The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make the winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes to speak.

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in light of recent revelations about dog fighting in Northern Ireland, and of attacks by dogs on persons and other dogs in recent years, to review the dangerous dogs legislation with a view to providing enhanced protection in terms of both animal welfare and public safety.

My party colleague Naomi Long has campaigned actively throughout the direct rule years on this issue, with a view to strengthening legislation on dangerous dogs. We are glad of the opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the House.

The current legislation stems from the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which applies to the whole of the UK. Its introduction was accompanied by significant tabloid attention, following a series of dog attacks that attracted a great deal of publicity at the time. The Act was supplemented by the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, which gave power to courts and magistrates to order the destruction of dogs.

It is the opinion of dog control professionals that the 1991 Act was something of a rush job; a reaction to events that had not been properly thought through. It concentrated on banning a limited number of breeds of dog, the only one normally found in Northern Ireland being the pit-bull type, which, incidentally, is not a breed, but a cross-breed or a type that is normally crossed with Staffordshire terriers, mastiffs, or even Rottweilers. The other banned breeds are the Japanese tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero; I am glad that I managed to get through those. The Japanese tosa may be present in Northern Ireland; no one is quite sure. It is a cross-bred type of dog, but the other two are unknown here. There is no mention in the 1991 Act of various other, equally dangerous breeds, such as the Japanese Akita, or, for that matter, Rottweilers, Dobermanns or even Alsatians.

Therein lies the first problem: it can be difficult to identify the type of dog, and it is not uncommon for expert witnesses to have to come across from England at considerable expense to support a dog warden’s opinion when there is a dispute about the type of dog involved. The second problem is that many dogs that fall within the pit-bull type description, but which have not been bred for fighting, are friendly and placid dogs. They make great pets, but under the current legislation they are banned and are being seized and destroyed by dog wardens, quite often against the wardens’ own better judgement.

Magistrates in Great Britain have the discretion to deal with situations in different ways. They can order that the dog be neutered, spayed or microchipped, or that it must be muzzled and kept on a lead when it is outside. Furthermore, a magistrate can order that adequate third-party insurance is maintained by the owner. No such discretion is currently available here, and dog wardens have told me about many cases of unnecessary destruction of dogs, simply because they looked like a pit-bull type.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 gives limited powers of entry to dog wardens. If a warden wishes to enter a property, a warrant must be obtained from the court, and even then, entry cannot be forced, making investigations of complaints about the existence of dangerous dogs very difficult.

I acknowledge and commend the long-term animal welfare work of the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA). However, the organisation is hamstrung by its limited powers. The USPCA requires the PSNI to be present when it executes its duties. It has no power in relation to dangerous dogs, unless those dogs are being mistreated. The existence of dog-fighting rings and the breeding of dogs for fighting in Katesbridge and Rosslea, to name but two areas, have been high­lighted recently. USPCA officers investigated those incidents, and, if I may say so, given the nature and mentality of the people who would set one dog on another to fight to the death, they did so at great personal risk, and deserve our highest praise.

However, as the USPCA operates under the animal welfare legislation, it is permitted to remove only dogs that show signs of mistreatment. Healthy looking pit bull terriers, which have presumably not yet been involved in a fight, cannot be taken. They must be referred to the dog wardens for action, with consequent delay and the possibility that the dogs may be removed and as, I have mentioned, the problems of court orders and access.

A further area of difficulty is the lack of effective legislation in the Republic of Ireland. Pit-bull types are not illegal across the border, which makes import and breeding relatively easy in Northern Ireland. Present legislation makes dog attacks on livestock a matter for criminal prosecution, but not an attack, even fatal, by one dog on another. Recently, there have been well-documented examples in Northern Ireland of family pets being savaged by aggressive types, including one in which a Labrador died while protecting a child from attack.

Professionals would like to see a change in the licensing system. Instead of a laborious process of issuing a £5 licence every year, which probably costs £10 to issue, it would be good sense to issue a one-off, lifetime licence. Such a licence would perhaps cost £100 and would include a free microchip. I understand that that could be easily done by local councils and would be quite acceptable to them.

For years, it has been widely accepted that the current legislation is unsatisfactory. My party colleague Naomi Long has campaigned consistently for the strengthening of the law, but the Northern Ireland Office has failed to act. Now that we have a devolved Assembly, I hope that the Chamber will support this opportunity for action. The Alliance Party’s motion is in the form of a request to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to under­take a review involving all interested parties, local councils, the USPCA, the Dogs Trust, the PSNI and vets.

Enhanced protection for the welfare of animals and public safety must be provided. A workable list of dangerous breeds, which notes that some dogs that are not classified as such are potentially a risk to public safety, must be established. Across the UK, 50% of dog bites that are inflicted on humans are inflicted by German shepherds, or Alsatians. Currently, that breed is not formally regarded as a dangerous dog.

