Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Dogs (Amendment) Bill

Report, together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the
Committee related to the Report and Minutes of Evidence taken
before the Committee on 15 September and 22 September 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT

Appendix1: Minutes of Proceedings relating to the Report

Appendix2: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 15 and 22 September 2000

Appendix 3: Annexes to Minutes of Evidence

Annex A: Submission from the USPCA

Annex B: Submission from the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Reform Group

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development: Membership and Powers

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Assembly Standing Order No 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and has a role in the initiation of legislation. The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The Committee has power:

The membership of the Committee since its establishment on 29 November 1999 has been as follows:

Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr George Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr PJ Bradley
Mr John Dallat*
Mr Boyd Douglas
Mr David Ford
Mr Gardiner Kane
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.

* Mr Dallat replaced Mr Denis Haughey on the latter's appointment as a Junior Minister.

TOP

REPORT 1/00
COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Report on the Dogs (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 7/99)

1.The Committee, on 15 and 22 September 2000, considered the Dogs (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 7/99) that was referred to the Committee for its consideration under Standing Order 31 (1) of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

2.The Committee had before it the Dogs (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 7/99) and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, as introduced.

3.The member in charge of the Bill, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, made the following statement under Section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

"In my view the Dogs (Amendment) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly"

4.The Committee sought and received comments on the provisions contained in the Bill from the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) and the National Canine Defence League (NCDL). The Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association were consulted but offered no comments to the Committee.

5.Officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development appeared before the Committee and were questioned about the provisions of the Bill and about issues raised by the USPCA and NCDL.

6.The Committee gave detailed consideration to the Clauses of the Bill and raised a number of matters with the Department. These were related to:

7.Having considered the Department's responses on these matters the Committee concluded that no amendments were necessary to the Bill.

8.The Committee considers that the provisions of the Bill, as introduced, are sufficient to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain by providing limited discretionary powers for a court or a resident magistrate in relation to the destruction of dogs.

Ian R K Paisley MP MEP MLA
Chairman

TOP

Appendix 1

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE REPORT

FRIDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 2000
ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Dogs (Amendment) Bill - Committee Stage

Present:Dr I R K Paisley (Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr P J Bradley
Mr J Dallat
Mr B Douglas
Mr G Kane
Mr G McHugh
Mr I Paisley Jnr.

The Chairman explained that the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA), the National Canine Defence League (NCDL), the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association (NIAPA) had been consulted about the Bill's provisions. UFU and NIAPA had made a 'nil return' and the USPCA's and NCDL's responses were distributed for members' information.

The Chairman declared the meeting open to the public at 10.55. The DARD Officials Mr Johnston Given and Mrs Margaret Hood were called in and examined.

The Bill was read, clause by clause.

The Committee considered Clause 1 sub-section 1 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 1 sub-section 2 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill subject to consideration by DARD of the need for inclusion of monitoring of the confinement referred to in 1ZA (b) of the sub-section.

The Committee considered Clause 1 sub-section 3 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 1 sub-section 4 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 1 sub-section 5 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 2 sub-section 1 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 2 sub-section 2 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 3 sub-section 1 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 3 sub-section 2 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 3 sub-section 3 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 4 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 5 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Committee considered Clause 6 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman thanked the DARD officials for their input. The officials left the meeting and the Chairman declared the meeting closed to the public at 11.30.

FRIDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2000
IN THE SENATE CHAMBER,
PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Dogs (Amendment) Bill - Committee Stage

Present:Dr I R K Paisley MP MEP MLA (Chairman)
Mr G Savage MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Mr P J Bradley MLA
Mr J Dallat MLA
Mr B Douglas MLA
Mr D Ford MLA
Mr G Kane MLA
Mr G McHugh MLA
Mr I Paisley Jnr. MLA

The Chairman reminded members of the three outstanding issues on which DARD was to provide answers and that all of these related to Clause 1 sub-section 2 of the Bill.

Mr Bradley attended the meeting at 09.45. The Chairman declared the meeting open to the public at 09.45 and the DARD official, Johnston Given of Animal Health Division, was called in and examined.

Following this examination the Committee re-considered Clause 1 sub-section 2 and agreed that it should stand part of the Bill.

Resolved: that no amendments to the Bill would be proposed in the Committee's report.

Mr Given left the meeting at 09.55.

TOP

Appendix 2

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Friday 15 September 2000

Members present:

Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairman)

Mr Savage (Deputy Chairman)

Mr Armstrong

Mr Bradley

Mr Dallat

Mr Douglas

Mr Kane

Mr McHugh

Mr Paisley Jnr

Witnesses:

Mr J Given) Department of Agriculture andRural Development,
Mrs M Hood)

1. The Chairman:

I want to ask a couple of questions before we start so as to lay a foundation. First, there was no consultation about the preparation of this Bill. Secondly, one of our members, Mr Ford - he is away fighting an election - is concerned that there is no definition of "worrying".

Perhaps you could preface your remarks by telling us why this Bill is necessary. What is its prime purpose?

2. Mr Given:

Do you want me to comment on the public consultation?

3. The Chairman:

Yes.

4. Mr Given:

This Bill sat around for a while because of the potential for an Assembly to come on the scene. It was not put into the Westminster process. When the Assembly was set up, we were told to get the Bill into the system quickly. Therefore, by default there was no public consultation.

5. The Chairman:

Our information is that the Northern Ireland Office was keen that it should not go out to public consultation, although it might not be right to say that it was keen for the Assembly to deal with it.

6. Mrs Hood:

It was keen that the Assembly should consider it.

7. The Chairman:

Everyone can make his own judgement on the motivation of the Northern Ireland Office. Anyway, it has come into the mincer here.

Why is this Bill needed?

8. Mr Given:

Let me give the historical context. Dog control here is governed by the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which provides, inter alia, that where a dog has been proven to have attacked people or worried livestock, for it to be destroyed. The courts have no discretion. The 1983 Order was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. This equated to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 passed in Great Britain and provided for certain control measures in relation to dangerous dogs. That did not affect the destruction provisions of the 1983 Order.

