You may have recently seen in the newspapers that some members of the English football team bought guard dogs for their homes after a flood of burglaries. These dogs can cost over twenty thousand pounds and take months to train. So, are these dogs worth the time and money? We will examine whether this is an effective security measure. (c)a person who guards the premises or property; 3. No person shall use or permit the presence of a guard dog in premises unless a notice indicating the presence of a guard dog is clearly posted at each entrance to the premises. The common law of tort applies to the property of all animals, not just dogs. Any owner of pets and harmless animals can be held liable for damage caused to third parties by the animals due to negligence. Basically, the civil liability of the owner depends on whether or not the owner owed a duty of care to the third party concerned and whether it was immediately foreseeable that the animal would cause the damage suffered by the third party. It is very easy to foresee a situation when a child climbs through a hole in the fence of a site, enters a field supervised by guard dogs (although they are used in accordance with the law on guard dogs), and then is seriously injured by a guard dog attached to a chain. The owner and owner of the watchdog would likely be strictly liable for the harm caused under the provisions of the Animals Act 1971 and would (possibly) be criminally liable for the serious offence under the Guard Dogs Act 1975. In any event, they would likely also be liable for a high claim for damages under the common law tort if it could be argued that such damages were foreseeable and that the security guard had not checked the integrity of the fence prior to the deployment of guard dogs. Before a security operator considers using guard dogs, it is important that adequate insurance coverage is in place and that the operator consults either the security watchdog or directly with the National Association of Security Dog Users (NASDU).
Both organizations are able to provide valuable advice on the safe and effective use of what can ultimately be a valuable asset. There has been some discussion about the definition of a watchdog. Presumably, one of the elements is whether the dog is trained or not. If this is the case, the police are the only agency with the necessary experience in this area. This applies to the Metropolitan Police. In order to be realistic and to clean up the bill, I ask the applicant to reflect on this point and ask whether he is convinced that local authorities should be given this responsibility. I think the police are better able to do that. Under the Animals Act 1971, the owner and owner are most likely liable for damage caused if a person is injured on premises where a guard dog is deployed.
I now turn to new paragraph 2. I assume that, if there is a vote, there will be a split vote on the new paragraph 2. The clause refers to Schutzhundekenner licenses. The clause ensures that local authorities become licensing authorities for surveillance kennels. Paragraph 1 authorises a local authority to grant a licence, provided that the application is made on the prescribed form and the prescribed fee is paid. The permit is valid for guard kennels in the municipal area. If a safety organization has kennels in more than one municipal area, it needs a license from each of the local authorities. The form, royalty and other details of the licensing system are set out in the regulations of the Secretary of State. The new paragraph 2 seems to stipulate that a person operating a surveillance kennel must apply for a new licence each year. Perhaps this could be clarified before moving on to the next amendment. If a person who manages surveillance kennels has to apply for a new licence every year, it is likely that anyone will want to invest or establish such a facility because they will not expect continuity. I do not know if the member has taken that into account.
Certainly, I would not bother to invest the considerable amount of money needed to set up kennels with all the necessary equipment if I knew that my license to keep guard dogs would only last one year. This is an important point to be taken into account in the context of the new paragraph 2. Owners and guard dog handlers are subject to different laws mainly to protect themselves and others. The Guard Dog Breeding Act is contained in section 1 of the Watchdog Act 1975, the Animals Act 1971 and the common law. What we are looking for, and what I hope, my dear friend, the member for Dundee West, will agree with me that he intends to pass the bill, and what I certainly want to achieve with my amendment, is to ensure that premises that are specially guarded because of their valuable contents are subject to certain regulations. Before his return, one of the guard dogs returned alone. What`s the point of having a fence if dogs are secured at night but can run as much as they want during the day? After all, they are the same dogs. Under the bill, that would not be allowed. When the lady returned, she had so many messages that she couldn`t control the second dog and he wasn`t on a leash. In practice, a regulation prohibiting this would not work, but I am confident that the bill will be effective.
I would like to give two examples to show why I think the responsibility of the bill for compliance with safety rules – which is what we really care about – should rest with the owner of the dog, the person who keeps the dog or the kennel who looks after the dog. The first quote comes from the Sunday Telegraph – a newspaper to which I do not normally refer, except in exceptional cases – of 2 May 1971: for a pound per night or even less, you too can hire a guard dog to protect your belongings in the early hours of the morning. That`s the part that worries me: just flip through the Yellow Pages or flip through the classifieds. And they are all there: security companies that represent the most astonishing, perhaps worrying, growth sector of British industry. My concern is that if this new provision becomes the law of the land, it can be assumed that anyone flipping through the yellow pages – certainly in terms of hiring watchdogs – could be in all sorts of trouble if it is not certain that anyone advertising in the yellow pages has followed all the rules and regulations regarding watchdogs. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this is an unfortunate legal situation. When we browse the Yellow Pages, whether for a restaurant, a radio shop or a watchdog, we must constantly ensure that all regulations regarding the goods offered for sale are respected.