh	189	183	34	222	221	55	149	149	24
Larne	188	176	91	187	146	75	127	108	52
Limavady	308	101	30	347	110	25	260	80	25
Lisburn	466	466	215	533	380	179	420	309	124
M'felt	143	143	16	142	142	24	126	126	30
Moyle	82	71	39	88	50	23	83	56	21
Newry	754	724	114	675	506	104	461	380	62
N'abbey	617	374	233	507	299	195	532	311	187
North Down	197	101	8	247	96	16	142	112	28
Omagh	449	379	34	240	159	47	261	166	17
Strabane	174	174	45	167	167	33	160	160	43
Total	10374	8735	2544	10075	7930	2456	8579	6745	2074

Table 1 shows the number of stray dogs councils have dealt with over the last 3 years.

Not all dogs dealt with as strays by wardens are impounded, with many being returned before impounding due to identification tags, microchips or local knowledge.

Table 1 also shows the number of dogs reclaimed after being impounded.

Table 2: total number of stray dogs (by council area) euthanized over the last three years.

	No. of stray dogs destroyed
2007	2008	2009
Antrim	52	33	13
Ards	48	35	29
Armagh	142	78	43
Ballymena	85	73	43
Ballymoney	26	14	9
Banbridge	43	71	17
Belfast	251	167	146
Carrickfergus	8	13	1
Castlereagh	36	24	16
Coleraine	58	44	33
Cookstown	33	40	9
Craigavon	129	249	125
Derry	303	273	97
Down	229	192	107
Dungannon	75	56	59
Fermanagh	128	115	88
Larne	41	16	9
Limavady	62	65	17
Lisburn	90	73	46
Magherafelt	41	27	17
Moyle	15	13	13
Newry	290	199	209
Newtownabbey	32	17	20
North Down	35	23	17
Omagh	269	62	90
Strabane	91	88	73
Total	2595	2060	1346

Table 3: total number of strays (by council area) re-homed or transferred to other bodies.

Councils provide figures relating to the number of stray dogs that are sold, reclaimed by owner, unclaimed and destroyed and other outcomes. These are set out in Table 3. The majority of dogs included in the "other" category are given to sanctuaries and charities, which in turn have them re-homed here or taken else where to be re-homed. The Department does not have figures on the further of dogs after they have been transferred from council pounds.

Year Total	2007		2008		2009
Sold	Other	Sold	Other	Sold	Other
Antrim	37	67	30	97	36	125
Ards	80	0	35	10	80	1
Armagh	267	139	224	183	158	135
Ballymena	20	13	19	19	16	30
Ballymoney	34	16	39	11	36	19
Banbridge	55	38	44	22	21	36
Belfast	377	5	377	2	265	6
Carrickfergus	37	2	33	8	38	4
Castlereagh	73	0	85	0	79	0
Coleraine	59	2	66	2	74	1
Cookstown	71	2	94	0	102	2
Craigavon	360	128	325	68	257	143
Derry	44	23	43	3	40	106
Down	363	1	312	44	315	65
Dungannon	292	43	415	2	371	19
Fermanagh	17	4	31	20	37	0
Larne	32	12	41	14	35	12
Limavady	9	0	20	0	15	23
Lisburn	69	92	39	89	36	103
Magherafelt	86	0	91	0	79	0
Moyle	5	12	0	14	0	22
Newry	277	43	172	31	10	99
Newtownabbey	73	36	56	31	60	44
North Down	58	0	57	0	67	0
Omagh	42	34	17	33	17	42
Strabane	36	2	46	0	44	0
Total	2882	714	2711	703	2288	1037

Letter to the Clerk to the Committee -
12 November 2010

Animal Health & Welfare Policy Division
Dog Control Bill Team

Room 657c
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
Ballymiscaw
Belfast BT4 3SB

Tel: 028 90524297
Email: john.terrington@dardni.gov.uk

Date: 12 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Paul

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill – Meeting of 9 November 2010

Thank you for your letter of 10 November to Joe Cassells.

Consultation with local authorities

I note the Committee's continuing concern in respect of clause 2 of the Bill and the impact that this will have on local councils. The Department does not accept that local authorities were not fully or appropriately consulted. As we have previously assured the Committee, 25 of the 26 local authorities consulted replied to the Department's public consultation exercise. All of these replies had been ratified by elected representatives.

Prior to and in parallel with this formal consultation exercise, the Department has maintained contact with appropriate local authority officers and will continue to do so.

The Committee itself received both written and oral evidence from local authorities.

Costs to local authorities

You observe that members are advised that there will be substantial costs in respect of the operation of microchipping, and that these costs will have to be borne by ratepayers to implement and operate compulsory microchipping as part of a continuing licence system. Of the councils who replied to the Committee consultation, while a few raised the duplication of identification systems (tag and microchip) as a potential resource issue, only Armagh raised resource concerns in respect of microchipping per se:

'Armagh City and District Council believes that there are benefits to be gained from making microchipping compulsory but has concerns about who updates, maintains and administers the database and who provides the resources required at Council level to insert and read microchips.'

The Department does not accept that significant costs will fall to local authorities as a result of universal microchipping. Clause 2 of the Bill simply requires owners to microchip their dogs. The Bill does not require local authorities to do anything at all with regard to microchipping: they are not required to implant chips, maintain databases or register dogs on databases maintained by others, or to scan any dog other than a stray or a dog involved in an attack or some other suspected offence. With regard to reading microchips, most if not all councils are already equipped with readers, which can be purchased at low cost.

Of course any council that wishes to provide a microchipping service is free to do so, both now and under the provisions of the Bill, but there is no requirement to do so.

In fact, the introduction of compulsory universal microchipping will reduce the number of unidentifiable dogs in local authority pounds, reducing kennelling costs to councils and the number of dogs destroyed.

Commencement of clause 2

Members proposed that the Department should make this clause 'dormant' to allow for appropriate consultation with council members and to undertake a substantive review of the potential costs of implementing the proposed system. Members proposed that the enabling power to this dormant clause should be subject to the affirmative process.

As stated above, the Department is clear that there will not be substantial costs to councils from microchipping. Indeed, we believe it will reduce costs and, taken with the increase in the licence fee which will provide up to an additional £1m to councils annually, will permit councils to significantly improve their dog warden services.

The Department's legal advice is that commencement provisions are not generally subject to any form of Assembly control: they are in effect not doing anything except name the date provisions are to come into effect, provisions which the Assembly has already agreed should be in existence.

Nevertheless, we have discussed this issue with the Minister who is prepared to give a firm commitment that clause 2 will not be fully commenced until twelve months after the Bill has passed into law. This will allow for guidance to be published and disseminated and for procedures to be put in place, and for a campaign by animal charities etc. to microchip dogs in advance of the requirement coming into force. The Department has already begun discussing such a campaign with councils, Dog Trust and others.

Microchipping proposals short of compulsory universal microchipping

The Committee calls for the introduction of an amendment allowing for the compulsory microchipping of new pups reared in breeding establishments, and for an amendment to allow concessionary licence fees for microchipped dogs.