In 1997, the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 was passed in Great Britain. That gave the courts a degree of discretion over whether a dangerous dog that had been guilty of an attack should be destroyed. As a result, the situation in Northern Ireland is different from that in Great Britain. The courts here have no discretion. That does not just apply to dangerous dogs; the 1983 Order made it mandatory to destroy any dog that had attacked.

This Bill equates to the 1997 Act. It is necessary to give the courts a measure of discretion so that if certain special circumstances are satisfied, the court has the choice of not having the dog put down.

9. Mr Paisley Jr:

Under the existing legislation, how is "attacked" interpreted?

10. Mr Given:

It includes both physical attack and putting a person in fear of an attack:

"behaving in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked."

If a dog scares you, that can be interpreted as an attack.

11. Mr Paisley Jr:

It could be a growl, or perhaps a dirty look from a dog.

12. Mr Given:

Indeed. If a prosecution were brought, that would be a matter for the court.

13. The Chairman:

We would like you to go through the Bill with us line-by-line.

14. Mr Given:

Clause 1, subsection1 provides for the amendments to article 33 described in subsections 2 to 5.

15. The Chairman:

Let me put that to the Committee.

Clause 1(1) agreed to.

16. Mr Given:

Subsection 2 substitutes three paragraphs for paragraph (1) of article 33. Paragraph (1) said

"Where it appears to a court that a dog has -

(a) attacked any person; or

(b) attacked or killed livestock;

the court shall make an order directing the dog to be destroyed."

The new paragraph (1) would allow the court to make an order directing the dog to be destroyed or to make such an order subject to certain provisions being made to prevent the dog from being a danger to the public or livestock. The second option was not previously available.

The next paragraph outlines the kind of measures that could be included, such as muzzling or confining the dog. The third paragraph offers the Department the opportunity, should it think it desirable, to prescribe the type of muzzle to be used.

17. The Chairman:

Define the term "worried."

18. Mr Given:

That goes back to the 1983 Order.

"Worrying livestock means -

(a) attacking or killing livestock; or

(b) chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause the death of, or injury or suffering to, the livestock or to result in financial loss to the owner of the livestock."

19. The Chairman:

That is a very broad definition. I would be happy with that. Can that be incorporated into the Bill?

20. Mr Given:

It is there.

21. The Chairman:

The definition is still there?

22. Mr Given:

The 1983 Order remains.

23. Mrs Hood:

This is an amendment to the 1983 Order, so that still applies.

24. The Chairman:

I was bamboozled by the fact that it is called a Bill. Bills and Orders are different. If we are retaining the definition from the earlier Order, that is satisfactory.

25. Mr Paisley Jr:

I am concerned about paragraph (2)(1ZA)(b):

"kept confined in a building, shed, yard or other enclosure from which it cannot escape".

The chairman of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has suggested the insertion of the word "monitored", so as the dog would be subject to a monitored confinement. Would that assist the Bill in any way?

26. Mr Given:

The gentleman can only be referring to a district council's being required to monitor a dog's confinement in some way. District councils can already do that, using their enforcement powers under the 1983 Order.

27. Mr Paisley Jr:

So we do not have to legislate for it.

28. Mr Given:

I do not think so.

29. The Chairman:

It would be stronger if it were legislated for. There would be a legislative requirement.

30. Mr Given:

You could put a requirement on the district council. That is one option.

31. The Chairman:

You want an eye kept on the dog so that it can be attested that it is confined.

32. Mr Paisley Jr:

The idea is to guarantee that, if there were a court order on a dog, there would be some monitoring of that dog, perhaps for a specified period.

33. The Chairman:

Would we have to insert the words "monitored by the district council"?

34. Mr Given:

The councils already have legal authority to do that. You want to put a requirement on them to ensure that they do it.

35. Mr Paisley Jr:

I do not want to put in anything superfluous. If a court can already give that order, including those words would be superfluous. At the same time, if we can strengthen it -

36. Mr Given:

Perhaps you would like me to go away and get a legal opinion.

37. The Chairman:

Yes, do that. Subject to that, are we agreed?

Clause 1(2) agreed to.

38. Mr Given:

Subsection 3 takes us in to the area of dangerous dogs. Subsection 3 substitutes a new paragraph for paragraphs (1A) to (2) of article 33 of the 1983 Order. That was previously amended by the addition of two new paragraphs under the 1991 Order:

"(1A) Where a person is convicted of an offence under Article 25A, the court shall make an order directing the dog in respect of which the offence was committed to be destroyed.

(1B) Where a person is convicted of an offence under an order made under Article 25B, the court may make an order directing the dog in respect of which the offence was committed to be destroyed."

The new substituted paragraph would allow a court discretion to satisfy itself that the dog will not in future be a danger to the public, in which case it may decide not to order the destruction of the dog. Those two paragraphs are not concerned with "attacking" as such. They are concerned with technical offences committed by the owner of a dangerous dog insofar as he has not obtained certain licences or he has offered the dog for sale or is breeding from it. It is reasonable that they be amended to allow a court discretion in the matter.

39. The Chairman:

This is the heart of the Bill. Before, a magistrate had no authority but to have the dog taken away or slaughtered. Now he will have discretion. If we get a reference to "monitoring" into the previous subsection, that will strengthen it even more. A court could be satisfied through monitoring.

40. Mr Paisley Jr:

Under the existing legislation, is it the person or the animal who is convicted?

41. Mr Given:

The person is convicted for the offence committed by the animal.

42. Mr Paisley Jr:

Does this affect the person, the animal or both?

43. Mr Given:

The person could be convicted of an offence, and that would include a court's making an order for the destruction of the dog.

44.The Chairman:

A court is allowed to grant the dog exemption from destruction, as long as it is satisfied that the dog will no longer be a danger to the public. The monitoring we discussed earlier should happen when the dog is kept in a consigned area. Will there be any monitoring process to ensure that the dog continues not to pose a threat to the public?

45. Mr Given:

Not as such, unless evidence is brought to the attention of a district council. Once a court has decided that a dog is not a danger to the public, I am not sure how one can see that it continues not to be a danger, unless something is brought to the attention of a council that shows that the dog, which was not a danger to the public, has done something that now makes it a danger to the public.

