Agenda item
Scrutiny Challenge Session - Dangerous Dogs
(Time allocated – 15 minutes)
Minutes:
Councillor Bill Turner, Scrutiny Lead Excellent Public Services, at the request of the Chair, in introducing the report, summarised the salient points contained therein highlighting in particular:
· That one meeting had been held to examine the issue of dangerous dogs an apparently growing trend to use dogs in Anti Social Behaviour, to settle scores between gangs, and for organised dog fighting.
· The purpose of the meeting had been to:
o Increase Members understanding of the common issues in dealing with dangerous dogs
o To consider and evaluate the Council’s approach to dealing with the rise of dangerous dogs and develop an approach for the future.
o To give residents an opportunity to express their views and concerns.
· There was great public interest in this issue, and the meeting had been well attended with 75 members of the public and some Councillors present. All those present agreed that effective action was needed to address the problem.
· The meeting discussed the handful of gangs in Tower Hamlets that were using dangerous dogs in their activities. It heard presentations from the Metropolitan Police, the Council’s Animal Warden Service and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Senior police officers advised of the challenges of enforcing dog legislation and it became evident that the Animal Warden Service did not have the same enforcement powers as other local authorities, such as Newham, and he considered that the recommendations contained in the report arising from the scrutiny challenge session should mitigate this.
· There would be a future follow up meeting and the report would be presented to Cabinet with a view to the recommendations comprising the Administration’s approach to dog enforcement.
A discussion followed, during which the report and recommendations contained therein were broadly welcomed, and which was centred on the following points:
· Clarification was sought and given as to whether the challenge session had examined the use of dangerous dogs by young people and drug dealers for security and the unsafe places the dogs were kept and the danger they were exposed to.
· Clarification was sought and given, with reference to paragraph 6.8 of the report, as to who dangerous dogs should be reported to. It was agreed that a dog reporting hotline would assist in addressing resident concerns on first contact with the Council and one portal would mitigate the current lack of joined up working around this issue. It was noted that the recommendations in the report would address this.
· Consideration that the communications strategy recommended in the report should include usage of the Bangladeshi media/ press. It was agreed that the report recommendations would reflect this suggestion. It was also agreed that translation of the press release on dangerous dogs into several Black Minority Ethnic (BME) languages would be helpful. Clarification was also sought as to how the communications strategy would ensure that those residents that did not receive East End Life were reached. The Committee emphasised the need for the communications strategy to be sensitive, as the great majority of dog owners in the borough were responsible, and it was important not to create a negative taboo in respect of dog ownership in general.
· Clarification was sought and given as to what had been the most widespread concern raised by residents at the meeting, and what of all the recommendations in the report required most urgent prioritisation:
o improving community safety in relation to the use of dangerous dogs in ASB.
o Prioritising the mitigation of dog fouling, which was directly linked to the increasing number of dangerous dogs
· Clarification was sought and given, with reference to paragraph 5.2 of the report, as to whether the Rotweiller breed of dog, considered by many to be intimidating and dangerous, was formally considered to be a dangerous dog. It was noted that police enforcement powers varied with the breed of dog and they could only automatically control the 4 breeds detailed, unless the law changed. Clarification was also sought and given as to whether enforcement was possible to ensure dangerous dogs wore muzzles.
· Commented that in Altab Ali Park it was apparent that the branches of trees were being used by owners of dangerous dogs to strengthen the jaws of their animals, and this was damaging the growth of the trees. Clarification was sought as to whether the challenge session had examined this issue or might do so.
· Consideration that dog wardens, park rangers and tower hamlets environment officers (THEOs) all required training on handling dangerous dogs and around advising others on reporting them. Consideration also that the erection of signage in parks and elsewhere advising how to go about reporting dangerous dogs was needed. It was agreed that the recommendations in the report should reflect this.
· Consideration that many residents, both adults and young people, were frightened of dogs in general (and that there might be cultural reasons for this), and therefore that outreach work in schools about good and bad dogs would be helpful in allaying such fears. In particular it was suggested that the Junior Citizen Scheme might include a scenario on dangerous dogs. It was agreed that the recommendations in the report should reflect this suggestion.
· Consideration that more needed to be done to ensure that access to dog ownership became less easy for irresponsible owners. Clarification was sought and given in this context in relation to dog licensing.
The Chair, in Moving, the recommendations contained in the report (subject to revisions to reflect the points raised and agreed by members of the Committee during its consideration), formally extended his thanks to Councillor Turner and the Officer team, for their hard work in undertaking the challenge session, distilling the findings and honing the recommendations contained in the report, which the Committee commended.
and it was:-
Resolved
1. That the information contained in the report regarding dangerous dogs be noted; and
2. That the recommendations in the report be endorsed, subject to revisions to reflect the points raised and agreed by members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee during its consideration.
Supporting documents: