JUST HOW hard should we be on dogs – and their owners – in Tower Hamlets? Over the summer, Tower Hamlets Council has been consulting the public on a new dog-control policy: and dog owners are… barking mad about it.
The Council began talking about revising its dog control policy just after the last Government banned XL Bully dogs – a ban imposed after a number of serious incidents of these dogs attacking people. There have been bye-laws governing control of dogs in Victoria Park for a while, requiring dogs to be on a leash at all times and banning them from children’s play areas. They seem to work well. Perhaps that is why the Council consulted on whether that approach should be expanded – with owners required to keep their dogs on a leash everywhere in the borough, except in dog zones in parks. The Council decided to make these changes by making the whole borough subject to a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
However, not for the first time, dog owners across the borough responded with a zeal which made the casual observer wonder if the Council was proposing to massacre all the first-borns. Not waiting for the Council to consider the responses to the formal consultation and formulate proposals, the dog owners started a petition which attracted enough signatures to force not only consideration at the Council but also a full debate. Labour loved it, with its speakers declaring an affinity with the dog owners no one had realised they had. Aspire Councillors looked somewhat bemused.
Battle lines were drawn as the dog owners introduced their actual petition. They were well prepared and tugged at every heart-string going. ●Dogs need exercise to maintain their own physical and mental health: more exercise than they can have on a lead. Yes, dogs could probably be kept on a leash as they walk the pavements to get to the parks, but once there they should be allowed to run without restriction. In the whole park. Not just in the dog zone. If they scare your children, a responsible dog owner will come and education your children and calm their fears. We’re British and we love animals. ●Dogs keep their owners from feeling lonely and they keep their owners fit as the owners have to walk them. We’re Britsh and we love people too – especially old people who have dogs. ●The vast majority of cases of dogs attacking their owners happen outside London and in their own homes. Dogs attack people they know – not strangers in the park. ●Any dog control orders would be over the top because the Council doesn’t have the resources or the will to enforce them. It was heavy stuff.
Cllr Kabir Ahmed asked how the petitioners thought that the Council should tackle violent dogs. The petitioners said that this was not really a problem, as XL Bully dogs were already banned by national legislation.
Cllr Abdi Mohamed said he appreciated this community-orientated campaign. He should really spend some time learning the words “vested interest”. Cllr Mohamed appreciated the “emotional toll” the Council’s proposed PSPO would have on dogs and their owners. A young girl had her leg bitten open, to the bone, in Shadwell a couple of years ago, by a neighbour’s dog which was running around the communal area in her estate. The attack had quite an emotional toll on her too.
Cllr Nathalie Bienfait noticed that the time for questions had run out (which was more than the Speaker had). She believed that the Council was useless when it came to enforcing national legislation prohiting dog fouling. Cllr Peter Gold suggested that the Council should liaise with other London Councils to see how they do things. (Actually, most of them do it by having PSPOs.) The petitioners thought that would be an excellent idea, stating that London authorities did not have a uniform policy.
Cllr Sirajul Islam, Leader of the Labour Group, asked how the dog control proposals would have a negative impact on dogs’ mental health – an innovative stance, as the previous debate had concentrated on the mental health of the owners, rather than the dogs – though, admittedly, the petitioners had done a good job of describing how leashed dogs would get sad and miserable.
The Speaker then saw that time was over and moved to the debate and Cllr Sirajul Islam had another go. He picked up the Labour love-in line and said the community had done a great job coming to the Council. It was not the community that was present – it was the dog owners, but never mind.
Cllr Nathalie Bienfait had a second go too. She congratulated the petitioners on ther campaign. She had been lobbied extensively and there were posters everywhere in her ward. She again questioned the Council’s ability to enforce control measures and asked whether the measures which had gone out to public consultation were proportionate to the risks they were designed to address.
Cllr Mufeedah Bustin is always on the look out for a chance to tell a good anecdote. She seized on the mention of dogs (as in domesticated animals) to let everyone know that she had once seen Snoop Dog (a rap artist) in concert. Laugh? We nearly did. She asked the Administration to listen to the views of the community – again conflating 5,000 dog owners with “everyone in Tower Hamlets”. Back in the day, Cllr Bustin was part of a Labour Group which had ignored over 2,000 people who signed a pettion asking the then Labour Mayor not to close the Council’s day nurseries. Well, community – you can’t have it all.
Cllr Peter Golds, who also loves to tell a story from time to time, confessed that he had been bitten twice – but two different dogs, who were each in their own home at the time. One had gone for his fingers after he put a leaflet through a letterbox. From this experience he concluded that most dog owners are responsible, the Council is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and PSPOs won’tchange the minds of the real villains. He didn’t explain how he knew that the leaflet bite was a dog, and not just an owner reacting to seeing a Conservative Party leaflet.
Cllr Kabir Ahmed suggested that it was all very well, responsible dog owners coming to the Council and telling everyone they identified as responsible dog owners. The PSPO was intended to address the irresponsible dog owners. He added that the dog owners should not fear consultation, which had to be meaningful. He looked forward to seeing the proposals that would come forward once the consutation responses had been considered.
Cllr James King then woke up. He congratulated the campaigners and then mumbled something almost entirely inaudible to the public gallery. It seemed to suggest that a PSPO was not needed because bye-laws could fulfill the same purpose and also referred to “partnership work”. Cllr Abdal Ullah sprang up like a little jack-in-the-box and said he knew a blogger who had favoured a dog ban. He also thought the Council did not have enough enforcement capacity to enforce the things that need enforcing.
The debate was closed by Cllr Shafi Ahmed who thanked the petitioners for putting their views forward. He said that the proposals which went out to public consultation were born out of a desire to protect people. Options had been considered and it was felt that a PSPO was the most effective measure. Very few of our residents have gardens, so we need rules to ensure that people and dogs can share our public spaces. He confirmed that the consultation responses are being reviewed and final proposas would come forward in the new year. In the meantime, he was happy to meet the petitioners.
There was then a bit of procedural chianery. Although this was supposed to be a debate on the petition, Cllr Sirajul Islam seemed to have moved a motion, with Cllr Amy Lee seconding it. This gave him the right to reply to the debate (as opposed to the petition, to which Cllr Ahmed had replied). Cllr Islam’s reply was almost inaudible, save that he noted that some people, especially children, fear dogs, and perhaps we need some education on how to love them. The motion, whatever it was, was agreed unanimously and the petition was referred to the Corporate Director.
Where does this leave us? First, the dog owners mounted a professional campaign to promote their view but that is not the same as a borough-wide consultation. Those who are scared of dogs, or who have been injured by them, or who have had a bad experience with their excrement, did not organise a petition to urge the Council to adopt its control proposals, but they might have expressed this view in the consultation. We shall have to wait until final proposals emerge. We can only hope that the Administration can find a middle path which will allow responsible dog owners to give their pets what they need but which allows others some quiet enjoyment of our public space.
●Watch the debate at the Council: Council debate
●Read more about it: Read more stories about Tower Hamlets Council