Dog Fighting

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak about a matter that, in recent years, has been of mounting concern in my constituency and across the UK: organised and impromptu dog fighting. I first became aware of the problem of dog fighting a few years ago during a chance encounter with Val Barker, who is the chairwoman of the Clem Attlee, Maton and Rocque tenants and residents association in my constituency. The Clem Attlee estate is one of the largest estates in Hammersmith and Fulham. Val told me of the growing problem of youths breeding dogs for fighting and then sometimes gambling on the outcome of the contest. My initial reaction was that it was a totally mediaeval practice and must surely be a one-off, but I soon started to hear reports of dog fights from other estates and even leafy streets in south Fulham. Val Barker tells me that the problem has worsened since she first mentioned it to me. On the Clem Attlee estate, many teenagers are hanging around with—most often—Staffordshire bull terriers. They are often to be seen around the enclosed football pitch. Some dogs are held inside the pitch area and others are held outside. They are encouraged to be aggressive towards each other through the fence. Sometimes full scale fights break out later, which often put an important facility such as an estate football pitch out of action. I have to confess that I am not the greatest expert on dogs. I have never owned one and I have never had much contact with them. I am not fanatical about animal rights, but I do believe that needless cruelty to animals needs to be stamped out. Over the past 10 years, I have taken a big interest in everything that happens in Hammersmith and Fulham, including—if not especially—on the big estates. The combination of antisocial behaviour, gambling and animal cruelty is probably unique, in our times at least. My views on gambling have become increasingly negative over the years: I know that it is a major cause of family breakdown and indebtedness, especially, but not entirely, among working-class households. Another good source of local information on the dog phenomenon is Gaye Rose from the Hammersmith and Fulham Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations, which is the umbrella group for social housing tenant groups within the borough. She agrees with me that dog fighting is a problem right across the borough. There is a group of young men who live on Coningham road—not far from where the Minister lives—who train their dogs on the grounds of the White City estate. On the William Church estate, the same problem exhibited itself until effective action was taken by the council’s street wardens and the local police. There has been a terrible problem at De Palma Court, near Fulham Broadway, with two pit bull terriers being exercised in the grounds. It is a small, quiet block of about 16 flats—if memory serves correctly—with generally elderly tenants. At a recent tenants’ meeting, residents were so concerned that they presented local housing officers with photos of the phenomenon. I am told that a whole family on Adam walk, a new development in Fulham, is training Staffordshire bull terriers to fight against both dogs and people. It seems that there are outbreaks of such behaviour throughout the borough, but one estate is mentioned more than any other as being perhaps the epicentre of dog fighting in Hammersmith and Fulham: the Flora Gardens estate, where it seems that many of those dogs are kept and trained. Although this is not unique to Hammersmith and Fulham, the police will generally confiscate weapons, but they steer clear of dogs. However, these dogs are a form of weapon. The police generally get a good write up from tenants on the Clem Attlee estate for their work on fighting drugs, but no one has seen much action against dangerous dogs, at least as yet. Councillor Greg Smith, the council’s cabinet member for crime and antisocial behaviour, has briefed me about some of the less obvious problems caused by dogs being trained to fight. Much of the training takes place on parkland with trees. The dogs have their jaws strengthened through the practice of leaving them to hang by their mouths from the branches of trees. The practice is cruel to the dogs and also gravely damages the trees. It is a particular problem in the north of the borough on Wormwood Scrubs, where many trees have been destroyed. Ravenscourt and Marcus Garvey parks are also favoured haunts for the trainers of those fighting dogs. More dangerously, dogs are sometimes trained to hang from the horizontal bar of children’s swings in the borough’s play areas. I am not an expert on the safety of play equipment, but swings are certainly not designed to be submitted to such treatment. Children’s safety might be at risk, while actual and psychological harm is being done to the dogs. The council recently introduced a full set of dog control orders. They came in only six weeks ago, so council staff are still being trained to enforce them. I do not have time to describe all the orders, but dogs must now be on a lead at all times in the borough’s cemeteries, all its wildlife conservation areas and various parts of its parks. Councillor Smith tells me that many dogs have been killed through fighting in the borough in recent years, although no one knows quite how many. Last year, a woman walking on Wormwood Scrubs lost a chunk of her ear thanks to one of those dogs and more serious incidents might arise in the future. Additionally, there is a big problem with intimidation. Many walkers and the owners of other dogs are simply afraid to go near any of the more well-known locations for dog fighting. The new council in Hammersmith and Fulham is following a tough approach on antisocial behaviour, although some in the local Labour party say that it is too macho. I know that the council will take a zero-tolerance approach on dog fighting. I have become increasing concerned about dogs that are kept as status symbols or fashion accessories. Anyone on the streets of Hammersmith and Fulham can see the phenomenon. The phrase most often used by residents who contact me about the problem is ““blinged-up Staffs””. Given the nature of the hours of the House, I often emerge from Fulham Broadway tube station at about 11 pm, or roughly chucking out time. That is often a hazardous time on the broadway because one needs to get past hordes of tipsy or drunken people spilling out of the concentration of pubs there. However, a