46. The Chairman:

In England there have been cases where the dog had offended before. I can remember one case where it was said that there had been an incident before, although it was not a serious incident - it did not result in a death - and then a second incident did result in a death. Who is going to do this? Should a continual eye not be kept on a dog that has been before a court? That dog could become a danger to the public if the tendency to stray was within the brute.

47. Mr Given:

If there is no evidence that a dog is not a danger to the public, will monitoring of itself create any further information about its being a danger to the public? Action can only result from somebody's bringing evidence to a district council that a dog has become a danger to the public.

48. The Chairman:

We will leave it there. As long as there is a way. I was thinking of a case where there was some evidence that a dog had bared its teeth or adopted an aggressive posture, but the magistrate was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.

There is no reason to believe that, knowing the depravity of man let alone animals, the dog might not go a step farther the next time. There must be a safeguard, but I take your well-made point, Mr Given: if a dog did not present a danger to the public in the first place, one could not expect an eye to be kept on it forever. I accept that.

Are members content? OK, that is agreed.

Clause 1(3) agreed to.

49. Mr Given:

Subsection 4 is simply a tidying-up exercise in which certain paragraphs are substituted for other paragraphs.

50. The Chairman:

I understand; are members agreed? OK, that is agreed.

Clause 1(4) agreed to.

51. Mr Given:

Subsection 5 substitutes a new paragraph for paragraph 7 of article 33 in order to provide for a convicted person is appealing against conviction. Until the appeal is determined, the dog must be confined. Paragraph 2, subsection 2(b) of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 is now subsumed in clause 1, subsection 3 of the Order, as amended.

Once again, that is effectively a tidying-up exercise in relation to the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983.

52. The Chairman:

Do any members wish to ask questions? If there are no objections, are we agreed that subsection 5 stand part?

53. Members:

Agreed.

Clause 1(5) agreed to.

54. The Chairman:

Do we agree that clause 2 stand part, provided that we have a response in relation to the definition of the "monitoring"?

55. Mr Given:

You are referring to clause 1.

56. Mrs Hood:

Is the whole clause to be subject to monitoring?

57. The Chairman:

Yes. That is right. Is everyone agreed?

58. Members:

Yes.

59. The Chairman:

We will now look at clause 2(1).

60. Mr Given:

Clause 2 deals with the power of a resident magistrate to order the destruction of a dog which has been seized. Under subsection 1 of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, a magistrate must order the destruction of a dangerous dog that has been seized, and he may order the destruction of a dog which has been proscribed as a dangerous dog under article 25B of the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. None, in fact, have ever been proscribed in Northern Ireland.

Article 25C, subsection 3 of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 states that where a dog is seized, et cetera, a resident magistrate may order the destruction of the dog and shall do so if it is one to which article 25A, the dangerous dogs article, applies. Clause 2, subsection 1 of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill proposes that the keeper of a dangerous dog should be able to apply for a certificate of exemption from the requirement to have a dangerous dog destroyed.

The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 enabled the keeper of a dangerous dog, who did not wish to have it destroyed, to apply for exemption from destruction provided that certain specific conditions were met before November 1991. These conditions include notifying the council of: the keeper's name and address; where the dog is kept; and the name, age and gender of the dog. Neutering and identification were also required, as was third-party insurance. The Order also set the level of fee to be paid for the exemption certificate at £12.50. The Dogs (Amendment) Bill now proposes that the keeper of a dangerous dog should be able to apply for exemption from destruction, provided that the certain specific conditions are met, even though the date of 30 November 1991 has passed. It is a second chance and usual practice.

61. The Chairman:

Yes. It is fortunate for you that it did not go to the electric chair sooner. It has the right of appeal.

62. Mr Given:

That is right.

63. The Chairman:

Is there any provision for a follow-up process to ensure that this continues to be the case? Under clause 2, subsection 1(a), a dog may be exempted from destruction by a resident magistrate if, within two months of the Order, the owner complies with the requirement of the court to ensure that the dog no longer presents a threat to the public. That brings us back to monitoring again.

64. Mr Given:

I suppose if it has not come to the attention of the influential in the last nine years, it is unlikely that it is going to come to their attention now. However, if it came to their attention outside the two-month period, it would be a matter for them to take forward to the court with a view to having the dog destroyed. One could not go much further than that.

65. The Chairman:

Therefore they do have the power to carry out the final act.

66. Mr Paisley Jnr:

I would like to look at it from another angle. If a farmer perceives that a dog has been worrying his livestock, and he takes his weapon and shoots that animal, would there be any implications for him under this Bill?

67. Mr Given:

No, not in relation to this Bill. Article 30 of the Dogs Order (Northern Ireland) 1983 gives a defence to a farmer for shooting a dog that he sees worrying his sheep. Even if he believes that the sheep are about to be worried, he can shoot the dog.

68. The Chairman:

Therefore a farmer still has all the powers that he had under the previous Order?

69. Mr Given:

Yes.

70. Mr Savage:

Is there any specific place where such a dog must be shot?

71. Mr Paisley Jnr:

In the head. [Laughter]

72. Mr Savage:

Must it be in the field with the sheep?

73. Mr Given:

The provision says

"It shall be a defence to an action against a person to recover damages in respect of, and to any charge arising out of, the shooting of a dog for that person to prove -

(a) that the dog was worrying or was about to worry livestock and there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b) that the dog had been worrying livestock, had not left the vicinity and was not in the charge of any person and there were no practicable means of ascertaining to whom the dog belonged."

Those paragraphs are

"deemed to have been satisfied if that person believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable grounds for that belief."

74. Mr Chairman:

Mr Savage probably has in mind a situation where a dog worries sheep, runs onto the road and is shot on the road.

75. Mr Given:

The last part states

"shall not confer defence on any person unless he proves that -

(a) the land on which the livestock was was occupied by him or by any person under whose express or implied authority he was acting or was land (including a highway or public path) contiguous to any such land; and

(b) within 48 hours of the shooting of the dog notice of it was given to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the nearest police station to the place where it occurred."