By whatever means, the disgusting practice of dog fighting, and breeding dogs solely for that purpose, must be eradicated. A legislative framework must be provided that can enable effective action. Effective cross-border co-operation is needed to, as far as possible, harmonise the law. A licensing system, which is easily administered, and microchipping of all dogs —

I have spoken to the Taoiseach about this matter, and he is aware that the way in which dogs can be brought in from the South of Ireland to the North is very dangerous for us all. The Taoiseach promised me that his Govern­ment would look into the matter, they have now announced that they are doing so and that they will move in that direction. That is to be welcomed; it is at least one step in the right direction.

I am grateful to the First Minister for that clarification. Action on the part of the Irish Government is something that is badly needed.

More attention must be given to the behaviour of dogs and their owners. It is clearly not all down to the dogs. Quite frequently, the owners can encourage their animals to exhibit aggressive behaviour. It is almost a badge of courage to have a dog on a lead that looks, and probably is, ferocious. We must ensure that our children can play without fear of attack, but also that a docile family pet is not condemned purely because of its appearance. I call on the Minister to begin a process of consultation, and I look forward to her response today.

The DUP supports the motion, and we commend the proposer and the seconder for securing the debate today on this important issue.

Dr McCrea, the Chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, regrets that he cannot be present because he is chairing a meeting of that Committee. It was he who pioneered a campaign in the Assembly against dog fighting. He brought the practice to the attention of the Department and asked that it introduce effective legislation. He informed me that he expects the Department to come back to him in early December 2007. The House should take comfort from that, and all Members are looking forward to that day. I commend the motion to the House.

In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, there has been a clear focus on the despicable and illegal activity of dog fighting, which is no longer a secret. Recently, ‘Spotlight’ demonstrated the depth of the problem, and I reiterate my commendation of the BBC for that superb programme. It did a spectacular job, which leaves us to wonder why others could not have done so long ago. The programme demonstrated the BBC’s tenacity, and Members owe a debt of gratitude to the programme’s producers and particularly to the young lady who went to great lengths to expose the practice.

The grey area of differentiation between pit bulls, and pit-bull types, and, for example, Staffordshire bull terriers must be eradicated. Pit bulls and similar dogs are not pets, and I see no reason why anyone would keep them as such, or why the issue is not being dealt with.

The case highlighted on ‘Spotlight’ was not an isolated one. In Dungannon, an underground network managed to make three out of four dogs that had previously been noted vanish mysteriously — a spectacular achievement. I was pleased that the magistrate who heard the case was steadfast and arrived at the right decision. He stopped short of imposing a jail term on the perpetrator only because of a last-minute change of plea to guilty.

Sadly, defence protestations that the individual was only looking after the dog and had no part in dog fighting of any nature, were far from the truth, as the ‘Spotlight’ exposé proved. He was not the only person involved in that dreadful activity but was part of a dog-fighting ring that operated in shady circumstances and made a lucrative income. Many sick-minded individuals consider such brutality to be entertaining but seem not to care that they are creating a potential death trap for the general public.

Dogs are known to be territorial, and protective of those to whom they are faithful. When those character­istics are combined with aggression-enhancing drugs, baiting by other dogs when tethered and heightened training, there is a highly volatile mix of anger. Make no mistake about it: in such circumstances, it would be kinder to the dogs to remove them from their owners. They would shed fewer tears for their dogs than for the loss of cash or the prospect of facing prosecution.

I commend Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council for its clampdown on, and prosecution of, such actions. It is one of few councils, if not the only one, to have gone the distance in tackling the issue of dangerous dogs. Its officials are to be congratulated and commended for the way in which they set about tackling the problem. Council officers operate by carrying out swoops, backed up by the PSNI, because suspects rarely want to admit enforcement officers to their premises, and staff have been subjected to threats. I would have liked to say a great deal more, but my time is up.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When considering the motion, we must take stock of the significant failures in the implementation of existing provisions, including those relating to muzzles, leads and the minimum age limit for handlers. No specific breed of dog is a danger to humans, but certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers, were originally bred to fight other dogs. If such a breed were to attack a human, they would cause serious injury due to their natural aggression and powerful jaws. We must not impose a blanket ban on certain breeds of dogs, as those with no history of aggression will also suffer and be put down. A blanket ban on certain breeds may only succeed in shifting the focus away from owner responsibility.

Any breed of dog can behave well or badly, and a dog’s response to a human is often down to the way in which it has been treated. More often than not, the fault lies with the owner and their irresponsible treatment of the dog. The Humane Society in the United States has dispelled many of the common myths associated with dangerous dogs: the typical perpetrator is usually a family pet, not a stray; the victims are usually children under the age of 10; most bites occur while the dog is leashed, fenced, chained or indoors; and almost half of all attacks occur on the street or on the dog owner’s property.