few months ago, I was surprised to see a new hazard in the late-night scene on Fulham broadway. Two male teenagers were walking their dogs in the dark. The dogs were Staffs and they were blinged up, as it happens. The teenagers were not walking the dogs in the sense that hon. Members would understand, but strutting around with them and looking proud as peacocks with their new and terrible fashion accessories. In many other cases, the dogs are kept not as fashion accessories, but to intimidate other people, for impromptu dog fights on estates or in parks, or even to guard stashes of illegal substances. Such animals will typically become guard dogs for drugs that are concealed in homes and cars. Thankfully, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is aware of those phenomena. It says that"““these dogs are traditionally—but not exclusively—associated with young people on inner city estates and those involved in criminal activity””." It tells me that the problem exists in all our large cities, but especially in London. The problem is associated with not just white working-class males—the RSPCA tells me that youths of Pakistani origin breed so-called bully cutters for fighting. Those huge dogs are apparently bred and trained for fighting and can be extremely aggressive. The RSPCA worries especially about the use of dogs as status symbols and participants in impromptu, but none the less illegal, dog fights. It tells me that the phenomenon is growing rapidly throughout the UK. Sometimes the fights are recorded with mobile phone cameras, like the canine equivalent of happy slapping. The RSPCA particularly urges action against the breeding factories, which are most typically located in lock-up garages, warehouses and disused buildings. Smaller versions appear in individual flats on estates or streets across Britain. Turning to the legislative environment, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 had a number of important provisions on dog fighting that I welcome. It is now an offence for anyone to arrange an animal fight, to knowingly participate in making or carrying out arrangements for an animal fight, to make or accept a bet on the outcome of an animal fight, to take part in an animal fight, to knowingly receive money for admission to an animal fight, to keep or train an animal for use in connection with an animal fight, to keep any premises for use in an animal fight, or to knowingly supply, publish or show a video recording of an animal fight. That list sounds extremely comprehensive, but the key, as ever, is in the enforcement. There are one or two other matters that require legislation, but generally most of the attention should focus on enforcement in future. One of the weaknesses of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was its focus on breeds rather than behaviour. According to people who know far more about dog breeds than I do, these days, there are very few pure-breed pit bull terriers, but there is a huge and increasing number of cross-bred pit bulls. Pit bulls are bred with Irish bull terriers and other breeds, mainly so that people can get round the law prohibiting pit bulls. I agree with the RSPCA that the legislation needs changing to create more control over the behaviour of dogs and how they are trained. Responsibility should be placed on the owner, and there are strong arguments for specific offences of encouraging a dog to show aggressive and intimidating behaviour. In the past 10 years, there has been a huge decline in the number of prosecutions under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, which relates to having a dog that is dangerous and not kept under control, and under section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which relates to being in possession of a prohibited dog without an exemption. For example, in 1992, there were 209 prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but that declined to just one in 2003, before rising to a mere 11 in 2005. As I mentioned, there were new offences relating to fighting in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but the new offences do not capture the breeding of dogs for fighting. RSPCA officers have raided what could be called breeding factories, where different types of dog commonly used for fighting are being cross-bred to produce stronger and more aggressive animals. The RSPCA has 80 dogs in kennels in connection with dog fighting offences, and it is rare for cases to come to court less than a year after the intervention. It costs the RSPCA about £300 a month to maintain a dog in kennels while it waits for the case to come to court, and that is before any veterinary fees are taken into consideration. Taking action is expensive for the RSPCA, which is often left to pick up the bill while trials are awaited. Clause 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not make it a criminal offence to breed dogs for the sole purpose of fighting, and that means that unscrupulous breeders cannot generally be prosecuted, and that needs to change. The provisions in the Dogs Act 1871 that make it an offence to possess a dog that is dangerous and out of control cover both private and public places. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies to public places only. I am not often in favour of the police, or local authority or RSPCA inspectors, having new rights of access to private homes or other private places, but there is an argument for providing such rights in the case of those suspected of training dogs for fighting. To conclude, I will set out the legislative changes that may be needed. First, we should make breeding dogs for fighting a criminal offence. Secondly, we should provide inspection rights in relation to properties in which it is suspected that dogs are bred and/or trained for fighting. Thirdly, offences should be behaviour-specific, rather than breed-specific. Fourthly, offences should include an element of aggravation if the owner intentionally caused the dog to be aggressive, for example through its training. The latter might be difficult to prove, but punishments should be severe for those who breed and/or train dangerous dogs to fight each other, or even worse, to attack humans. The enforcement of existing laws is more important than creating new laws. The number of prosecutions has fallen dramatically in the past 10 years, and I look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do to combat this terrible and dangerous scourge.