Both these proposals had been looked at by the Department throughout policy development, but they are redundant if clause 2 is commenced as normal.

Furthermore, both proposals would require exactly the legislative framework that clause 2 provides for (e.g. the technical standards of a valid microchip, the requirements for databases and the powers of officers). If clause 2 is not commenced then this legal framework would not be in place to allow for the transitional arrangements.

The Department therefore believes that the simplest approach to securing the improvement in the identification of dogs that universal microchipping would bring is to commence clause 2 of the Bill 12 months after the Bill has passed into law (as outlined above).

Legal costs of enforcing the ban on pit-bull type dogs

The Committee has asked the Department to provide details of the legal costs to councils for enforcing the ban on pit bull-type dogs since the introduction of the ban in 1991 and on a per council basis. The Department does not have information on these costs.

Between 2001 and 2009 councils took 78 prosecutions, 46 of which were successful. Where a prosecution is successful, councils will recover costs. The decision to prosecute is taken by councils themselves.

The Department's original consultation proposal would have allowed local authorities to operate an exemption system which did not require recourse to the courts. This proposal was not supported by the majority of councils and was therefore not included in the Bill.

Other proposals

The Department has previously addressed members' proposals for including the cost of microchipping within the licence fee and providing an option for a lifetime licence. Both proposals had been considered by the Department during various stages of the policy development and considered unworkable: briefly, including the cost of microchipping in the licence fee places an administrative burden on councils (to implant and register dogs on microchip databases, or to administer a voucher system) which the Department does not believe councils support; and a 'lifetime licence' has the potential to undermine the resourcing of dog warden systems by 'frontloading' income from the licence fee into the first year of licensing and would be beyond the reach of low income groups.

I am, as always, happy to discuss any of the points raised in this letter.

Yours sincerely

John Terrington
Dog Control Bill Team

Letter to the Clerk to the Committee -
16 November 2010

Animal Health & Welfare Policy Division
Dog Control Bill Team

Room 657c
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
Ballymiscaw
Belfast BT4 3SB

Tel: 028 90524297
Email: john.terrington@dardni.gov.uk

Date: 16 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Paul

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill – Commencement of Microchipping Requirements

Thank you for your letter of 15 November to Joe Cassells.

In your letter you ask what elements of clause 2 would not be commenced until later and how the Department would propose to do this. The proposal is that clause 2 would be commenced as normal via a commencement order, once guidance and procedures are in place.

However, before microchipping can become compulsory it will be necessary to make the regulations under Article 31(3)(f) (as inserted by clause 2(2)) which prescribe exactly what microchipping is and how it is to be done. Before these regulations are made, the Department will, as always, refer them to the Committee for its consideration and scrutiny.

I trust that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

John Terrington
Dog Control Bill Team

Appendix 5

Memoranda and Papers - Others

Appendix 5 - Memoranda and Papers – Others

Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Library Service Bill Paper

Public Consultation Notice

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD 28 October 2010

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD 03 November 2010

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD 10 November 2010

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD 15 November 2010

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD 17 November 2010

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD 24 November 2010

Northern Ireland Assembly
Research and Library Service Bill Paper

30th July 2010

Mark Allen

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill
NIAR 268- 010

This paper provides an overview of the main proposals contained with the Bill. The paper also identifies those areas within the Bill which may prove to be contentious in the light of consultation responses received, the Departmental responses to the views received, and through a brief overview of similar dog control legislation within neighbouring countries.

Key Points

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill seeks to enhance and amend the existing legislation within Northern Ireland relating to all aspects of dog control by:

• Introducing compulsory microchipping of all dogs as part of the licensing process;
• Increasing the annual dog licence fee to £12.50 for an individual dog and to £32 for a block licence
• Standardising the fixed penalty system to £50 and making fixed penalties in relation to dogs payable to the local District Councils;
• Introducing a range of potential control conditions on a dog licence in a situation where a dog is believed to have committed an offence under the Dogs Order;
• Making it an offence to set a dog on or urge it to attack a dog owned by another person;
• Making it an offence to set a dog on another person, dog or livestock in a public place or on private property – with the exception that the attacked person dog or livestock are trespassing.
• Based upon the analysis of public consultation responses received by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development with regard to the proposed changes to dog legislation it would appear that most respondents were generally happy with most elements of the proposed legislation.
• There are a number of proposals within the amended Bill which are potentially contentious largely due to the lack of specific detail within the Bill itself and a lack of detail regarding any guidance or secondary legislation that will either accompany or emerge in relation to the Bill. These issues are explored within this paper

Executive Summary

The issue of dog control has rarely been out of the headlines in Northern Ireland and the wider world in recent years. Whilst the media have tended to focus on high profile cases involving particular breeds of dog, sometimes with unfortunate fatal outcomes, there are many underlying issues central to effective dog control.

The number of stray dogs within Northern Ireland for example, whilst falling, still constituted 7,930 dogs in 2008 according to local government statistics, equating to 470 strays for very 100,000 people, the highest number across these islands. Combined with the fact that attacks by dogs on people and livestock remain relatively high and that the dog control costs to District Councils far exceeds dog licence income, it is not hard to see why changes and enhancements to the existing dog legislation are both required and make sense.

Against this background the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) has brought forward the Dogs (Amendment) Bill which was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on the 24th May 2010 following a period of public consultation which collected 129 responses. In bringing forward these proposals, DARD Minister Michelle Gildernew emphasised her primary motivation as being to make the public in general and children in particular safer through enhanced dog control.

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill proposes to update and enhance the legislation relating to the control of dogs within Northern Ireland by introducing the following:

• The compulsory microchipping of all dogs as part of the licensing process meaning that the identification of stray dogs and dogs engaged in the worrying of livestock or attacks on people or other dogs will be easier;
• An increase in the annual dog licence fee to £12.50 for an individual dog and to £32 for a block licence. The cost of a dog licence to those on means tested benefits will be £5 and those aged 65 and over will be entitled to a free dog licence for one dog;
• A standardised fixed penalty system with all fixed penalty offences costing £50 and making fixed penalties in relation to dogs payable to the local District Councils;
• A range of potential control conditions on a dog licence in a situation where a dog is believed to have committed an offence under the 1983 Dogs Order;
• Making it an offence to set a dog on, or urge it to, attack a dog owned by another person;
• Making it an offence to set a dog on another person, dog or livestock in a public place or on private property – with the exception that the attacked person dog or livestock are trespassing.

Based upon a synopsis of the public consultation responses received and by taking account of issues raised by individual Assembly Members whilst considering how other neighbouring jurisdictions deal with the issue of dog control, it is clear that the majority of the changes proposed to dogs legislation contained within the Dogs (Amendment) Bill are generally sound and have been well received.

There are however a number of areas within the Amended Bill which have the potential to be contentious largely due to the lack of specific detail within the Bill itself and a lack of detail regarding any guidance or secondary legislation that will either accompany or emerge to support the Bill. These areas, which are examined further within this paper relate to:

• The need for the advocacy of a standardised microchipping database and actual brand of microchip within Northern Ireland;
• The potential costs of microchipping and how these could be managed effectively to the benefit of dog owners, District Councils and others;
• Alternatives to microchipping as a means of dog identification;
• Grounds for the imposition of dog control conditions in terms of what additional grounds might be useful;
• Spaying of female dogs as an additional control condition;
• Training for dogs and owners as an additional control condition that might also encourage responsible dog ownership;
• 3rd party insurance as an additional control condition.