Over the years, a spate of sensational media reports has focused on two breeds — the pit bull terrier and the Rottweiler. Those breeds can be aggressive, but statistics show that the best predictor of whether a dog will bite is if it has been neutered: an unsterilised male dog is three times more likely to bite than a neutered animal. The other major indicator is whether a dog has been properly socialised and trained. It is not necessarily the breed that makes a dog dangerous, but the attitude of the owner. For example, a well-trained, neutered Rottweiler will probably make a better pet than a poorly socialised Dachshund. There will always be good and bad dogs among any breeds, and it is impossible to ban all dogs that have the potential to bite. However, it is important to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly.

Sinn Féin promotes an approach to dangerous dogs that includes the rigorous enforcement of existing laws and provisions to protect the public. That should include the use of muzzles, proper restraining leads and a minimum age limit for handlers, particularly when walking potentially volatile breeds in parks and other public spaces.

All dogs should be licensed and registered, and all owners must provide proper, secure and humane conditions for their dogs. Increased revenue from licensing could provide additional moneys to the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) to ensure better monitoring and enforcement. Measures designed to enhance the traceability of dangerous dogs and to ensure owner responsibility should be introduced, including the microchipping of dogs and the registration of owners’ details.

Dog training should be made available and it should be mandatory for listed breeds. Any ban on dogs should have safeguards. An appeal mechanism must be put in place whereby an owner will be allowed to keep their dog if they can establish that they are a responsible owner, that the dog is well behaved and that it has not been the subject of any legitimate complaint to a local council authority. However, owners of listed breeds should be required to have public liability insurance. Councils must be allocated increased funding for additional dog wardens.

On a related issue, regulations governing so-called puppy farms must be urgently introduced and enforced to ensure the humane treatment of dogs and their puppies. Sinn Féin will work for that approach to be implemented on an all-island basis to ensure that the measures contained apply equally to all the people and dogs of the island. Go raibh maith agat.

I am the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, but I am not speaking in that capacity today.

I thank Mr Lunn and Mrs Long for proposing the motion, as it highlights the significant and serious issue of dangerous dogs in Northern Ireland. Many people believe that the problem should have been tackled a long time ago.

As a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, on several occasions, I have made clear my full support for an increase in legislative measures to protect the public — and animals — from dangerous dogs. Public safety must be a top priority for elected representatives in Northern Ireland. My colleagues Lady Sylvia Hermon and Lord Laird have raised the issue of dangerous dogs in the House of Commons and the House of Lords respectively. The Ulster Unionist Party treats the issue of dangerous dogs with the utmost importance. As with any legislation produced by the Assembly, and other legislatures, the control of dangerous dogs must be reviewed and updated regularly.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

Given the expansion of the media, and how readily stories reach a large audience, the public appreciation of dog attacks has undoubtedly increased in recent years. It is no bad thing that the public are aware of the risk that dangerous dogs pose. In preparation for this debate, I found an article about a dog attack in August, which some Members may remember; a six-year-old girl from London, who was on holiday in County Antrim, was attacked by two Rottweilers. After the attack, the girl’s mother said:

“They were attacking her like a bit of meat, eating her and biting her.”

The girl asked her mother if she was going to die. Fortunately, death was avoided in that instance, but the injury was traumatic. The thought of hearing my young daughter say those words — as the result of a dog attack or anything else — chills me to the bone. Attacks like that highlight the importance of having legislation that is true to its purpose of protecting the public. Figures from the DARD (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) website, which were updated on 8 November, reveal that up until — but not including — the fourth quarter of 2006, 117 owners were prosecuted for minor dog offences, 27 owners were prosecuted for serious dog offences including attacks, and 14 owners were prosecuted for breeding dogs for fighting. After the recent BBC revelations about large-scale dog-fighting circuits in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I expect the last figure to increase this year and in the future.

However, it is notable that the figures until the fourth quarter of 2006 were good compared with previous years; in 2003, 265 owners were prosecuted for minor dog offences alone. That improvement is to be applauded and should provide an impetus to reduce the numbers further. That is why I am in favour of toughening dangerous dogs legislation. However, when creating new legislation, Members must ensure that it does not impinge on, or undermine, the many wonderful dog owners across Northern Ireland who do not treat their animals badly. As people in Northern Ireland love animals, any further legislation on the control of dogs must have their respect or it will fail. That is why it is vital that caring dog owners, whose pets pose no threat, do not suffer from new legislation.

Although it is often easy to blame a dog for attacking innocent people, the way that a minority of people treat their dogs is disgraceful. The Assembly must encourage those in society who hurt dogs, or encourage dogs to fight, to stop. If someone beats an animal, it will become hostile to that person and people around that person.

The Member’s time is almost up.

Some of the recent attacks have not been because of the natural habit of the dog involved.