76. The Chairman:

That provision is wide enough to cover the road situation.

77. Mr Kane:

Could the farmer shoot it on his neighbour's land?

78. The Chairman:

No, but the neighbour could say "He had my authority to shoot it".

79. Mr Given:

He could argue that he was acting on behalf of his neighbour.

80. The Chairman:

If I had sheep and my neighbour had sheep, we could come to a mutual agreement that if we saw dogs worrying the sheep we would be at liberty to shoot them. I think one could get out of it that way. However, that provision seems to be pretty wide - it covers the farmer pretty well.

81. Mr Given:

The 1983 Order was made to deal with the worrying of sheep. It was not about people; it was about livestock.

82. Mr McHugh:

Matters become even more complicated when one is dealing with hunting dogs - hounds. I have seen that happening. Owners say that they have a right, and yet the hounds are worrying the sheep.

83. Mr Given:

Well, if any dog were worrying sheep on your land, you would have a right to shoot it, hound or no hound.

84. The Chairman:

It is not the breed of the animal that matters; it is the animal's behaviour.

85. Mr Armstrong:

If the owner were with the dog but not controlling it while it was worrying sheep, how would you stand if you shot the dog in front of its owner?

86. The Chairman:

It is still the same.

87. Mr Given:

You obviously have an argument then. It becomes a matter of opinion, and it ends up in court. Each presents his case, and the outcome is decided by the court.

88. The Chairman:

But under that law, the farmer, on his own ground, has full authority.

89. Mr Given:

It has to be seen that he tried to restrain the dog or chase it away, but if there is nobody about, it is difficult to prove either way.

90. The Chairman:

Have we any other queries? Do we agree that clause 2, subsection 1 stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Clause 2(1) agreed to.

91. Mr Given:

Clause 2(2) simply provides for the date of 30 November 1991 to be replaced by a period of two months within which an owner can apply for exemption following an order for destruction. It is the second-chance business.

92. The Chairman:

What is this thing about the fee?

93. Mrs Hood:

This is under the Exemption Order 1991. For exemption the district council had to be paid £12.50. This lets us make an order for a change in that fee if we wish to do so.

94. Mr Given:

It helps the council to defray administrative expenses in that regard. It is fair enough.

95. The Chairman:

Any other question on that section? No? Do we agree subsection 2 of clause 2 stand part? Agreed.

Clause 2(2) agreed to.

96. Mr Given:

Clause 3 just contains transitional provisions. Subsection 1 provides that the Act would apply to cases still extant under existing legislation. Taken in conjunction with subsection 2, which provides that, where a court has made an order and the dog has not yet been destroyed, the order ceases to have effect, the new provisions offer the opportunity for any person to apply to a court for an order. It is saying that anything which is already in the pipeline and still under consideration may be considered under the new provisions. Subsection 3 is the same: if a resident magistrate has made an order under the old legislation and the dog has not been destroyed, he may then make an order for the dog to be treated under new legislation.

97. The Chairman:

Anybody want to make any comment on that? Is it agreed that clause 3, subsections 1, 2 and 3 should pass? All agreed?

Clause 3(1), (2) and (3) agreed to.

98. Mr Given:

Clause 4 again is a tidying up exercise. Because of the way this is framed, article 5 of the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order, 1991 that is about destruction of dogs. It is no longer necessary.

99. The Chairman:

Are we agreed that clause 4 stand part of the bill? Agreed.

Clause 4 agreed to.

100. Mr Given:

Clause 5 simply provides for the legislation to come into effect two months after the date of Royal assent.

101. The Chairman:

Are we agreed that clause 5 stand part?

Clause 5 agreed to.

Short title: clause 6. Are we agreed that clause 6 stand part? Agreed.

Clause 6 agreed to.

We will ask you back on another date to give us information about monitoring. Thank you very much for your attendance today.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Friday 22 September 2000

Members present:

Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairman)

Mr Savage (Deputy Chairman)

Mr Bradley

Mr Dallat

Mr Douglas

Mr Ford

Mr Kane

Mr McHugh

Mr Paisley Jnr

Witnesses:

Mr Johnston Given,Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

102. The Chairman:

Welcome back, Mr Given. There are a couple of matters that we need to deal with. The first is the suggestion that the word "confinement" should be replaced with the words "monitored confinement". We would like to hear your observations on that.

103. Mr Given:

As I recall, that proposal was put forward by the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA). It has since come forward with a further suggestion. Generally, having spoken with the legal people, we consider, in principle, that it would be better to provide the court with maximum flexibility within the measures already specified, rather than to add the piece about confinement. Apart from that, we understand what the USPCA is trying to achieve, but this is not a welfare Bill. The owner of the dog has a general duty of care in the same way as any other dog owner. To that extent we believe that he should not be singled out for special treatment. If there is a welfare problem, then it is for the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the USPCA to deal with it - as they would for any dog owner. For those reasons we would not recommend taking the amendment on board.

104. The Chairman:

I think that "confinement" just stands as it is, and the powers that be must make their own interpretation of "confinement". "Monitored confinement" would be very wide, and somebody would always have to be with that dog.

105. Mr Given:

The term "building" is used. It could be that the dwelling house could be regarded as a place of confinement.

106. The Chairman:

Are we happy enough about that? All right, agreed. Now, clause 2. There are two further issues.

107. Mr Given:

Yes, I have been made aware of those.

108. The Chairman:

What are your comments?

109. Mr Given:

Much the same. It is suggested that after where it says that the dog should be muzzled permanently, the words "when in a public place" should be inserted. We think that would be counter-productive for the reason that it could place in jeopardy legitimate visitors to the person's premises. In other words, the milkman and the postman would, in theory, be at risk if the dog were not, in law at least, muzzled in all places. In practice, I am sure that it would not be muzzled while on the owner's premises, but at least under the wording as it stands he would be responsible if somebody was bitten while coming onto his premises. That would be a key point to be considered.

110. The Chairman:

I agree with that.