Contents

Key Points

Executive Summary

Contents

1 Introduction

2. Context for proposed changes to dog control measures

3. Overview of the Clauses

4. Areas of possible contention within the Bill

4.1 Microchipping

4.1.1 The need for more detail regarding implementation and management of a dog microchip identification scheme

4.1.2 Costs of microchipping

4.1.3 Alternatives to microchipping

4.2 Dog Licence control conditions

4.2.1 The need for more detail regarding implementation, administration and enforcement of dog control conditions on a licence.

4.2.2 Grounds for imposition of dog control conditions.

4.2.3 Specific control condition – spaying of female dogs.

4.2.4 Specific control condition – training for dog and owner.

4.2.5 Possible additional control condition – 3rd party insurance .

Appendix 1 - Dog Control measures within other neighbouring jurisdictions.

1 Introduction

The control of dogs within Northern Ireland is currently governed by the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983.[1]The 1983 Order requires District Councils to both license dogs and through the auspices of dog wardens to deal with dogs that stray, worry livestock or attack people.

Councils were also given the power to issue dog licences and the 1983 Dogs Order set the licence fee at an annual rate of £5, but allowed the Department to change the licence fee and to increase the fee for unsterilized dogs. The level of the licence fee has remained unchanged since 1983.

The enforcement of the conditions within the Dog's Order are also the responsibility of each of Northern Ireland's 26 District Councils, all of whom maintain dog warden services to deal with issues including licensing, seizure, rehoming, and disposal of stray dogs.

The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991[2] amended the 1983 Order by making it an offence to possess initially two, but currently the four following designated dog breeds:

• Pit Bull Terrier
• Japanese Tosa
• Dogo Argentino
• Fila Braziliero

Following on from The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, The Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order (Northern Ireland) 1991, provided a mechanism by which a court could provide an exemption for an individual dog of one of the four banned breeds if the dog was not considered to be a danger and providing strict conditions for its ownership were met.

In November 2007 the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle Gildernew, announced a wide ranging review of all aspects of dog control. This review saw the Minister meet with a wide range of stakeholders and led to the development of proposals for the amendment of existing dog control legislation. Minister Gildernew has also stressed on numerous occasions that her primary motivation for introducing the Dogs (Amendment) Bill is to make the public in general, and children in particular, safer through enhanced dog control.

In addition, and as mentioned previously, changes and enhancements to the existing dog legislation are considered necessary as attacks by dogs on people and livestock are relatively high and dog control costs to District Councils currently exceed dog licence income.

A public consultation exercise on these proposals ran from the 23rd November 2009 until the 1st February 2010 and a total of 129 responses were received.

2. Context for proposed changes to dog control measures

There are some positive trends relating to issues of dog control within Northern Ireland over the last 10 years.

• As illustrated in figure 1 below the number of dogs licensed in Northern Ireland has increased steadily. There were 85,478 licences issued in 1999 compared to 114,208 being issued in 2008. This constitutes a growth of 25%.

Figure 1: Overview of Dog Licences Issued in Northern Ireland 1999-2008[3]

Figure 2 also highlights the fact that there has been a fall in the number of stray dogs impounded by councils from 11,532 in 1999 to 7,930 in 2008. This constitutes a fall of 31%. It should be recognised however that the number of stray dogs has fluctuated over this period and that the trend has not always been downward between 1999 and 2008. For example the number of stray dogs impounded actually rose between 2002 and 2007 when compared to 2002.

In addition the number of unwanted dogs collected by District Councils has also fallen from 3,948 in 2008 to 2,889 in 2008. This constitutes a fall of 27%. Once again however the figures do not support the concept of a year on year downward trend. In a similar fashion to the figures for stray dogs however there is a level of fluctuation with the number of unwanted dogs collected actually increasing in a number of years.

Figure 2 :Unwanted and stray Dogs - Northern Ireland Council Statistics 199-2008[4]

The picture is not wholly positive however given the following issues.

• In 2008 Northern Ireland had one of the highest number of stray dogs impounded per head of population across the British Isles – 470 strays for every 100,000 people, compared to 170 in the Republic of Ireland, 137 in England, 149 in Scotland and 333 in Wales;
• In 2008 Northern Ireland also destroyed 207 stray and unwanted dogs per 100,000 of population. This compares to recorded figures of 226 within the Republic of Ireland, 9 in Wales, 4 in England and 2 in Scotland;
• Northern Ireland also continues to have high level of attacks by dogs on people which have remained at 745 per year on average over the last 10 years. In a similar vein attacks by dogs on livestock over the last 10 years have shown no significant reduction with there being 328 attacks per year on average. (see figure 3) Indeed, in relation to both of these issues there has been some fluctuation in the years on a year on year basis with both rises and falls in the number of attacks;

Figure 3: Attacks by dogs on people and livestock within Northern Ireland - 1999-2008[5]

• Children aged under 16 also appear to be at significantly higher risk of injury from dogs given the fact that they were more likely than adults to be admitted to hospital because of a dog attack despite only making up 25% of the entire population;
• There continue to be instances of attacks by dogs on other dogs. Whilst there are no figures on the actual number of attacks high profile media cases such as the recent death of an Alsatian in Cookstown[6] following an attack by 3 other dogs continue to make the news on a regular basis;
• District Councils which have responsibility for the enforcement of dog control measures find that the associated costs are far in excess of council income from dog licensing (see figure 4);
• Income generated from the serving of fixed penalties on issues relating to dog control continues to be paid to the courts and not to District Councils. Once again this reduces the capability of the councils to meet the costs associated with the enforcement of dog control measures. Councils are mainly dependent upon income from the issuing of dog licences to meet dog control costs and as figure 4 below highlights income lags well below costs for those District Councils who provided data.

Figure 4 : Dog control costs and licence fee income -
Selected district councils, 2007-2008[7]

3. Overview of the Clauses

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill contains 18 clauses and 2 schedules which propose a number of significant changes to the existing legislation as regards dog control. 14 of the clauses propose substantive changes to the existing legislation under the three broad themes of dog licensing, dog control and fixed penalties and these proposed alterations and additions can be summarised as follows:

Dog licensing Issues

Clause 1 – extends the exemption from the requirement to have a dog licence from guide dogs to all assistance dogs used by a disabled person wholly or mainly for the purpose of assisting that person to carry out day to day activities.

Clause 2 – introduces a requirement to have a dog implanted with a microchip before a licence is issued. Also empowers DARD to make subordinate legislation to regulate a compulsory micro chipping system.

Clause 3 – provides a means by which a District Council may licence a dog of the type prohibited by the Dogs Order but only if that dog has been exempted from the prohibition in Article 25A(3) of the Dogs Order.

Clause 4 – provides for an increase in both the individual and block dog licence fees (to £12.50 and £32 respectively). Also empowers DARD, with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel, to make subordinate legislation amending the level of fees payable for dog licences.