I am pleased that the motion has been tabled, and I welcome the opportunity to speak on it. There have been serious problems with dangerous dogs in my constituency of South Antrim in recent times. One incident involved an attack on the Doherty family, who were out walking their pets in Randalstown Forest Park. The incident received widespread media attention at the time and was covered on last night’s ‘Insight’ programme. I will not go into much detail, but had it not been for the heroics of the family pet — a golden Labrador named Troy, who died from his injuries shortly after the attack — the incident would have been more serious. The attacking dog was shot dead by the police, and the family escaped with cuts, bites, scrapes and bruises, but their much-loved pet was not so lucky.

The definition of a dangerous dog must be made clearer in legislation. One often talks about pit bull terriers, and pit-bull types are named as banned breeds in legislation. However, it is ironic that — as far as I am aware — many of those dangerous dogs are mongrels and not pure-bred American pit bull terriers. I do not intend to dwell on the matter, but a clearer definition of illegal dogs is necessary. The loopholes that permit cross-breeds, such as the Irish Staffordshire bull terrier, must be closed. Regardless of what changes are made to the law, the Assembly must consider how future legislation is enforced.

Considering the recent accusations of criminal and paramilitary involvement in dog fighting, I am not sure that we can leave the enforcement in the hands of district councils and dog wardens. There must be greater police involvement, and the courts must make an example of those people who ignore the law and continue to keep dangerous and illegal dogs. I call for stiffer penalties in the legislation, and the courts must be particularly tough on those people who breed and train dogs for fighting. We must also make it much easier to prosecute individuals who break the law. I appreciate that progress is being made in that area, but more needs to be done.

Stronger legislation should be implemented, hand in hand with more education. Dog attacks can occur for any number of reasons: the dog may have received inadequate training, had a poor upbringing or lived in an unsuitable environment, for instance. Therefore, all dog owners should be encouraged to be responsible, especially if they own breeds such as Alsatians, Dober­manns and boxers, which are legal but potentially dangerous. If those dogs are raised correctly, I am sure that they can be loyal and loving pets, but owners must be educated on how to care correctly for their dogs to ensure that they are stable and well disciplined.

I hope that the public will not see the debate as an attempt to demonise certain types of dogs: that is not my intention. It is my intention to condemn the criminals, highlight animal welfare issues and enhance public safety. I hope that the Minister will pay close attention to those issues when she eventually reviews the legisl­ation. I support the motion.

When I read the motion, I was reminded of an incident in Portstewart during the summer, which involved visitors to the town and their pet dogs. The local newspaper reported how the two pet dogs attacked and bit an elderly man and a teenage girl, and attacked another dog. On further reading of the newspaper report, I was amazed to discover that local officers were unable to remove the dogs that were suspected of the attacks, because they had returned to their owners’ property. In the Minister’s review of the current legislation, I hope that she will consider enshrining in law the right for council officials to enter property — with PSNI support, if necessary — to seize dogs that have carried out such attacks.

I stress that in this particular case, the dogs’ owners did the sensible thing and handed them over to council officials.

I urge the Minister to sort out the legal definition of the term “dangerous dog”. The law currently does not have a sufficiently enforceable description, and in some cases in England, that has created many difficulties. I also acknowledge fully that although any dog can be dangerous, specific breeds are listed as dangerous. However, given that that list is in no way exhaustive, there is scope to extend and amend it continually. I would go so far as to ask the Minister to make it illegal in Northern Ireland to own certain dogs, such as pit bull terriers.

The ‘Spotlight’ programme showed the horrific purposes for which such dogs are used. It demonstrated that it would be better for everyone if those dogs were not permitted in Northern Ireland, full stop. I thank Mandy McAuley and the BBC team for bringing such an excellent programme to our screens, even though it covered an horrific topic.

The programme also showed how science can help to provide a DNA database that can be used to identify a particular family tree of fighting dogs. I urge the Minister to consider using such a database to assist in creating a legal definition of breeds and types of dogs.

Legislative intervention will never permanently solve any problem, but a strong legally defined base will avoid as much confusion as possible. People will then be spared much of the fear of being subjected to a dog attack.

Although the topic must be addressed, I have discussed only a small part it. However, I appeal to the Minister to address that — and other connected matters — with speed and determination in order to produce workable and practical legislation.

I support the motion.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I also support the motion.

Although I do not want to speak for too long, any review of the matter will take some time. Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 obviously did not deal adequately with such dogs, I think that the Minister will take the necessary time to get the legislation right this time. Certain breeds of dog were banned under the 1991 Act, but of course, many of those who breed dogs can get round that, so we are still at the point at which no one is sure how to proceed.

There are far too many dogs, full stop, in some council areas and in urban areas such as Enniskillen. People must take responsibility for that. Some buy large dogs, and, most days of the week, they keep them alone in small gardens when they are at work. The dogs are then turned out on to the street, causing problems, such as fouling. The dogs are also taken to parks, where similar problems are caused.

