Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

There is a huge range of issues to cover in this group of amendments. I will not even try to touch on them all, but will talk about a few that I am particularly concerned about and have raised on a number of occasions.

This Bill started with pre-legislative scrutiny. It is telling, to me at least, that quite a number of the amendments made in the other place were originally recommended during pre-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps if the Government looked at pre-legislative scrutiny earlier, we might get there somewhat faster. With that in mind, I particularly welcome the changes to the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, or IPNA—the issue that has received perhaps the most attention—in Lords amendments 1 to 5. This is a welcome change, and I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work in getting us to this place.

During the pre-legislative scrutiny, the Home Affairs Select Committee said there was a risk that the provisions could be interpreted as being too broad. The Minister has quite rightly described why some of the stories that were going round—for example, about how carol singing would be prevented—were simply not true but were good debating points. We made it clear that we had real concerns with the provisions as they stood. I am pleased that, as a result of the changes in the other place, we now have something that is much more proportionate. We have moved away from causing nuisance and annoyance in the general sense to something more serious. That is definitely right, because all of us are quite capable, I am sure, of causing nuisance or annoyance to people on various occasions.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Some more than others.

[Dr Huppert]

I hope my hon. Friend would join me in being in the annoying category.

[Richard Fuller]

It would be a club of one.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we go through the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I will not detain the House for long. I want to touch briefly on the dangerous dogs element of the Bill. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of which I am a member published its report on dog control and welfare on 6 February 2013. In that report we recommended that all dog-related issues should be consolidated in a comprehensive Bill. This would pull together the fragmented legislation referring to dog control and welfare and allow us to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where necessary.

Such consolidation is essential because there are yawning gaps in our legislation. Voluntary compliance with guidelines on responsible ownership has proved to be limited and slow, but that is not surprising as there are 8 million dogs in this country—a huge number. The vast majority are well cared-for, kept and controlled, but there are exceptions. Dangerous dogs have killed seven people, five of them children, since 2007. In my own constituency a small child had her eye savaged by a West Highland terrier, but more about that later because there are certain circumstances there which I want the Minister to cover when he responds to the debate. Dangerous dogs have attacked specially trained dogs for the blind, causing untold grief and difficulties—and let us not forget the postmen and postwomen who all too often are assaulted by animals as they deliver our mail.

Irresponsible dog breeders, driven only by greed, run puppy farms where a single bitch can legally produce up to five litters a year. That is not good for the welfare of the bitch or her litter. Subsequent failure to socialise these puppies properly has the potential to create more badly behaved and dangerous dogs.

Under the law as it stands, it has proved impossible to prosecute the owners of vicious dogs if the attack takes place on private property. In such cases it has also frequently proved difficult to prove ownership. The proposals in this Bill include many of the Committee’s recommendations on dog control and welfare, such as compulsory micro-chipping by 2016, stricter oversight of puppy farms, and extending dangerous dogs legislation to private property in clauses 98 and 99, and I wholly endorse them. The tougher sentences in the two amendments in question for those whose dogs attack, injure or kill people or guide dogs for the blind are also necessary and proportionate.

I have just one concern, which I ask the House to consider. If we legislate to allow enforcement agents on to private property to handle or destroy a dangerous dog after an attack, we are impinging on important rights to privacy in our own homes. While I—and, I am sure, the other members of the EFRA Committee—fully endorse the amendments to the current legislation, any new legislation must be careful to protect those rights.

I want to give an example from my constituency, and I hope that the Minister will listen to it, because I would be interested to hear his response. A couple and their four-year-old daughter were invited to a party next door. It was a dog party, and there were several dogs—and several people—there. In the resulting mêlée of people wandering around and having tea, the couple lost sight of their daughter. Suddenly, they heard the most appalling noise. There had been some form of communication with a dog by the girl, but we do not know whether she had poked it in the eye or put her hand in its mouth. Whatever she had done, the dog—a West Highland terrier, which had done no harm at all up till then—responded by leaping up and latching on to the left side of her face. It would not let go, and caused horrific damage to her eye.

I ask the Minister’s guidance on this point. I assume that, under the proposed new law, the lady who owned the dog would face a criminal prosecution. If that is the case, the change in the law will provide a salutary warning to dog owners who keep their dog in their home, as many millions of people do. When the law is passed, they will have to be very careful what they do with their dog when inviting people into their house. I suspect that not many people have even considered the matter up to now. I have two dogs, and I do not think about whether they are going to attack anyone who comes into my house. From now on, however, I am going to have to think carefully. If a child comes into my house, I am going to have to think about whether my dogs could assault that child.