Control of Dogs

Clause 5 – amends the Dogs Order to enable a seized prohibited breed dog (Pitbull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero) to be exempted from prohibition so long as a district judge is satisfied that the dog will not be a danger to the public and will be kept under strict conditions.

Clause 6 – makes it an offence to set a dog on or urge it to attack a dog owned by another person. Also makes it an offence to set a dog on another person or on livestock in a public place or on private property.

Clause 7 – ensures that a person shall not be guilty of an offence if that person's dog attacks another person, another dog or livestock which are trespassing on that person's land.

Clause 8 – enables District Council dog wardens to attach certain control conditions to a dog licence in situations where a dog is believed to have committed an offence under the Dogs Order. Control conditions available to dog wardens are to be as follows:

• Muzzling of the dog when in public;
• Keeping the dog under control at all times;
• When not under control be kept securely confined;
• Be kept from any specified place;
• If male, be neutered.

Clause 9 – amends article 33 of the 1983 Dogs Order relating to the power of a court to order the destruction of a dog. The amendment will mean that unless a prohibited dog breed dog is exempted, within a period of 2 months it will be destroyed.

Clause 10 – enables an officer (of a district council) to enter any land for the purpose of preventing a dog attacking another dog or ending any such attack.

Fixed Penalties

Clause 11 – amends the list of offences to which fixed penalties apply and now includes failure to notify the transfer of a dog subject to control conditions and failure to comply with control conditions linked to a dog licence.

Clause 12 - amends Article 37 of the 1983 Dogs Order by making fixed penalties in relation to dogs payable to the local district councils rather than the courts.

Clause 13 – adds an element to Article 37 permitting district councils to use fixed penalty receipts only for the purposes of its functions under this Order.

Clause 14 – revises and standardises the fixed penalty amount to £50.

More detail on each of these clauses can be found within the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.

4. Areas of possible contention within the Bill

Whilst the Dogs Amendment Bill and the clauses within it appear largely logical and reasonable, an analysis of the 129 consultation responses to DARD's proposals for changes to dog control legislation highlights the fact that there are a small number of areas and issues around which there was a lack of consensus amongst stakeholders and consultation respondents in terms of how the legislation should go forward.

4.1 Microchipping

Based upon the total consultation responses a small majority of respondents welcomed the introduction of proposed introduction of compulsory microchipping as a condition of access to a dog licence.

It should be noted that there would have been greater support for the proposals by at least 20 respondents if particular issues around microchipping were addressed.

4.1.1 The need for more detail regarding implementation and management of a dog microchip identification scheme

The majority of these issues could be generally classified as procedural concerns around how a compulsory microchipping and registration scheme would actually be implemented. The majority of District Councils for example, who would continue to have responsibility for dog licensing and as a result would have to verify that a dog was microchipped before issuing a licence, were concerned about access to and management of registration data. The Bill, as it currently stands, could be undoubtedly described as 'light' on these details. However there does need to be a recognition that much of this detail should be contained in the forthcoming secondary legislation that will accompany this Bill.

It will also be useful to consider the type of guidance that DARD will be issuing to District Councils. A particular question here would relate to which microchip database will be recommended for use by the District Councils. At present within the UK there are 3 different dog microchip databases as follows:

• PETtrac[8] – commercial scheme run by microchip manufacturer Avid Plc;
• PEtlog[9] – the 'national database for chipped pets' run by the Kennel Club;
• Anibase[10] – run by Animalcare a specialist veterinary products company.

Whilst microchip readers can read the chips provided by all these databases it may be useful to advocate one of these providers as the 'standard' database and microchip provider in Northern Ireland in the absence of DARD either creating or managing such a system.

It would also be useful to look at the work being done by the Microchip Advisory Group[11] (MAG) involved in the sale or use of microchips. This group which is made up of animal microchip manufacturers; distributors; database representatives; major purchasers and major implanters is supported in its operation by the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). Amongst its objectives the group includes the agreement of procedures for the sale and implantation of microchips and to agree standards of training for persons intending to implant microchips.

4.1.2 Costs of microchipping

The advocation of a particular microchip/database provider may also help to address other concerns around microchipping raised by consultation respondents in relation to cost. Estimates for the current cost of dog microchipping and registration are in the range of £20 to £30 based upon figures from a number of local district councils including Belfast.

In their response to the concerns raised around the expense of dog microchipping DARD declared that microchipping can in many instances be "..carried out much more cheaply or sometimes for free by animal charities, local authorities and responsible breeders."[12] During the second stage of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill DARD Minister Michelle Gildernew also revealed that the Dogs Trust plans to make 500 free microchips available for each of Northern Ireland's 26 district councils (13,000 in total)[13].

There is a real need for further detail around how secondary legislation can best be developed to ensure that dog microchipping is as cost effective as possible for both owners and district councils. It would for example, seem logical to explore further the particular roles and responsibilities in terms of who should pay for the provision of dog microchips. A specific question relates to whether the Dogs Trust will want, or be able to, continue to be the main provider of dog microchips within Northern Ireland as this would appear to put a major financial burden on a charitable organisation.

Part of the problem here is that there is no accurate figure for the total dog population in Northern Ireland. In the absence of such a figure it would also be useful to know exactly how many of the 114,208 licensed dogs in Northern Ireland in 2008 were microchipped as this may give an indication of the total number of microchips required. The establishment of such a figure would theoretically enable the Dogs Trust and the 26 District Councils to work collectively to secure a bulk purchase of a common chip and access to a common database as stated previously. This would not only bring uniformity but would also have the potential to decrease the individual unit cost of microchips.

4.1.3 Alternatives to microchipping

Paragraph 9 under the Issue of Dog Licences section within the Amended Bill makes provision for dogs to be exempt from the condition of mandatory microchipping providing that the keeper of the dog is in possession a certificate issued by a vet outlining how the implantation of a microchip would have an adverse impact on the health of the dog.

This provision may appeal to more dog owners than is presently envisaged due to the concerns around the health impacts of dog microchip implantation. The British Small Animal Veterinary Association's Microchip Adverse Reaction Scheme for example received reports of 61 adverse reactions representing a rate of one per 19,869 chips[14]. There have also been a number of rare instances where cancerous tumours have developed at the site of an implanted chip[15]. In emphasising the rareness of these impacts it needs to be realised that no matter how small, some dog owners will not be prepared to take any risk with the health or well being of their dog or dogs.

The Bill in its current form however fails to provide details on how an exempt dog under this condition should then be identifiable. The most likely means of identification in such an instance would appear to be tattooing which is commonly used in conjunction with microchipping and tagging in many countries including Belgium and Finland[16]. Within the UK there is a National Dog Tattoo Register[17] which uses a network of accredited tattooists (with only one member in Northern Ireland) and which currently advocates a standard charge of £25 for the tattooing and registration of an adult dog.

4.2 Dog Licence control conditions

The majority of consultation participants were in favour of the imposition of dog control conditions for individual dogs. Some concerns were raised in relation to a number of issues however.

4.2.1 The need for more detail regarding implementation, administration and enforcement of dog control conditions on a licence.