Reducing the number of such dogs before they can become pets would resolve many of those problems. Dog attacks against people, and instances of stray dogs attacking sheep, which is a problem for farmers, would also decrease. That reduction could be achieved either by councils enforcing regulations against owners, or licences could be granted that must prove that a dog has been neutered and that it will be kept somewhere suitable.

I am not against people keeping pets, but they must be looked after. This is the time of year when parents buy their children dogs as pets without realising that the dogs may grow into large animals that will need to be cared for long after Christmas is over. People must realise that they must take that into account. Councils — and everyone else — face great expense when dogs are not looked after. Up to 50,000 dogs have to be put down in Ireland every year, and that is by far the worst figure in Europe where the control of dogs is concerned. Controlling numbers is a big problem.

Pets are sold on the black-market economy, and given that a great deal of money is involved, some kennel breeders in Ireland are against what the Assembly is trying to do.

There are also people involved in hunting, including badger-baiting, badger-hunting — attacking badgers in their lairs — and fox-hunting. Dogs that are trained to do such things are also trained to fight and, therefore, they become dangerous dogs, even though they are not necessarily in the small category of dogs that we are talking about today. A lot of other things go on behind the scenes that none of us wants to pretend is the case. There is an undercurrent of a black-market economy and a black-market way of doing things out there. Those issues must be taken on board, and recent television programmes have shown that to be the case.

The type of dog is not the problem, as there are several ways round that issue. There are several ways of breeding hybrids of different dogs so that they can be trained to fight. Training dogs to fight is the big problem, not necessarily the type of dog. A lot of the dogs referred to can be very docile if they are properly trained and looked after.

The review needs to get it right this time, and that will take time. The Minister will look at all the difficulties and answer some of the questions. For example, are councils best placed to enforce the law, or should it be the PSNI, or both? How long will the proposed changes to the legislation take? What progress has the Twenty-six Counties made in its legislation for improving the situation? Is an all-Ireland approach being taken, and how will it be progressed?

The ordinary person on the street must think before buying dogs — or any pets — without having somewhere decent to keep them, especially at this time of year. Animals need space and looking after, and it is vital that people take that into account. Go raibh maith agat.

I support the motion and thank the Member for bringing this vitally important issue to the Assembly. None of us in the Chamber should underestimate how serious the matter is. It has become extremely concerning, given that statistics show that Northern Ireland has earned the disgraceful title of dog-fighting capital of Europe. Sick individuals — they can be described as nothing else — with a competitive bloodlust for illicit financial reward are training dogs with an aggressive nature to fight each other. Sad to say, there can be as much legislation as possible, but if people are intent on stooping to such low levels, then I fail to see how individuals like that can be combated, except by ensuring that they are not permitted to be in society, other than behind bars where they rightfully belong.

As recent television documentaries have shown, people are moving in a shady underworld and using ruthless, unscrupulous methods to heighten the antagonism of these animals until, when they face each other — goaded by trainers and owners — they end up tearing each other apart. If a dog survives the fight, the injuries and mutilations are horrific and, due to the illegal nature of the activity, those dogs are not taken to vets because it is too late for any treatment.

We saw on television last night what happens to dogs which are past repair or do not make the mark. Perhaps it is the human element that should be closely examined. Those who are caught up in this barbaric practice have no viable place in our society. Those people with their ruthless, unscrupulous, bloodthirsty mentalities should be off our streets.

However, not all dangerous dogs are the product of dog fighting. Some breeds are highly charged by nature, and any distraction or antagonism, however innocent, can provoke a violent reaction encompassing sustained attack. As a pet lover, I have a terrier at home, and it can be as vicious as any other breed if antagonised by my children — or by me. Of course, some people say that if they were dogs they would bite me anyway, but that is how some things are in life.

The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr McHugh has already referred to the attack on a six-year old girl in my constituency during the summer. Having been in contact with the family, I am pleased to report that Sophia is on the mend, and I look forward to her family’s return to Northern Ireland next summer. That young girl sustained severe injuries during a continued assault, and her mother was injured while attempting to protect her.

It has already been said that that incident involved two rottweilers, which, although not prohibited, have a reputation for being antagonistic. Their owner was gravely concerned and took swift action by destroying the dogs immediately after the attack. Those and other dogs with an aggressive trait are particularly strong and, as on that occasion, are capable of throwing a child around like a rag doll. Any animal with that mentality must be kept under the strictest supervision if it is out in public. It must not be a risk to society.

The incident in my constituency raises an issue concerning the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. I have been in correspondence with the family and the Tourist Board. The family wrote that they do not want any other family to go through such an ordeal and that it is only fair that parents and children visiting Northern Ireland do so in the full knowledge that all precautions have been put in place to protect them.

The response to my correspondence with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board was less than satisfying, and I intend to follow up on the issues that I raised with them. I support the motion.