111. Mr Given:

I am sure that on anybody's premises the dog is not going to be muzzled all the time. He would have to be fed for one thing.

112. The Chairman:

Are members agreed on that? Right. We have another - (1ZA) (d).

"It appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered." That would be more accurate than what you have put in the Bill.

113. Mr Given:

We consider the words to be superfluous on the grounds that the reason for making a court order to have the dog neutered would be to make it less dangerous. Therefore the words do not need to be there. Lawyers are very reluctant to put in words that, in their view, are not necessary. My recommendation is that none of these suggestions be taken.

114. The Chairman:

You are saying that the reason for having this operation is to make the dog less dangerous. Therefore to say "it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered" is unnecessary - the fact is it would be less dangerous if neutered.

115. Mr Given:

Yes, because the purpose of the order to neuter is to make the dog less dangerous, so the magistrate would have to accept that fact before he made that particular order.

116. The Chairman:

In law it is far better to have clear lines of demarcation and not to be arguing over words. I think it will be clear. Has the Committee any objections to that?

117. Mr Savage:

I have no objections, but I had an Alsatian bitch that was neutered. It never got cross until it had that operation.

118. The Chairman:

What was that - a female? But this is to do with a male.

119. Mr Savage:

I know, but I am just drawing a comparison here. She never got cross until she had the operation.

120. Mr Given:

The reason for neutering male dogs is that it is assumed that neutering will make the male dog less aggressive, but it will not necessarily do that to the female dog - it will simply destroy its reproduction system.

121. Mr Savage:

I am just drawing a comparison.

122. The Chairman:

I need to move from the Chair that clause 1 stands part as it is before us. All in favour?

123. Members:

Yes.

124. The Chairman:

Agreed. The Committee Stage of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill is finalised. It will go to the Assembly for its final reading. Thank you for helping us through the first part so expeditiously. We are very grateful.

TOP

Appendix 3

ANNEXES TO MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

ANNEX A

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: USPCA

12 September 2000

The USPCA is in agreement with the draft legislation wording for the amendment to the above Bill, however on one item, we would submit the following addition.

Page 1 paragraph 15(b) "kept confined in a building, shed, yard, or other enclosure from which it cannot escape" to read

kept in monitored confinement in a building, shed, yard or other enclosure etc.

That would be our only addition.

Please keep in touch with me as regards the passage of this legislation through the Assembly and when it will be presented.

Thank you.

Vivien Grainger

TOP

ANNEX B

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991 REFORM GROUP

14 September 2000

Thank you, on behalf of NCDL and the members of the DDA Reform Group, listed below, for giving us the opportunity to comment on the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2000. In so doing, I have referred to the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 as all are relevant.

Specifically, and referring to the proposed Bill:-

Page 1 Article (1ZA) (a) implies that the dog should be permanently muzzled.

We would prefer the words "when in a public place" to be inserted after "muzzle".

Page 1 Article (1ZA) (d).The words of the 1997 Amendment Act, "if it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered" would appear to us to be preferable and less insulting to the intelligence of the court.

Thank you for sending me N.I. 21, which has clarified in my mind a number of issues, not least that N.I. 21 included additions 25A, B and C to N.I. 8, of which I did not have an up to date copy. My comments, therefore, are confined to just the two. I have no quarrel with the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which is fine.

We are certainly grateful to the N.I. Assembly for bringing Northern Ireland into line with the 1997 Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act, but would have to add that, although we achieved a significant victory in the lifting of the mandatory destruction of dogs, there are other major concerns with the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act that need addressing. We are not in favour of breed specific legislation, as that is not a cure all measure to responsible dog ownership and has led to many innocent dogs and owners being subjected to the full majesty of the criminal law. Other changes to the law we continue to seek are the reversal of the burden of proof (N.I. 8 25A (9) refers), and the ability of an owner freely to visit his dog when seized under N.I. 8 25 C, and his right to apply to the courts for his dog to be bailed pending a court case.

Paul Devile, BVetMed, MRCVS
Chairman

Advocates for Animals All-Party Parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare Association of British Dogs Homes Barnet Association of Responsible Dogs Owners
The Blue Cross British Small Animal Veterinary Association British Veterinary Association Trevor Cooper (Solicitor) Earthkind Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue Viscount Falkland The 'Fury' Defence Fund Roger Gale MP Sarah Harris (Barrister of Law) Chartered Institute of Environment Health International Fund for Animal Welfare The Kennel Club (Observer Status) Terry Lewis M P National Canine Defence League National Dog Wardens Association Janet Payne (Observer) Pet Advisory Committee Anthony Pickford (Barrister of Law) PRO Dogs Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The Lord Soulsby Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Council UKRCB Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Baroness Wharton Wood Green Animal Shelter

TOP

Email: info.office@niassembly.gov.uk

29. The Chairman:

It would be stronger if it were legislated for. There would be a legislative requirement.

30. Mr Given:

You could put a requirement on the district council. That is one option.

31. The Chairman:

You want an eye kept on the dog so that it can be attested that it is confined.

32. Mr Paisley Jr:

The idea is to guarantee that, if there were a court order on a dog, there would be some monitoring of that dog, perhaps for a specified period.

33. The Chairman:

Would we have to insert the words "monitored by the district council"?

34. Mr Given:

The councils already have legal authority to do that. You want to put a requirement on them to ensure that they do it.

35. Mr Paisley Jr:

I do not want to put in anything superfluous. If a court can already give that order, including those words would be superfluous. At the same time, if we can strengthen it -

36. Mr Given:

Perhaps you would like me to go away and get a legal opinion.

37. The Chairman:

Yes, do that. Subject to that, are we agreed?

Clause 1(2) agreed to.

38. Mr Given:

Subsection 3 takes us in to the area of dangerous dogs. Subsection 3 substitutes a new paragraph for paragraphs (1A) to (2) of article 33 of the 1983 Order. That was previously amended by the addition of two new paragraphs under the 1991 Order:

"(1A) Where a person is convicted of an offence under Article 25A, the court shall make an order directing the dog in respect of which the offence was committed to be destroyed.