The qualified support from the majority of District Councils in relation to dog control conditions was mainly linked to concerns around implementation, administration and enforcement. As in the case of microchipping, there is a real need for further legislation or detailed guidance to ensure that District Council officers implement, administer and enforce dog control conditions in a consistent, fair, and transparent way. Without this detail it is easy to understand the concerns that District Councils and dog owners alike will have regarding the use of measures which are generally agreed to be a good idea.

4.2.2 Grounds for imposition of dog control conditions

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill currently proposes 4 areas under which an offence could be committed that would result in the imposition of control condition as follows:

• Article 22(1) – dog straying
• Article 25 (3) – control of dogs on certain roads or lands
• Article 28 (1) or (2) – setting on or urging dog to attack
• Article 29 (1) or (1A) – dog attacking person, livestock or other dog

The Bill does not currently have provision for threatening behaviour by a dog to be the trigger for the imposition of a control condition, which was an issue raised by a number of members during the second reading of the Bill on 7th June 2010.

The Control of Dogs(Scotland) Act 2010[18] has such a provision as it enables a dog control notice to be served in instances where a dog's behaviour gives rise to alarm or apprehensiveness on the part of any individual regarding their own safety, the safety of some other person or the safety of an animal other than the dog in question.

Similarly Lord Redesdale's proposed private member's Dog Control Bill[19] which was due to have its second reading in the House of Lords on the 9th July 2010 contains proposals that would enable a dog warden or police officer to serve a control notice if a dog is aggressive or is intimidating people or other animals.

4.2.3 Specific control condition – spaying of female dogs.

The neutering of male dogs is incorporated as a control condition within the Amended Bill but there is no provision for the spaying of female dogs. Research conducted by JC Wright[20] found that unneutered male dogs were involved in 70% to 76% of reported dog bite incidents.

In recognising the greater threat from male dogs, the research also highlighted the fact that "..unspayed females that are not part of a carefully planned breeding program may attract free roaming males, which increases bite risk to people through increased exposure to unfamiliar dogs. Dams (bitches) are protective of their puppies and may bite those who try to handle the young. Unspayed females may also contribute to the population of unwanted dogs that are often acquired by people who do not understand the long-term commitment they have undertaken"

With this in mind the spaying of female dogs may be worth considering as an addition to the range of control conditions available to District Council dog wardens under the Amended Bill. In this regard this condition could be applied to dogs which are deemed to pose a risk to either other dogs or people.

4.2.4. Specific control condition – training for dog and owner

Most individuals who responded to the consultation were keen on the idea of dogs and owners having to undertake training as a specific control condition. Concerns around the availability of training and a lack of consensus on the range of approaches available have been noted by DARD as possible reasons why a training condition may not be contained in the final legislation.

This provision exists within the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act[21] currently awaiting royal assent which contains the following clause;

"Owner, with the dog, attending and completing a course of training in the control of dogs (being a course which may, but need not, be specified in the notice)."

Based upon this option, local authorities in Scotland are currently considering how best to actually implement this condition. All indications are that this will be a local authority decision and that further guidance in this regard will not be forthcoming from the Scottish Parliament. This situation is likely to lead to a diverse range of training courses across different local authorities and this may be detrimental to the effectiveness of such a measure.

In terms of identifying a widely available and standardised form of training, the Kennel Club's Good Citizen Dog Scheme[22] appears to offer a possible solution. This scheme takes dogs and their owners through a range of tests focussed on dog behaviour, control and health and is the largest dog training scheme in the UK, having been undertaken by over 250,000 dog owners with their dogs. There are currently 13 Kennel Club affiliated Dog Training Clubs in Northern Ireland providing this training and the following table highlights the names and locations of these clubs. It should be noted that the geographic distribution of these clubs may make the delivery of the Good Citizen Dog Scheme on a region wide basis challenging given that some areas are a considerable distance from their nearest Kennel Club affiliated Dog Training Club.

Table 1: Kennel Club Affiliated Dog Training Clubs in Northern Ireland, sourced from Kennel Club website, July 2010

Club Name	Venue
Ballywalter Clickers	Ballywalter
Bangor District Dog Training Club	Bangor
Castlereagh and District Dog Training Club	Castlereagh
City of Belfast Dog training Club	Belfast
Coleraine Dog Obedience Club	Coleraine
Dog Training Services	Belfast
Down District Dog Training Club	Hillsborough
Glandore Dog Training Club of Ulster	Mallusk and Holywood
Lisburn and District Dog Training Club	Lisburn
Paws 4 Thot	Larne
Take the Lead Puppy and Pet Dog Classes	Dromore, County Down
Vale College	Lisburn
Wag and Bone Club	Belfast

The Austrian Approach – training as a pre-condition for dog ownership

At another level entirely is the type of training required to be undertaken by some dog owners in Austria. The city of Vienna has recently passed legislation[23] meaning that the owners of 13 breeds of 'fighting dog' including the pitbull, rottweiler, and mastiff amongst others will have to complete a written 30 page test. In addition, the owner and their dog will have to successfully complete 3 independently assessed practical tests relating to handling, obedience and behaviour in everyday situations. Failure to comply with this condition will see dog owners facing fines up to a maximum of €14,000.

4.2.5 Possible additional control condition – 3rd party insurance

In March 2010 the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) conducted a public consultation on the various options that the Department was considering for the control of dangerous dogs within England and Wales. One of the proposals within the consultation document was for the introduction of compulsory third party insurance for dogs and their owners so that victims of dog attacks are financially recompensed.

This proposal was met with considerable opposition from some sections of the press[24] who felt that it would unduly penalise people on low incomes such as pensioners and would also amount to the creation of a tax on responsible dog owners who would have meet the costs of the irresponsible. In complete contrast the proposal was warmly welcomed by the Communication Workers Union (CWU) whose membership of over 250,000 people includes postal workers. In their response to the consultation[25] the CWU highlighted the fact that 5000 to 6000 postal workers were attacked by dogs each year as well as 300 to 400 British Telecom Engineers across the UK. The CWU cited the fact that many of these attacked workers required hospital treatment and that some had been forced to give up their work as a result of injuries received.

In two specific cases CWU members had received similar disfiguring injuries which meant that they were forced to leave their jobs and which could adversely affect their chances of future employment. In one of these cases the dog owner was well off and insured and as a result the worker received over £100,000 in compensation. In the other instance the dog owner was penniless and uninsured and the worker received no compensation.

As pointed out by the CWU the Dogs Trust[26] currently offers a third party insurance scheme for dogs which costs just £20 per year (£10 if aged over 60) and which provides cover up to £1,000,000 per claim if the owner's dog causes damage or injury to another person, their property or pets (An excess of £200 applies for the UK and a £500 excess for claims made in Republic of Ireland).

Whilst the proposal was withdrawn by the government following the aforementioned negative press reaction there may be scope for once again looking at this as both a control condition that could be attached to a licence or as a compulsory feature for all dog owners or particular breeds of dog. Such a scheme would have the potential to promote more responsible dog ownership whilst ensuring that people, dogs or other animals that are attacked by dogs are compensated.