Someone has a mobile phone switched on, which interferes with the transmission system. Please turn it off.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Naomi Long and Trevor Lunn for raising the issues of dangerous dogs and dog fighting. Those are serious matters that concern us all, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have such an open and frank debate and to be able to outline how I intend to address some of the points that have been raised. I have listened to all of the contributions, and there is little to disagree with from any of the parties.

Like other Members, I have been concerned about this issue for some time. I have had particular difficulties in my constituency, and I have been working with officials and others towards a review of the legislation. I agree with many of the concerns raised by Trevor, Naomi and other Members and, like them, I want to see an end to attacks by dogs and an improvement in public safety.

I also want to see an end to the immoral, cruel and deplorable so-called sport of dog fighting and to the sickening practices that surround it. Like any right-thinking person, I find the issues that were so graphically highlighted in two recent BBC documentaries and in last night’s UTV ‘Insight’ programme to be totally abhorrent, and I agree that steps should be taken to rid society of that scourge.

Before dealing specifically with the concerns raised this afternoon, it would be helpful if I were to outline the legislative background to the two key issues that were raised in the debate. The control of dogs, including dangerous dogs, is regulated by the Dogs Order 1983, as amended by the Dangerous Dogs Order 1991. Dog fighting is separately legislated for in the Welfare of Animals (NI) Act 1972.

The Dogs Order 1983 provides for dog licensing by district councils and sets out provisions concerning stray dogs and attacks by dogs. Under that order, dog owners, or those in charge of dogs, must keep them under control at all times, and an owner or keeper is guilty of an offence if his or her dog worries livestock or attacks a person. Although it is not specifically an offence for one dog to attack another dog, damage to property, which could include a pet, is actionable by civil proceedings.

I will consider whether that must be amended as part of a wider review, which I will come to later. I particularly want to review attacks on guide dogs or on family pets, as were so graphically illustrated by Deirdre Doherty and the terrible ordeal that her family suffered.

Under the Local Government Act (NI) 1972, district councils can make by-laws; it is common practice, for example, to make by-laws that require dogs to be leashed in parks.

The Dogs (NI) Order 1983, as amended by the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991, designates certain types of dogs, such as the pit bull terrier, the possession of which is an offence. Such dogs are generally known as “dangerous” or “fighting” dogs.

District councils are responsible for enforcing that legislation and may seize any dog that appears to be a banned type. The maximum penalty for owning a banned-type dog here is, on conviction, up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of £5,000 or both.

I express gratitude to the many councils and to their dog wardens, in particular, who have been very active in their attempts to deal with dangerous dogs and other dog control issues. The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Gerry McHugh mentioned Dungannon council, but Ballymena Borough Council was the first council in Britain and Ireland to introduce an amnesty for dogs and many others have followed that initiative.

To date, there have been few specific calls for new legislation on dangerous dogs. Last year, my Department wrote to the chief executives of all the district councils in the North seeking their views on the operation of the Order and asked for views on difficulties that might prevent effective enforcement of the legislation.

The responses showed that some district councils felt that, for a variety of reasons, they were not best placed or equipped to enforce the aspects of the legislation relating to dangerous dogs. Councils expressed serious reservation about the health and safety of their dog wardens in carrying out their duties and, in particular, when seizing banned dogs. As a result, some councils have called for the PSNI to have a greater role in enforcement.

On 31 October this year, I wrote to the Chief Constable requesting that we meet to discuss the issues of public safety and any role of the PSNI in the enforcement of dog control or dangerous dogs legislation. Our discussion will take into account the public safety aspects raised by the debate. I want to take the views of the PSNI before reaching any conclusions, and I hope to meet its representatives shortly.

Councils also commented that they experienced difficulties in proving in court whether a dog was of a banned type. On that point, the legislation states clearly that if the prosecution alleges that a dog is of a banned type, such as a pit bull, a court will assume that it is so, unless the owner can provide the court with sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Figures supplied by councils to my Department show that 10 individuals have been found guilty of offences involving dangerous dogs in the first six months of this year alone.

The Order enables my Department, through subordinate legislation, to extend the types of dogs that are banned if evidence is forthcoming that they appear to be the types of dogs that have been bred specifically for fighting. To date, there have been few calls to extend the list, but I will seek advice on that matter from experts. My officials also intend to raise that issue with the USPCA shortly.

Some councils commented that their officials require training on issues surrounding dangerous dogs. Several suggested that a panel of experts be made available as expert witnesses during court cases to advise on types of dangerous dogs. Neither suggestion requires legislative change.

Recent reports from welfare interests and others suggest that any problems that we might have in enforcing dangerous dogs legislation are a result of its having been rushed through as a knee-jerk reaction to dog attacks in 1991. If that is so, I do not want to repeat that mistake. Therefore, I feel that it would be inappropriate to introduce new legislation in the short term in response to recent documentaries without full examination of the enforcement issue. However, I intend to review the current legislation in order to consider properly how to proceed and consult on the way forward.