(1B) Where a person is convicted of an offence under an order made under Article 25B, the court may make an order directing the dog in respect of which the offence was committed to be destroyed."

The new substituted paragraph would allow a court discretion to satisfy itself that the dog will not in future be a danger to the public, in which case it may decide not to order the destruction of the dog. Those two paragraphs are not concerned with "attacking" as such. They are concerned with technical offences committed by the owner of a dangerous dog insofar as he has not obtained certain licences or he has offered the dog for sale or is breeding from it. It is reasonable that they be amended to allow a court discretion in the matter.

39. The Chairman:

This is the heart of the Bill. Before, a magistrate had no authority but to have the dog taken away or slaughtered. Now he will have discretion. If we get a reference to "monitoring" into the previous subsection, that will strengthen it even more. A court could be satisfied through monitoring.

40. Mr Paisley Jr:

Under the existing legislation, is it the person or the animal who is convicted?

41. Mr Given:

The person is convicted for the offence committed by the animal.

42. Mr Paisley Jr:

Does this affect the person, the animal or both?

43. Mr Given:

The person could be convicted of an offence, and that would include a court's making an order for the destruction of the dog.

44.The Chairman:

A court is allowed to grant the dog exemption from destruction, as long as it is satisfied that the dog will no longer be a danger to the public. The monitoring we discussed earlier should happen when the dog is kept in a consigned area. Will there be any monitoring process to ensure that the dog continues not to pose a threat to the public?

45. Mr Given:

Not as such, unless evidence is brought to the attention of a district council. Once a court has decided that a dog is not a danger to the public, I am not sure how one can see that it continues not to be a danger, unless something is brought to the attention of a council that shows that the dog, which was not a danger to the public, has done something that now makes it a danger to the public.

46. The Chairman:

In England there have been cases where the dog had offended before. I can remember one case where it was said that there had been an incident before, although it was not a serious incident - it did not result in a death - and then a second incident did result in a death. Who is going to do this? Should a continual eye not be kept on a dog that has been before a court? That dog could become a danger to the public if the tendency to stray was within the brute.

47. Mr Given:

If there is no evidence that a dog is not a danger to the public, will monitoring of itself create any further information about its being a danger to the public? Action can only result from somebody's bringing evidence to a district council that a dog has become a danger to the public.

48. The Chairman:

We will leave it there. As long as there is a way. I was thinking of a case where there was some evidence that a dog had bared its teeth or adopted an aggressive posture, but the magistrate was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.

There is no reason to believe that, knowing the depravity of man let alone animals, the dog might not go a step farther the next time. There must be a safeguard, but I take your well-made point, Mr Given: if a dog did not present a danger to the public in the first place, one could not expect an eye to be kept on it forever. I accept that.

Are members content? OK, that is agreed.

Clause 1(3) agreed to.

49. Mr Given:

Subsection 4 is simply a tidying-up exercise in which certain paragraphs are substituted for other paragraphs.

50. The Chairman:

I understand; are members agreed? OK, that is agreed.

Clause 1(4) agreed to.

51. Mr Given:

Subsection 5 substitutes a new paragraph for paragraph 7 of article 33 in order to provide for a convicted person is appealing against conviction. Until the appeal is determined, the dog must be confined. Paragraph 2, subsection 2(b) of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 is now subsumed in clause 1, subsection 3 of the Order, as amended.

Once again, that is effectively a tidying-up exercise in relation to the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983.

52. The Chairman:

Do any members wish to ask questions? If there are no objections, are we agreed that subsection 5 stand part?

53. Members:

Agreed.

Clause 1(5) agreed to.

54. The Chairman:

Do we agree that clause 2 stand part, provided that we have a response in relation to the definition of the "monitoring"?

55. Mr Given:

You are referring to clause 1.

56. Mrs Hood:

Is the whole clause to be subject to monitoring?

57. The Chairman:

Yes. That is right. Is everyone agreed?

58. Members:

Yes.

59. The Chairman:

We will now look at clause 2(1).

60. Mr Given:

Clause 2 deals with the power of a resident magistrate to order the destruction of a dog which has been seized. Under subsection 1 of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, a magistrate must order the destruction of a dangerous dog that has been seized, and he may order the destruction of a dog which has been proscribed as a dangerous dog under article 25B of the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. None, in fact, have ever been proscribed in Northern Ireland.

Article 25C, subsection 3 of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 states that where a dog is seized, et cetera, a resident magistrate may order the destruction of the dog and shall do so if it is one to which article 25A, the dangerous dogs article, applies. Clause 2, subsection 1 of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill proposes that the keeper of a dangerous dog should be able to apply for a certificate of exemption from the requirement to have a dangerous dog destroyed.

The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 enabled the keeper of a dangerous dog, who did not wish to have it destroyed, to apply for exemption from destruction provided that certain specific conditions were met before November 1991. These conditions include notifying the council of: the keeper's name and address; where the dog is kept; and the name, age and gender of the dog. Neutering and identification were also required, as was third-party insurance. The Order also set the level of fee to be paid for the exemption certificate at £12.50. The Dogs (Amendment) Bill now proposes that the keeper of a dangerous dog should be able to apply for exemption from destruction, provided that the certain specific conditions are met, even though the date of 30 November 1991 has passed. It is a second chance and usual practice.

61. The Chairman:

Yes. It is fortunate for you that it did not go to the electric chair sooner. It has the right of appeal.

62. Mr Given:

That is right.

63. The Chairman:

Is there any provision for a follow-up process to ensure that this continues to be the case? Under clause 2, subsection 1(a), a dog may be exempted from destruction by a resident magistrate if, within two months of the Order, the owner complies with the requirement of the court to ensure that the dog no longer presents a threat to the public. That brings us back to monitoring again.

64. Mr Given:

I suppose if it has not come to the attention of the influential in the last nine years, it is unlikely that it is going to come to their attention now. However, if it came to their attention outside the two-month period, it would be a matter for them to take forward to the court with a view to having the dog destroyed. One could not go much further than that.

65. The Chairman:

Therefore they do have the power to carry out the final act.

