Second Reading

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a huge privilege, having already had the pleasure of guiding my Pet Abduction Bill through the Commons this Session, to have the opportunity to debate my other private Member’s Bill, which I first introduced in the previous Session. This Bill, as the Minister knows, would amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog, and would impose criminal liability if they fail to take reasonable steps and their dog fatally injures another dog. That is to plug a gap in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that was painfully brought to my attention, which I will come on to. Before I go any further though, I thank the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, so ably led by Lorraine and Chris Platt, for all its help in getting the Bill as far as we have today.

We all know that we are a nation of dog lovers. There are now some 12 million dogs in the UK; that is more than the populations of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire combined, and then doubled. That works out to nearly half of all households in the UK having a dog. And we all know how loved our dogs are; we only have to look at the excitements of the Westminster dog of the year competition to see that. Indeed, as the House well knows, my cavapoochon, Lottie, is a much-loved member of our family. Companionship is the most common reason for having a dog and that was absolutely the case for my constituent Michael.

Michael was one of the first constituents who ever came to see me—in fact, he came to see me even before I became a Member of this House—and he was so distressed and in such anguish that it was a pleasure to take up his cause. Michael had a friend called Emily, who sadly died, and he adopted her beautiful white fluffy bichon frisé bitch, Millie, both to keep him company and to help him to grieve his friend, Emily. However, around two and a half years ago, Millie was savagely attacked by an off-lead, out-of-control dog while Michael was walking her through the rose garden in Chalkwell Park in Leigh-on-Sea.

Michael remembers the attack as if it were yesterday. It was like watching a horror movie. He described how the dog came at Millie like a missile, even though Millie was on the lead, and

“shook her like a rag-doll.”

Poor Michael watched, helpless, as Millie was literally torn apart. After the attack, the best he could do was carry her to the nearest vet’s, all the while bleeding and with serious open wounds to her abdomen. To add insult to injury, the owner of the dog that attacked Millie refused to take any responsibility for the attack, refusing to pay the vet’s Bills for euthanasia.

No owner or dog should have to go through what Michael and Millie went through, and Michael is devastated and scarred by that experience even to this day. Obviously, he reported the matter to the police, but he was told there was nothing they could do because the incident was dog on dog and no human had been injured. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that dog-on-dog attacks are becoming more commonplace; I am sure you have seen the extensive reports in the media and we only have to google “dog-on-dog attacks” to see a long list of news reports. Just this month, on 9 May, a couple was featured after their dog was so savagely attacked that they were hit with a staggering £23,000 vet’s bill for its treatment.

The loophole in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is unacceptable and that is why I chose to reintroduce the Bill this Session. I am aware that most presentation Bills never make it on to the statute book, so I am pleased to report to the House that, as a result of the Bill and of my lobbying the Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials have been working with the Crown Prosecution Service to update its prosecution guidance on dog attacks and attacks on other animals. That guidance now makes it explicit that a dog-on-dog attack can be prosecuted under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control.

That is a good step forward, but the keyword is “can” —a lot of things can be prosecuted, but simply are not. I remain concerned primarily because there is no exhaustive definition of what a dog’s being dangerously out of control actually means. For example, those same sentencing guidelines state that

“it does not follow that if the dog causes injury, the dog was dangerously out of control.”

We could therefore have the ludicrous situation where a dog kills another dog and it is not deemed to be dangerously out of control—if, for example, the owner of a dangerous dog deliberately sets it on a neighbour’s dog. Although the updated guidance is a step forward, it does not deal with the problem I seek to address.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is absolutely right. This is about placing responsibility on the owner, not criminalising the dog itself. That is exactly why I am bringing forward this private Member’s Bill.

When I first introduced the Bill, I was contacted by many dog owners up and down the country, who shared heartbreaking tales about the loss of their treasured dogs. Many of them have contacted me again and are delighted that the Bill is being reintroduced today. Let me deal first with the scale of the problem. The Minister knows that, in order to support Michael, I submitted freedom of information requests to all 43 territorial police forces in the UK, asking whether they record dog-on-dog attacks as a separate offence and, if so, how many they have recorded over the last five years. Shockingly, only 14 police forces currently record a dog-a-dog attack as a separate incident. In 2016, they recorded a total of 1,700 dog-on-dog attacks. Five years on, the number had skyrocketed: in 2021, the same 14 police forces recorded 11,559 dog-on-dog attacks—a 700% increase—with a shocking 2,264 in London alone. The true incidence of dog-on-dog attacks is likely to be even higher, because the fact that a police force does not record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences does not mean that they are not happening.