Many of the issues raised by councils and members of the public have principally concerned enforcement, and, as I said, I am seeking to address them.

However, in undertaking a longer-term review of the legislative framework, I will seek the advice of experts and those with experience of enforcement locally, as well as in Britain and the Twenty-six Counties. Therefore, after my meeting with the PSNI, I intend to meet representatives of district councils in order to hear their views at first hand, because they are the people who are often in the firing line on a range of issues such as enforcement and identification.

The Minister referred to experts. Will she assure the House that she will be satisfied that those whom she contacts are, indeed, experts? Anyone who watched last night’s ‘Insight’ programme and saw the activities in which a particular individual was involved would question the expertise of that person, who claimed to have a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

That is why I am talking to represent­atives of district councils, the PSNI, the USPCA and others. I do not believe that one individual, or a number of individuals who claim to be experts, are the only people to whom we should listen. Therefore, I will consider a wide range of views. I will also consider the views of the Members who have contributed to this debate, and I will check the Hansard report, because some practical suggestions have been made.

Recent TV documentaries suggested that enforcement of dangerous dogs legislation is hindered by different rules, North and South. That has meant that dogs that are banned here can be imported into the South, where they are currently legal. From there, it is alleged that they often make their way back to the North.

I am grateful for the speedy and helpful intervention of the First Minister, who, after the programmes aired, immediately contacted the Taoiseach to discuss the difficulties with him. That intervention resulted in the South taking immediate action to tackle the problem through the introduction of new primary legislation that will bring the South into line with our existing legislation. That new legislation is expected to come before the Dáil in early 2008, and I hope that it will reduce the availability of those dogs on the island.

I also intend to raise the matter of alleged abuses of the EU pet travel scheme with officials in Britain and Dublin in order to ensure that illegal dogs do not come here under false documentation or under official documentation that can be downloaded from the Internet and is open to fraud.

I have already stated that it is an offence to participate in the cruel so-called sport of dog fighting. The relevant provisions are enforced here by PSNI officers, who are often supported by USPCA officials. In the past, there have been well-publicised successes in breaking up dog-fighting rings.

In late 2006, my Department consulted on a review of welfare legislation, including proposed new powers to deal with dog fighting and on higher penalties for certain offences, including those relating to animal fighting. I have asked my officials to revisit that exercise and to produce a paper that summarises the responses to that consultation.

As these issues affect both North and South, with some dog-fighting rings operating across the border, it is important that we take note of the position in the South in consideration of them. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the South is considering updating its animal welfare legislation, and I discussed that with my ministerial counterpart in the South, Mary Coughlan, when we met earlier this month. I have also asked that my officials liaise closely with their counterparts in the South.

As a mother of two young boys, this is an important issue for me. The public safety aspect of this issue is cross-cutting and cross-departmental. The kind of attacks from which children have suffered must not be allowed to happen again, especially those that end tragically, such as the death of Ellie Lawrenson.

I hope that my statement has dealt with Members’ concerns. I will consider what has been said today. I support the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat.

For obvious reasons, it is not often that a Member for East Belfast makes the winding-up speech on an agriculture and rural development issue. Therefore, I am pleased that I am able to do so on this occasion, particularly as it is such an important issue.

The reasons for the dangerous dogs legislation are twofold: it is to protect the public — the key objective — and it is to deal with issues of animal welfare, both for the particular breeds of dogs and for the protec­tion of other animals and other dogs.

Some cases in recent years have highlighted that this is a serious issue. Over four years ago, I wrote to the direct rule Ministers after I had embarked on a round of discussions with animal welfare groups, council dog wardens, and so on, who recognised that there were difficulties with the legislation.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that I and many others — including Members of the House — had campaigned on the issue, it was never fully addressed during direct rule. I, therefore, welcome the fact that the Minister has given a positive response on this occasion. Perhaps this is an area in which devolution will actually deliver for people — something that was lacking under direct rule.

I cannot understand how anyone would want to breed an animal purely for the purposes of torturing, mutilating and destroying it in the most obscene way, or driving it to fight to the death against other dogs, with its only hope of redemption being humane destruction. It is a complete aberration. That anyone would want to do such a thing is despicable.

I, therefore, thank Trevor, my colleague, for proposing the motion. He comprehensively highlighted the complexity of the issue, particularly the need for cross-border working. I thank the First Minister for his reassurance in that regard, and for taking swift action to ensure that. I also thank Lord Morrow for his support. I am aware that Dr McCrea has taken a particular interest in the issue, and I am grateful that other Members have been so active on the subject. I recognise, as he did, the work that local councils have embarked on to ensure that the existing legislation is properly enforced.