66. Mr Paisley Jnr:

I would like to look at it from another angle. If a farmer perceives that a dog has been worrying his livestock, and he takes his weapon and shoots that animal, would there be any implications for him under this Bill?

67. Mr Given:

No, not in relation to this Bill. Article 30 of the Dogs Order (Northern Ireland) 1983 gives a defence to a farmer for shooting a dog that he sees worrying his sheep. Even if he believes that the sheep are about to be worried, he can shoot the dog.

68. The Chairman:

Therefore a farmer still has all the powers that he had under the previous Order?

69. Mr Given:

Yes.

70. Mr Savage:

Is there any specific place where such a dog must be shot?

71. Mr Paisley Jnr:

In the head. [Laughter]

72. Mr Savage:

Must it be in the field with the sheep?

73. Mr Given:

The provision says

"It shall be a defence to an action against a person to recover damages in respect of, and to any charge arising out of, the shooting of a dog for that person to prove -

(a) that the dog was worrying or was about to worry livestock and there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b) that the dog had been worrying livestock, had not left the vicinity and was not in the charge of any person and there were no practicable means of ascertaining to whom the dog belonged."

Those paragraphs are

"deemed to have been satisfied if that person believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable grounds for that belief."

74. Mr Chairman:

Mr Savage probably has in mind a situation where a dog worries sheep, runs onto the road and is shot on the road.

75. Mr Given:

The last part states

"shall not confer defence on any person unless he proves that -

(a) the land on which the livestock was was occupied by him or by any person under whose express or implied authority he was acting or was land (including a highway or public path) contiguous to any such land; and

(b) within 48 hours of the shooting of the dog notice of it was given to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the nearest police station to the place where it occurred."

76. The Chairman:

That provision is wide enough to cover the road situation.

77. Mr Kane:

Could the farmer shoot it on his neighbour's land?

78. The Chairman:

No, but the neighbour could say "He had my authority to shoot it".

79. Mr Given:

He could argue that he was acting on behalf of his neighbour.

80. The Chairman:

If I had sheep and my neighbour had sheep, we could come to a mutual agreement that if we saw dogs worrying the sheep we would be at liberty to shoot them. I think one could get out of it that way. However, that provision seems to be pretty wide - it covers the farmer pretty well.

81. Mr Given:

The 1983 Order was made to deal with the worrying of sheep. It was not about people; it was about livestock.

82. Mr McHugh:

Matters become even more complicated when one is dealing with hunting dogs - hounds. I have seen that happening. Owners say that they have a right, and yet the hounds are worrying the sheep.

83. Mr Given:

Well, if any dog were worrying sheep on your land, you would have a right to shoot it, hound or no hound.

84. The Chairman:

It is not the breed of the animal that matters; it is the animal's behaviour.

85. Mr Armstrong:

If the owner were with the dog but not controlling it while it was worrying sheep, how would you stand if you shot the dog in front of its owner?

86. The Chairman:

It is still the same.

87. Mr Given:

You obviously have an argument then. It becomes a matter of opinion, and it ends up in court. Each presents his case, and the outcome is decided by the court.

88. The Chairman:

But under that law, the farmer, on his own ground, has full authority.

89. Mr Given:

It has to be seen that he tried to restrain the dog or chase it away, but if there is nobody about, it is difficult to prove either way.

90. The Chairman:

Have we any other queries? Do we agree that clause 2, subsection 1 stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Clause 2(1) agreed to.

91. Mr Given:

Clause 2(2) simply provides for the date of 30 November 1991 to be replaced by a period of two months within which an owner can apply for exemption following an order for destruction. It is the second-chance business.

92. The Chairman:

What is this thing about the fee?

93. Mrs Hood:

This is under the Exemption Order 1991. For exemption the district council had to be paid £12.50. This lets us make an order for a change in that fee if we wish to do so.

94. Mr Given:

It helps the council to defray administrative expenses in that regard. It is fair enough.

95. The Chairman:

Any other question on that section? No? Do we agree subsection 2 of clause 2 stand part? Agreed.

Clause 2(2) agreed to.

96. Mr Given:

Clause 3 just contains transitional provisions. Subsection 1 provides that the Act would apply to cases still extant under existing legislation. Taken in conjunction with subsection 2, which provides that, where a court has made an order and the dog has not yet been destroyed, the order ceases to have effect, the new provisions offer the opportunity for any person to apply to a court for an order. It is saying that anything which is already in the pipeline and still under consideration may be considered under the new provisions. Subsection 3 is the same: if a resident magistrate has made an order under the old legislation and the dog has not been destroyed, he may then make an order for the dog to be treated under new legislation.

97. The Chairman:

Anybody want to make any comment on that? Is it agreed that clause 3, subsections 1, 2 and 3 should pass? All agreed?

Clause 3(1), (2) and (3) agreed to.

98. Mr Given:

Clause 4 again is a tidying up exercise. Because of the way this is framed, article 5 of the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order, 1991 that is about destruction of dogs. It is no longer necessary.

99. The Chairman:

Are we agreed that clause 4 stand part of the bill? Agreed.

Clause 4 agreed to.

100. Mr Given:

Clause 5 simply provides for the legislation to come into effect two months after the date of Royal assent.

101. The Chairman:

Are we agreed that clause 5 stand part?

Clause 5 agreed to.

Short title: clause 6. Are we agreed that clause 6 stand part? Agreed.

Clause 6 agreed to.

We will ask you back on another date to give us information about monitoring. Thank you very much for your attendance today.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Friday 22 September 2000

Members present:

Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairman)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Ford
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr

Witnesses:

Mr Johnston Given,Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

102. The Chairman:

Welcome back, Mr Given. There are a couple of matters that we need to deal with. The first is the suggestion that the word "confinement" should be replaced with the words "monitored confinement". We would like to hear your observations on that.

103. Mr Given:

As I recall, that proposal was put forward by the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA). It has since come forward with a further suggestion. Generally, having spoken with the legal people, we consider, in principle, that it would be better to provide the court with maximum flexibility within the measures already specified, rather than to add the piece about confinement. Apart from that, we understand what the USPCA is trying to achieve, but this is not a welfare Bill. The owner of the dog has a general duty of care in the same way as any other dog owner. To that extent we believe that he should not be singled out for special treatment. If there is a welfare problem, then it is for the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the USPCA to deal with it - as they would for any dog owner. For those reasons we would not recommend taking the amendment on board.