Obviously, it goes without saying that a dog owner must take responsibility for their dog, but I raise this question because I wonder whether the process of the law has been thought through by everyone outside this place. Can the Minister confirm that, if the new law had applied at the time of that incident, the lady in question would not have faced five years in jail, and that the judge would have considered all the facts of the case and perhaps recommended that the dog be put down, with the lady facing no further consequences? Will the Minister also tell us how and when the enforcers would go into the owner’s house in such a case? If a complaint was made, would they go in on the same night to remove the dog, informing the owner that it could either be put down or returned, depending on the result of the ensuing investigation? I ask the Minister to clarify those points if he can.

I assume that if the dog owner were someone with a bad reputation—let us be blunt: if they were well known to the police for breeding properly vicious dogs, rather than West Highland terriers, for ill-gotten gains—the enforcer would simply go into the house and take the appropriate action. That is exactly as it should be. Such a case would be very different from the one that I have described, in which a perfectly innocent lady was going about her business when an appalling accident happened. Yes, that accident could have been avoided if the dog had been locked up, and that is the point that I would like to have clarified. I welcome the Lords amendments to allow people who have dogs on private property to be reached by the law. That is incredibly important, but I would be most grateful if the Minister could comment on the example that I have raised.

[Richard Fuller]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), because I am always better informed after listening to his speeches. I wish to speak to Lords amendment 69, which deals with changes to the penalties relating to attacks by dogs, and I, too, hope that the Minister will respond directly to the points that my hon. Friend and I are raising today.

This amendment originated in the Bill Committee in this House. I, too, thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for supporting the pressure that was put on the Government in Committee to increase the maximum sentence permissible for these offences. We were all appalled by the evidence that the police gave in our evidence sessions, so I am very pleased that Lord de Mauley took forward the Committee’s recommendations, produced this amendment, and obtained the Government’s support and, I hope, that of the whole House.

There have been a number of victims of dangerous dogs. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has made a powerful case on behalf of her constituents who were affected by a dangerous dog, and other hon. Members have done the same on behalf of victims of upsetting cases that resulted in only a minimum sentence. The police told us how difficult it was for them to prosecute under the existing legislation, and Lords amendment 69 gives them the tools they need to deal with the small minority of people that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset was talking about who breed or keep dogs that go out of control, attacking and maiming people. The police will now have the measures to provide the proper prosecution and sentencing through the courts for those people.

The amendment is also an indication of the good work of the trade unions. The Communication Workers Union has run an excellent campaign in support of its members who face the daily risk of attack by a dog. Such attacks can end in injury and be quite severe: they may have a negative psychological effect on postal workers. It is fair to put on the record my support for the CWU and its campaign to bring this legislation to the House.

Although this took place before my time here, I understand that legislating on dangerous dogs is treacherous territory for Governments of whatever party or origin. I hope that this amendment will prove to be an exception to that rule, and I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House today.

[Norman Baker]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to some of the points that have been raised in a very wide-ranging debate. As you will appreciate, we are considering a huge range of disparate measures, so I will do my best to make sense of them. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s general support, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) says, we are not clear whether they are accusing us of being too draconian or too weak in our response to antisocial behaviour. As they are accusing us of both, perhaps we have got it about right.

I know that the Opposition are wedded to the ASBO, but the simple fact is that, although it may have been useful on occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has said—I am not saying it has not—it has generally been a failure. In 2012, the 1,329 ASBOs issued represented a decrease of 68% since 2005. Up to the end of 2012, 58% of ASBOs were breached at least once and 43% were breached more than once. Where ASBOs were breached, they were breached five times on average, and the breach rate for under-18s was 69%. Defending a continuation of that arrangement is not a sensible approach for anyone in this House who is as sensible and concerned as everybody should be, and is, about tackling antisocial behaviour.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) also referred to the use of hotels and other such premises for child sexual exploitation and, in particular, for grooming. She wanted to know how the law stood on that matter. If she looks at Lords amendment 77, she will see that subsection 1(b) of the new clause we propose refers to

“conduct that is preparatory to, or otherwise connected with, child sexual exploitation.”

I believe that provision is sufficiently wide as to provide reasonable grounds for the police to take action.