Mp Calls For Amendments To The Dda

[kola]

Press Release:

 

MP Calls for Amendments to The Dangerous Dogs Act

MP for Carlisle, Eric Martlew, today called for amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act.

 

In response to tragic events in Merseyside in January when a toddler died after being mauled by a dangerous dog, Mr Martlew called representatives from the Metropolitan Police, RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Kennel Club to a meeting of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare* in Parliament. He asked them to advise him on the situation regarding dangerous dogs in England and to comment on the changes that they felt were needed to Dangerous Dogs legislation.

 

Mr. Martlew said:

 

"Concerns about the 1991 Act not only are a problem for dog welfare, they also create a problem in effectively protecting the public. I believe that the Act needs some careful consideration and should be amended as soon as possible to address its problems. The police, the Government and animal welfare groups have been aware of these problems for a long time and now is the time to tackle them. We also need to re-open the index to allow people to allow responsible dog owners, who dogs do not pose a threat, to register their animals. It's vital that we have a record of these dogs. I urge the Minister to act now so we can make the Dangerous Dogs Act work as it should do and we avoid any more tragedies"

 

In a letter to Defra Minister, Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Martlew said that the focus of any prosecution should always be on the action of the dog (and where relevant its owner). It should not be on whether the dog is of a specific breed-type. He outlined several concerns about the 1991 Act.

 

1. It does not cover private land.

 

The 1991 Act does not cover private land and although the Dogs Act 1871 provides for private property, it doesn't address especially dangerous incidents. Mr Martlew believes that future legislation must cover both private and public property.

 

2. The 1991 Act only provides for destruction orders (at the court's discretion).

 

Under the Dogs Act 1871 a court can issue an order on a dog requiring specific action to be taken. This may include muzzling the dog in public or keeping it on a lead. Future legislation should follow this example. It should provide a range of options to magistrates to ensure effective and appropriate control of potentially dangerous dogs.

 

3. There is a serious lack of enforcement of present legislation.

 

This is often due to the complexities of identifying dogs of the types prohibited by section 1 of 1991 Act. Any future legislation should take the useful provisions of both the 1871 and 1991 Acts but also streamline the offence to make it easier to enforce.

 

For further information, please contact Cassie Hague on 07736 899 547 or [email protected].

 

* The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare is a cross-party parliamentary group of over 80 MPs and Peers and over 70 Associate animal welfare organisations, which aims to further the cause of animal welfare by all means available to the Parliaments at Westminster and in Europe. It is Chaired by Eric Martlew MP.

 

 

 

23 Mar 2007