Appendix 1 - Dog Control measures within other neighbouring jurisdictions

The following table outlines some of the differences in dog control legislation between Northern Ireland and other 'local' administrations. Matters relating to Northern Ireland within this table are based upon the proposals within the Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

Issue	Northern Ireland	England and Wales	Scotland	Republic of Ireland
Individual Dog licensing	Required for all dogs – with exception of people with a disability who's dog assists them in carrying out normal day to day activities, dogs sold in a licensed pet shop, police dogs, Cost of licence will rise in line with inflation from £5 to £12.50 per year. Licence fee will remain at £5 for persons over 65, those in receipt of income related benefits, and for those whose dog has been neutered.	Not applicable - Abolished in 1987	Not applicable - Abolished in 1987	Required for all dogs over 4 months of age – with exception of guide dogs for the blind and dogs held by Gardai, County Council, and Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Cost of a licence is currently €12.70 per year.
Block dog licensing	Cost of block licence will rise in line with inflation from £12.50 to £32. Applies in instances where 3 or more dogs are kept on 1 premises by the same person.	Not applicable – Abolished in 1987	Not applicable – Abolished in 1987	Currently costs €253.95 per year for multiple dogs. Mainly aimed at owners of kennels and no upper limit on number of dogs covered.
Micro chipping of dogs	Will become a compulsory condition of issue of a dog licence.	Voluntary at present but being considered by DEFRA. Outline proposal contained in DEFRA public consultation on changes to Dangerous Dogs Act that finished in early June 2010	Voluntary	Voluntary
Prohibited/restricted dog breeds	Pit Bull terrier; Japanese Tosa; Dogo Argentino; Fila Braziliero.	Pit Bull terrier; Japanese Tosa; Dogo Argentino; Fila Braziliero.	Pit Bull terrier; Japanese Tosa; Dogo Argentino; Fila Braziliero.	American Pit Bull terrier; Bull Mastiff; Doberman Pinscher; English Bull Terrier; German Shepard (Alsatian); Japanese Akita; Japanese Tosa; Rhodesian Ridgeback; Rottweiler; Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Also applies to every other strain or cross breed or type of dog described above.
Dogs attacking other dogs as an offence	Will constitute an offence – 'Any person who sets a dog on or urges a dog to attack, any dog owned by another person'.	Lord Redesdale's proposed private member's Dog Control Bill which is due its second reading in the House of Lords on the 9th July 2010 contains a clause that ' no person shall keep a dog that has attacked a person or another protected animal without reasonable cause'1 An attack is defined as occurring if a dog has bitten, mauled or injured a person or another animal.	The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 provides for the issuing of a dog control notice in instances where 'a dog is out of control and its behaviour gives rise to apprehension to the safety of an animal other than the dog in question.'2	The Control of Dogs Acts 1986 which was further amended in 1992 only refers to attacks by dogs on 'livestock' as an offence. Livestock are defined as cattle, sheep, swine, horses and all other equine animals, poultry, goats and deer not in the wild state.3
Dog control conditions	Control conditions which can be placed on a dog licence by a dog warden. Fitting of a muzzle; Being kept under control in a public place; When not under control be kept securely confined in a building, yard or other enclosure; Be excluded from any place or type of place specified in the order; That the dog (if male) be neutered.	Lord Redesdale's proposed private member's Dog Control Bill which is due its second reading in the House of Lords on the 9th July 2010 contains proposals for the following dog control notices. These can be issued by an officer of a police force or local authority. Keeping the dog muzzled in public; Keeping the dog on a lead when in public; Arranging for a dog to be neutered; Placing a microchip in the dog; Arranging for the dog to undergo training; Arranging for the dog to be rehomed.	The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 provides for the issuing of the following dog control notices by an authorised officer within a local authority. Muzzling of the dog in a place which the public have access to; Keeping the dog on a lead whenever it is in such a place; Neutering the dog (if male); Keeping the dog away from a place or category of places, specified in the notice; Proper person (owner) with the dog attending and completing a course of training in the control of dogs (being a course which may, but need not, be specified in the notice).	Under the Control of Dogs Act 1986, local authorities have the power to make the following bye laws relating to the control of dogs within their area. Require the person in charge of a dog to have the faeces removed immediately where the dog has fouled in a public place; Specify areas in which the person in charge of a dog shall be required to keep the dog on a leash; Specify areas where, with the exception of guide dogs, dogs will not be allowed.
Levels of fixed penalty and subsequent fines for breach of dog control conditions	All fixed penalties to be standardised at £50. Fines following successful prosecution for an offence can be up a maximum level 4 fine of £2,500.	Default amount for a fixed penalty notice is £75. If prosecuted for the offence, a person can liable to a maximum level 3 fine of up to £1,000	Local councils are still developing both fixed penalty and fines levels as a result of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) 2010. Speaking to Dog Control staff in Dumfries and Galloway Council the feeling is that fixed penalties and fines will match those for dog fouling of £40 fixed penalty with a fine of up to £500 following prosecution or failure to pay.	On the spot fines of €30. Failure to pay can lead to prosecution in District Court with a maximum fine of €1904.61 and/or 3 months imprisonment.
Retention of fixed penalty fines by local authorities	Local councils to retain fixed penalty income	Local authorities retain fixed penalty income	Local authorities retain fixed penalty income	Local authorities retain fixed penalty income

(Footnotes)

1 House of Lord's private members bill on Dog Control, Lord Redesdale, 2010

2 Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act, 2010

3 Control of Dogs Act, 1986

[1]Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order, 1983

[2]The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order, 1991

[3]Consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation, DARD, 23rd November 2009, page 7

[4]Consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation, DARD, 23rd November 2009, page 7

[5]Consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation, DARD, 23rd November 2009, page 9

[6]Tyrone Courier, 'Pitbulll type' dogs kill German Shepherd at popular Cookstown walk, 16th June 2010

[7]Consultation on proposals for changes to dog control legislation, DARD, 23rd November 2009, page 10

[8]PETtrac website

[9]Petlog website

[10]Anibase website

[11]Microchip Advisory Group details, British Small Animal Veterinary Association website

[13]Swift, S, 2000, 'Microchip adverse reactions', Journal of Small Animal Practice, Vol 41, page 232, May 2000

[14]Swift, S, 2000, 'Microchip adverse reactions', Journal of Small Animal Practice, Vol 41, page 232, May 2000

[15]Vascellari,M, 2003, 'Liposarcoma at the site of an implanted microchip in a dog', Veterinary Journal, 168, (2004), pg 188-190

[16]Stray Animal Control Practices (Europe), WSPA and RSPCA Report, 2006

[17]The National Dog Tattoo Register, website

[18]Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act, 2010

[19]House of Lord's private members bill on Dog Control, Lord Redesdale, 2010

[20] Wright JC. Canine aggression toward people: bite scenarios and prevention. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1991;21:299–314.

[21]Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010

[22]The Kennel Club , website, Good Citizen Dog Scheme information

[23]American Dog Owners Association website, 'Vienna, Austria: compulsory testing for owners of certain breeds', 17th May 2010. .