On the current legislative framework, Laws have been strengthened in recent years to protect the public where a dog presents a risk to public safety—whether in public or in private—but it remains the case that a dog owner is not automatically liable for any form of criminal prosecution when their dog fatally injures another, unless the other dog is a guide, assistance or service dog, the dog bites a human, or

“there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person”.

That sounds good—it is an objective test—but it is not universally applied, and the proof of the pudding is what happened in Michael’s case. He was asked whether he wanted to press for some sort of prosecution, but he said that he had not feared for his own safety. It had been clear that the dog was going for the smaller dog, and Michael did not fear that there was a danger to himself at that point. The law does not adequately cover this type of incident, and pet dogs should have the same protection as guide, assistance and service dogs, because the loss that is felt by a family following the death of their beloved companion is the same, if not more.

I agree. That is exactly what this Bill—Emilie’s law—seeks to do. It will close the loophole and deal with this issue as a matter of animal welfare, placing responsibility on the dog owner. It is not about dogs, because dogs have owners. The owners should be responsible.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his Intervention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is about placing responsibility on a dog owner to take all reasonable steps. In that instance, it may be that the farmer has taken all reasonable steps, in which case there would not be liability; if he has not, he would potentially be caught by the Bill.

First, the Bill would criminalise fatal dog-on-dog attacks, extending the same protection to pet dogs that already exists for service, guide and assistance dogs. Secondly, Emilie’s law would empower owners to pursue justice if their beloved pet is brutally attacked, while not demonising any particular breed or creating unhelpful stereotypes around certain breeds of dog. As I have said, the issue is poor ownership. Thirdly, the Bill would encourage responsible dog ownership and animal welfare by placing the responsibility for a fatal dog attack fairly and squarely on the person in charge of the dog, and empowering the police to take action, which will have a deterrent effect, thus encouraging more responsible dog ownership.

It is important to note that the Bill also includes a number of defences for good owners who are not to blame if their dog causes a fatality, such as if the dog that caused the fatal injury was responding to provocation from another animal or human, and the steps taken by the responsible person to prevent the situation from escalating. The point is to keep the onus on owners but ensure that they are dealt with fairly, and not punish them for a situation out of their control. Finally, my Bill would ensure that local police forces record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences, enabling us finally to see the full scale of these offences.

The Bill is about protecting every single dog across the UK. The vast Majority of dog owners are responsible but, for those who are not, there must be consequences. Passing the Bill would make our dogs safer, and it would also make our parks, streets, towns and cities—especially the new city of Southend—safer places for us and our dogs to live, work and visit. Finally, the Bill would send yet another signal to the world that we in the UK take animal welfare seriously, and make us the international exemplar that we all know we are. I have left just a little time, in which I hope to hear from the Minister.

I thank Anna Firth for her work in this important area of policy. We are a nation of dog lovers, as was said earlier, and people in Britain care deeply about animal welfare. The Opposition therefore of course support the Bill. I want to speak briefly in support of it and raise a Constituency case, which is similar to one that she mentioned earlier.

I found the story of Millie and her owner Michael deeply moving. The hon. Lady was right to describe the attack as being like a horror movie. I had a similar case in my constituency of Reading East, where an attack happened in Cintra Park—a local park—and a woman who was walking her beloved pet dog had that dog savaged by a much larger dog, which was well known in that area of the town. Unfortunately, because it was a dog-on-dog attack, there were no powers available to local police to tackle that terrible incident—it was absolutely appalling. The little dog that was attacked had to be taken for surgery and is lucky to have survived.

Therefore, I think the Bill is well researched and the hon. Lady’s points well made. I seek clarification from the Minister on whether dogs that are not killed but severely injured could be protected by the Bill. I hope for good news on that front. In that spirit, may I offer the official Opposition’s support for the Bill? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, with more detail on that point and other related matters. I thank the hon. Lady again for her hard work on this important area of policy.

I must, of course, begin by thanking my hon. Friend Anna Firth for presenting the Bill. She has a commendable record in respect of animal welfare issues and supporting the Government on those issues, and I congratulate her on the success of her Pet Abduction Bill. I also recognise the contribution of all the other Members who have supported the welfare issues that we have discussed. This particular Bill, however, seeks to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person—

The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).

Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 14 June.