Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

223607

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Exemptions Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 on the owners of exempted dogs intending to go to university or who serve in the armed forces; and if she will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Crawley
	tabling member printed	Henry Smith
	uin	225447
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/03/2015 answer text <p>The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 recognises that owning and keeping a prohibited dog is a significant responsibility. These dogs are bred for fighting and Parliament has agreed that there should be restrictions and conditions on their ownership in order to protect public safety. The court plays an important role in determining whether a prohibited dog is a danger to public safety and must take into account whether the person intending to be in charge of the dog is a fit and proper person. The expectation of Parliament is that the person approved by the court will have day-to-day responsibility for the dog. There is a limit on how long a prohibited dog can be kept away from its home under the supervision of the person approved by the court. This ensures that the dog is kept in suitable accommodation at premises known to the police and is under the supervision of the court-approved person at all times.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A public consultation exercise on a package of measures aimed at promoting more responsible dog ownership ran from 23 April to 15 June 2012. This included aspects of the 2015 Order including provisions to enable seized suspected prohibited dogs not considered by the police to be a danger to public safety to be returned to their owner, subject to conditions, pending a court judgment on the fate of the dog. These provisions were widely supported. The keepership elements the 2015 Order return the law more closely to the position agreed by Parliament before the judgment in</p><p> </p><p>R (Sandhu) v Isleworth Crown Court [2012] and address issues of public safety. The police were consulted on these provisions. Dogs Trust was consulted on the changes relating to insurance of owners of prohibited dogs.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In its response to the EFRA Committee pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the Government made clear it would be bringing forward an Order to prescribe the limited circumstances when transfer of keepership of a prohibited dog is permitted. The issue was also covered in the fact sheets accompanying the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill during its passage through Parliament.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 225446 question first answered 03/03/2015 13:58:10 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
	tabling member	3960 label Biography information for Henry Smith

223608

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether she consulted with (a) the British Veterinary Association, (b) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, (c) Dogs Trust, (d) Blue Cross and (e) the Kennel Club in drawing up the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Exemptions Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015; and if she will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Crawley
	tabling member printed	Henry Smith
	uin	225446
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/03/2015 answer text <p>The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 recognises that owning and keeping a prohibited dog is a significant responsibility. These dogs are bred for fighting and Parliament has agreed that there should be restrictions and conditions on their ownership in order to protect public safety. The court plays an important role in determining whether a prohibited dog is a danger to public safety and must take into account whether the person intending to be in charge of the dog is a fit and proper person. The expectation of Parliament is that the person approved by the court will have day-to-day responsibility for the dog. There is a limit on how long a prohibited dog can be kept away from its home under the supervision of the person approved by the court. This ensures that the dog is kept in suitable accommodation at premises known to the police and is under the supervision of the court-approved person at all times.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A public consultation exercise on a package of measures aimed at promoting more responsible dog ownership ran from 23 April to 15 June 2012. This included aspects of the 2015 Order including provisions to enable seized suspected prohibited dogs not considered by the police to be a danger to public safety to be returned to their owner, subject to conditions, pending a court judgment on the fate of the dog. These provisions were widely supported. The keepership elements the 2015 Order return the law more closely to the position agreed by Parliament before the judgment in</p><p> </p><p>R (Sandhu) v Isleworth Crown Court [2012] and address issues of public safety. The police were consulted on these provisions. Dogs Trust was consulted on the changes relating to insurance of owners of prohibited dogs.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In its response to the EFRA Committee pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the Government made clear it would be bringing forward an Order to prescribe the limited circumstances when transfer of keepership of a prohibited dog is permitted. The issue was also covered in the fact sheets accompanying the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill during its passage through Parliament.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 225447 question first answered 03/03/2015 13:58:10 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
	tabling member	3960 label Biography information for Henry Smith