[24]The Times Online, Dog curbs are barking up the wrong tree, 10th March 2010

[25]CWU response to the Dangerous Dogs Public Consultation, June 2010

[26]Dogs Trust website, membership benefits

Public Consultation Notice

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Dogs (Amendment) Bill

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development wish to receive comments on the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill.

A draft copy of the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill has been drawn up by Department of Agriculture and Rural Development – this can be accessed at the web address below:

http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2009/nia20_09.htm

Any organisation or individual with an interest in this matter is invited to submit their comments on specific clauses within the Bill to the Committee, preferably by e-mail, to the address below.

Submissions should be received no later than 5pm Friday 30 July 2010.

The Clerk to the Committee, Room 284, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Ballymiscaw, Belfast BT4 3XX

Tel: 028 9052 1063
E-mail: committee.agriculture@niassembly.gov.uk

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD - 28 October 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Joe Cassells
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 509
Dundonald House
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SB

28 October 2010

Dear Joe

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill

I refer to the above matter.

Please find attached a summary of the Committee's detailed consideration of clauses in respect of the above Bill. Members will continue to debate these matters with the Department at the next meeting, scheduled for 2 November 2010.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development

19.10.10 Clause by Clause Committee Consideration

Committee For Agriculture And Rural Development

Committee Stage Of The Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Consideration of Bill Clauses – 1St Draft – Committee Consideration

Clause	Explanation	Issues	Dard Response	Outcome	Committee Comments
Dog Licenses
Clause 1 - Exemptions	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 2 - Microchipping	This introduces a requirement to have a dog implanted with a microchip before any licence or transfer certificate is issued and empowers the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to make subordinate legislation regulating a system of compulsory microchipping.	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following issues: Legitimacy of the Bill in passing additional responsibilities to local councils. The Committee would wish the Department to take legal advice on this matter; The contribution of compulsory microchipping to reducing the numbers of stray dogs; The linking of microchips to licences and the need for dual systems; The additional resources required to operate duplicated systems; and The need for a central database (preferably one maintained by DARD)
Clause 3- Licensing of Dangerous Dogs	This provides that a district council may licence a dog of a type prohibited by the Dogs Order only if that dog has been exempted from the prohibition in Article 25A(3) of the Dogs Order	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following: Amendment to remove breed specific legislation and make the offence relevant to the deed, not the breed.
Clause 4 - Fees	This amends the Dogs Order to provide for an increase in the fee payable for a dog licence and for certain concessionary rates. It provides for an increase in the fee payable for a block licence (that is, a licence held in respect of three or more dogs kept for breeding, sporting, show or other specified purposes.) It also empowers the Department, with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel, to make subordinate legislation amending the level of fee payable	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration as the implications of having one system (as detailed at Clause 2) would have a major impact on the level or need for fees.
Control Of Dogs
Clause 5 – Contingent Destruction orders where no prosecution	This amends the Dogs Order to provide that, where no person is to be prosecuted for an offence under the Order in respect of a dog seized under Article 25C(1)(a) (that is, a dog of a prohibited type) that dog may be exempted from the prohibition (under strict conditions) provided that a district judge (magistrates court) is satisfied that the dog will not be a danger to the public	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration (as per clause 3)
Clause 6 – Setting on or urging a dog to attack	This amends the Dogs Order to make it an offence to set a dog on or urge it to attack a dog owned by another person, and to make the act of setting a dog on another person or on livestock an offence whether it occurs in a public place or on private property	The Committee would wish the Department make article 28(3)(b), as introduced by clause 6,subject to affirmative resolution rather than negative resolution The Department has also indicated that the Minister might re-examine the issue of extending the restriction in respect of attacks on people, livestock or other dogs
Clause 7 – Attack by dog on a person or another dog	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 8 – Control conditions on dog licenses	This inserts a new Article 30A into the Dogs Order, which enables district council dog wardens to attach certain control conditions to the licence of a dog where the officer has reason to believe that an offence under the Dogs Order has been committed in respect of that dog. A new Article 30B provides that the potential control conditions available to a dog warden under this clause are that the dog concerned should be: securely fitted with a muzzle when in public; kept under control when in public; when not under control, be kept securely confined; be kept from any specified place; or if male, be neutered.	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following matters: written guidance should be agreed and made available to enforcement officers and councils as soon as is possible; and education and training courses should be provided as additional options for control conditions.
	A new Article 30C provides for appeal to a Magistrate's Court against the imposition of any control conditions and a new Article 30D for the right of an owner to request a review by the district council of any control condition. A new Article 30E applies where the keeper of a dog whose licence is subject to control conditions gives or sells the dog to another person, and requires the original keeper not to part with possession of the dog unless he has notified his district council of the intended transfer of ownership of the dog and the name and address of the new keeper. Failure to comply with this requirement will be an offence liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
	The new Article 30 also requires a district council receiving notice of the transfer of ownership of a dog whose licence is subject to control conditions to inform the new owner of that fact and give that new owner any advice it considers appropriate; and, where the new owner resides in the district of another council, to inform that other council of the transfer of the dog into its district. A new Article 30F provides that a breach of any control condition shall be an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale
Clause 9 – Contingent destruction orders on conviction	This clause amends the Dogs Order to provide that, where a person has been convicted of an offence under Article 25A of the Order (that is, breeding or breeding from, selling or exchanging or giving as a gift or having possession of a dog of a prohibited type) and the court is satisfied that the dog concerned will not be a danger to the public, the dog may be exempted under strict conditions	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration (as per clause 3)
Clause 10 – Entry onto land to prevent or end attack by dog on another dog	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Fixed Penalties
Clause 11 – Fixed penalty offences	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 12 – Payment of fixed penalties	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 13 – Use of fixed penalty receipts of council	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 14 – Amount of fixed penalty	This provides for an increase in fixed penalties under the Dogs Order to £50 and empowers the Department to make subordinate legislation amending the level of fixed penalties under the Order	The Committee agreed that this clause required additional consideration in respect of the following matter: aligning the fixed penalty system with that proposed in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill
Clause 15 - Interpretation	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 16 - Minor and consequential amendments and repeals	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 17 - Commencement	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Clause 18 – Short Title	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill
Schedule 1 – Minor and Consequential Amendments	Deferred until formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committtee to DARD - 03 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Joe Cassells
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development
Room 509
Dundonald House
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SB

3 November 2010

Dear Joe

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill – Meeting of 2 November 2010

I refer to the above matter.

The Committee continued its clause by clause consideration of deferred clauses at the meeting yesterday. The Chairperson, Mr Stephen Moutray, advised Members and departmental officials, that the end date for the Committee Stage of the Bill was 29 November 2010 and that substantial and urgent progress would need to be made. The Committee intends to undertake the formal scrutiny of the Bill at the next meeting and would call on the Department to bring any outstanding issues to resolution.

The Committee is concerned that Clause 2 of the Bill represents duplication and will result in significant additional resources being required by local council. In addition, Members do not believe that there is evidence to show that the dual processes of microchipping and licensing will reduce the levels of stray dogs, as irresponsible owners will continue to disregard the legislation and deliberately refuse to either microchip or license. Members are of the view will result in significant resource implications in respect of ratepayers.