104. The Chairman:

I think that "confinement" just stands as it is, and the powers that be must make their own interpretation of "confinement". "Monitored confinement" would be very wide, and somebody would always have to be with that dog.

105. Mr Given:

The term "building" is used. It could be that the dwelling house could be regarded as a place of confinement.

106. The Chairman:

Are we happy enough about that? All right, agreed. Now, clause 2. There are two further issues.

107. Mr Given:

Yes, I have been made aware of those.

108. The Chairman:

What are your comments?

109. Mr Given:

Much the same. It is suggested that after where it says that the dog should be muzzled permanently, the words "when in a public place" should be inserted. We think that would be counter-productive for the reason that it could place in jeopardy legitimate visitors to the person's premises. In other words, the milkman and the postman would, in theory, be at risk if the dog were not, in law at least, muzzled in all places. In practice, I am sure that it would not be muzzled while on the owner's premises, but at least under the wording as it stands he would be responsible if somebody was bitten while coming onto his premises. That would be a key point to be considered.

110. The Chairman:

I agree with that.

111. Mr Given:

I am sure that on anybody's premises the dog is not going to be muzzled all the time. He would have to be fed for one thing.

112. The Chairman:

Are members agreed on that? Right. We have another - (1ZA) (d).

"It appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered." That would be more accurate than what you have put in the Bill.

113. Mr Given:

We consider the words to be superfluous on the grounds that the reason for making a court order to have the dog neutered would be to make it less dangerous. Therefore the words do not need to be there. Lawyers are very reluctant to put in words that, in their view, are not necessary. My recommendation is that none of these suggestions be taken.

114. The Chairman:

You are saying that the reason for having this operation is to make the dog less dangerous. Therefore to say "it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered" is unnecessary - the fact is it would be less dangerous if neutered.

115. Mr Given:

Yes, because the purpose of the order to neuter is to make the dog less dangerous, so the magistrate would have to accept that fact before he made that particular order.

116. The Chairman:

In law it is far better to have clear lines of demarcation and not to be arguing over words. I think it will be clear. Has the Committee any objections to that?

117. Mr Savage:

I have no objections, but I had an Alsatian bitch that was neutered. It never got cross until it had that operation.

118. The Chairman:

What was that - a female? But this is to do with a male.

119. Mr Savage:

I know, but I am just drawing a comparison here. She never got cross until she had the operation.

120. Mr Given:

The reason for neutering male dogs is that it is assumed that neutering will make the male dog less aggressive, but it will not necessarily do that to the female dog - it will simply destroy its reproduction system.

121. Mr Savage:

I am just drawing a comparison.

122. The Chairman:

I need to move from the Chair that clause 1 stands part as it is before us. All in favour?

123. Members:

Yes.

124. The Chairman:

Agreed. The Committee Stage of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill is finalised. It will go to the Assembly for its final reading. Thank you for helping us through the first part so expeditiously. We are very grateful.

TOP

Appendix 3

ANNEXES TO MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

ANNEX A

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: USPCA

12 September 2000

The USPCA is in agreement with the draft legislation wording for the amendment to the above Bill, however on one item, we would submit the following addition.

Page 1 paragraph 15(b) "kept confined in a building, shed, yard, or other enclosure from which it cannot escape" to read

kept in monitored confinement in a building, shed, yard or other enclosure etc.

That would be our only addition.

Please keep in touch with me as regards the passage of this legislation through the Assembly and when it will be presented.

Thank you.

Vivien Grainger

TOP

ANNEX B

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991 REFORM GROUP

14 September 2000

Thank you, on behalf of NCDL and the members of the DDA Reform Group, listed below, for giving us the opportunity to comment on the proposed Dogs (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2000. In so doing, I have referred to the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 as all are relevant.

Specifically, and referring to the proposed Bill:-

Page 1 Article (1ZA) (a) implies that the dog should be permanently muzzled.

We would prefer the words "when in a public place" to be inserted after "muzzle".

Page 1 Article (1ZA) (d).The words of the 1997 Amendment Act, "if it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered" would appear to us to be preferable and less insulting to the intelligence of the court.

Thank you for sending me N.I. 21, which has clarified in my mind a number of issues, not least that N.I. 21 included additions 25A, B and C to N.I. 8, of which I did not have an up to date copy. My comments, therefore, are confined to just the two. I have no quarrel with the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which is fine.

We are certainly grateful to the N.I. Assembly for bringing Northern Ireland into line with the 1997 Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act, but would have to add that, although we achieved a significant victory in the lifting of the mandatory destruction of dogs, there are other major concerns with the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act that need addressing. We are not in favour of breed specific legislation, as that is not a cure all measure to responsible dog ownership and has led to many innocent dogs and owners being subjected to the full majesty of the criminal law. Other changes to the law we continue to seek are the reversal of the burden of proof (N.I. 8 25A (9) refers), and the ability of an owner freely to visit his dog when seized under N.I. 8 25 C, and his right to apply to the courts for his dog to be bailed pending a court case.

Paul Devile, BVetMed, MRCVS
Chairman


Advocates for Animals All-Party Parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare Association of British Dogs Homes Barnet Association of Responsible Dogs Owners
The Blue Cross British Small Animal Veterinary Association British Veterinary Association Trevor Cooper (Solicitor) Earthkind
Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue Viscount Falkland The 'Fury' Defence Fund Roger Gale MP Sarah Harris (Barrister of Law)
Chartered Institute of Environment Health International Fund for Animal Welfare The Kennel Club (Observer Status) Terry Lewis M P
National Canine Defence League National Dog Wardens Association Janet Payne (Observer) Pet Advisory Committee Anthony Pickford (Barrister of Law)
PRO Dogs Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The Lord Soulsby Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Council
UKRCB Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Baroness Wharton Wood Green Animal Shelter

TOP