In tabling the motion, we were concerned about legislative loopholes. The issue is that of focusing on banned types of dogs, as against the aggressive traits of individual animals. As a number of Members have said, any dog can be dangerous if it is permitted — or even worse, encouraged — by its owner to display aggressive traits.

The issue of banned types of dogs also needs to be fully understood. These are dogs that have been specifically bred to have traits that make them, not just particularly aggressive, but effective in the destruction of other animals. Therefore, there is still a need to look to those particular types of dog.

However, Gerry McHugh and a number of other Members clearly identified the problems, whereby cross-breeding of banned types can make it incredibly difficult to identify the type of animal and can disguise its typical characteristics, with a view to escaping prosecution. That has two effects that I wish to highlight, and were mentioned earlier by Willie Clarke and Tom Elliott.

Cross-breeding can affect the ability of those charged with enforcement to deal effectively with the animals that they encounter. It can also cause significant distress for families who unwittingly purchase, as a pet, a dog that is a cross-breed of a banned type. In that case, not only is a family potentially at risk from an extremely dangerous animal, but there is also distress when the council identifies the dog and has no other power but to remove and destroy it. Therefore, as Willie Clarke said, there are implementation failures, but also legislative failures. Introducing the possibility of neutering, chipping, training, muzzling and controlling dogs would allow those cross-breeds to die out through natural means without causing unnecessary distress, while giving the public full protection, which is the aim of the legislation.

Tom Elliott rightly raised the issue of dog-on-dog attacks, where there is a differential approach. As the Minister said, dogs are controlled for attacking other animals, livestock or people. However, dog-on-dog attacks are increasingly a threat to people like me: dog owners who keep their dogs on leads and walk them responsibly, but find large, out-of-control animals bounding towards them in an aggressive fashion, with the owners completely unable to control the animals. Also of serious concern is the number of times one sees a particularly aggressive dog dragging a child for a walk. Therefore, there has to be a close look at dog-on-dog attacks, particularly where dogs are out of control.

Tom Elliott also mentioned the need to promote responsible dog ownership. Ultimately, while we focus on the dogs, owners are responsible for the behaviour of their animals. For a long time, human beings have had a close relationship with dogs: they are pets and friends. However, it seems that, at times, we forget that they are also animals with the capacity to do a lot of damage if they are not properly cared for, controlled and trained. That is something that we need to come to grips with as a community.

The right of entry into properties was mentioned by a number of Members, including George Robinson. That is important and must be considered.

I will highlight specific issues that the Minister mentioned, and I appreciate that she recognises that certain matters must addressed. For example, she referred to the penalties that exist for those who are involved in dog fighting. Several Members raised the need to have stiffer penalties. I suspect that although six months in jail may be somewhat of a deterrent, it is not sufficient. I also realise that £5,000 is pocket change to some of those who are involved in this callous activity. Therefore, we must look at the range of penalties that can be used against those who are brought to court for mutilating and torturing animals.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has committed to a review, and, in particular, I welcome that that commitment is not a knee-jerk reaction. I am aware that there has been synergy between the motion and the several high-profile cases that have been broadcast recently on television. However, my motivation did not specifically relate to those problems; the inactivity that I had experienced during direct rule when no action seemed to be possible was a motivating factor. Therefore, I am glad that the Minister will examine the matter in detail, taking into account the views of those who work on the coalface, whether they are involved in animal welfare charities, in local district councils, or have expertise on the subject.

I agree with Mervyn Storey’s point about expert panels and witnesses. Last night’s documentary made it clear that some people are prepared to sell their expertise in order to defend types of dogs that are obviously illegal. Therefore, it is important that a panel of experts exists that can be referred to in court, can give impartial views and expert-witness accounts, and cannot be corrupted by those who are involved in the dog fighting industry. That would be a most welcome and helpful step forward.

Finally, I want to focus on an incident that highlights the matter. Four years ago, just outside the gates of the Stormont estate, one of my constituents was walking her two dogs. One of her dogs was mauled by another and later died as a result of its injuries. On that occasion, that lady had no automatic right to have the owner of the other dog prosecuted; she would have had to have taken a civil action for the loss of the value of her dog. Of course, the financial value of one’s dog is a tiny proportion of its worth as a family pet. Additionally, there was no automatic right to have the other dog destroyed. That incident took place yards from a children’s play park. Therefore, whether such animals are banned breeds or dangerous dogs that are out of control, the issue of control of dangerous dogs must be addressed.

I thank Members for the cross-party support that we have had this afternoon. In particular, I thank the Minister for her commitment to act on the matter. I am sure that the House will be pleased when she reports back on any progress that is made.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in light of recent revelations about dog fighting in Northern Ireland, and of attacks by dogs on persons and other dogs in recent years, to review the dangerous dogs legislation with a view to providing enhanced protection in terms of both animal welfare and public safety.