The Committee also has concerns on consequential costs to responsible dog owners faced with additional costs for microchipping their dogs. Members have suggested that the initial cost of microchipping could be included within the cost of the licence whilst not only minimises the cost to responsible owners but which may also act as an incentive to others. The Committee has deferred a decision on Clause 2 to allow for further consideration. The Committee has also deferred Clause 4 (Fees) as this is connected to their consideration of the dual processes.

The Committee noted the Department's comments in respect of Clause 3 of the Bill. However, the Committee remains of the view that current legislation on banned types does not work and is resulting in very significant cost having to be borne by local Councils. The Committee has suggested, as in the case of all dogs and not just those currently banned types, control could be exercised by means of applying conditions to the animal (as is the case in the Republic of Ireland). The Committee has deferred a decision on Clauses 3, 5 and 9 to allow for further consideration.

The Committee noted that the Department has agreed to bring forward amendments to Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 14. The Committee would wish to see the text to these amendments as soon as is possible.

A number of other queries are attached in the following templates and I would ask for a response to be forwarded to my office by Monday, 8 November 2010.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Query Sheet

Date of Committee Meeting:	Agenda Item: 3 – Dogs Amendment Bill	Response Required by: noon, 8 November 2010
Query Detail: 1. Can the department advise how many (and which) of the current EU Member states have banned specific breeds? 2. Can the department provide the Committee with accurate details regarding: The total number of stray dogs (by Council area) for the last three years; The total number of stray dogs (by Council area) euthanized over the last three years; The total number of strays (by Council area) re-housed within Northern Ireland over the past three years; The total number of strays (by Council area) exported to either England, Scotland Wales or the Republic of Ireland 3. Can DARD provide documentary evidence from the 26 Councils confirming that they will not require any additional revenues to implement the conditions of this Bill? 4. In the event that the dual processes of microchipping and licensing are in operation following enactment of this Bill, can DARD confirm that a charge will not be levied in respect of the current identification tag? 5. Can the Department confirm that all types of dog, and not just those banned, are capable of inflicting very serious injury to vulnerable people, including children?
Departmental Response: (please attach additional comments to this sheet)
Committee comments:

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committtee to DARD - 10 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Joe Cassells
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 509
Dundonald House
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SB

10 November 2010

Dear Joe

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill – Meeting Of 9 November 2010

I refer to the above matter.

The Committee continued its clause by clause consideration of deferred clauses at the meeting yesterday. The Committee remains concerned in respect of Clause 2 of the Bill and the impact that this will have on local councils. Whilst it was noted that the Department had conferred with council officials, Members indicated that they had received representation from Councillors stating that they did not believe that they had been consulted with sufficiently. In addition, Members are advised that there will be substantial costs in respect of the operation of these processes and that these costs will have to be borne by ratepayers to implement and operate compulsory microchipping as part of a continuing licence system.

Members agreed, therefore, that the Department should make this clause dormant to allow for appropriate consultation with Council Members and to undertake a substantive review of the potential costs of implementing the proposed system. Members also agreed that the enabling power to this dormant clause should also be subject to the affirmative process. The Committee also requests that the Department consider the introduction of an amendment allowing for the compulsory microchipping of new pups reared in breeding establishments. The Committee is mindful that the formal period for consideration of the Bill ends on 29 November and would, therefore, ask that a response on this matter is urgently forwarded to this office in advance of the next meeting.

The Committee agreed to defer Clause 3 until formal scrutiny is undertaken. However, Members remain concerned at the level of legal costs incurred by local councils to enforce this legislation. Members have asked that the Department provide details of the legal costs to Councils for enforcing Breed Specific Legislation since the introduction of the ban and on a per council basis.

Members expressed disappointment that the Department would not consider including the cost of microchipping within the licence fee or provide an option for a lifetime licence. Members have asked that the Department provide an enabling power that will allow for a reduction in the fee if an owner voluntarily microchips their dog. This power would only be exercised whilst clause 2 remains dormant or in the event that compulsory microchipping is not introduced. Again, I would appreciate if the Department could respond to this matter in advance of the next meeting.

The Committee agreed to defer clause 5 – 9 (inclusive) until the formal clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill.

The next meeting to consider the Bill will be on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 at 10:30 in Room 30.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD - 15 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Joe Cassells
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development
Room 509
Dundonald House
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SB

15 November 2010

Dear Joe

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill

I refer to correspondence dated 12 November in respect of the above and would thank the Bill Team for their prompt response.

I would advise that Committee Members are due to hold an informal meeting with a representation of local Councillors on Monday, 15 November 2010 to discuss resourcing implications in respect of this Bill and the Welfare of Animals Bill.

With regards to the Commencement of Clause 2, you have indicated that the Minister would be prepared to provide a commitment that clause 2 would not be "fully commenced" until 12 months after the Bill has passed into law. I would be grateful if you could confirm what elements of clause 2 would not be commenced and how the Department proposes to do this.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD - 17 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Joe Cassells
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development
Room 509
Dundonald House
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SB

17 November 2010

Dear Joe

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill – Meeting of 16 November 2010

I refer to the above meeting.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development completed the formal clause by clause scrutiny of the Dogs Amendment Bill and will consider the first draft of the Bill Report at the meeting scheduled for 23 November 2010. Whilst there is no requirement for witnesses, I would appreciate if representatives of the Bill Team could attend in the Public Gallery in the event that Members require any additional clarification.

The Committee would wish to thank officials for their attendance at Committee in the lead up to and during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Correspondence from Clerk to the Committee to DARD - 24 November 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Joe Cassells
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development
Room 509
Dundonald House
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SB

24 November 2010

Dear Joe

The Dogs (Amendment) Bill – Meeting of 23 November 2010

I refer to the above meeting.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development approved the Report on the Dogs Amendment Bill, agreed that it be laid in the Business Office and ordered it to be printed. This completes the Committee Stage of the Bill.

It is expected that full printed copies will be available for issue on week commencing 6 December 2010. I will, when available, forward copies of the report to you for issue to the Minister and the Board members.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development

Appendix 6

List of Witnesses

Colette McMaster, Grade 5 - Assistant Secretary
(Director of Animal Health and Welfare Policy Division)

John Terrington, Grade 7 - Principal Officer (Head of Dog Control Bill Team)
Martin Mooney, DP - Deputy Principal (Dog Control Bill Team)

Tommy Mayne (Country Officer) BASC NI
Tom Blades (Head of Game Keeping) BASC

Lyall Plant, CEO CAI
Ashley Graham, General Manager, CAI

Victoria Brown, Kennel Club, Public Affairs Officer
Bill Lambert, Kennel Club, Health and Breeder Services Manager

Brian McAuley, NIVA President
Andy Mayne, AVSPNI Junior Vice-President
Des Thompson, Chairman of Board of VetNI

Kieran Doherty – Coleraine Borough Council
Yolanda Elmwood – Belfast City Council
Maureen Briggs – Craigavon Borough Council
Raymond Hamilton – North Down Borough Council

Chris Laurence, Vet NI, Head of Veterinary Division