What Members of the House of Lords

had to say about the DDA (UK):

 The Late Lord Houghton of Sowerby (Labour Peer):

When I go into the history of the matter. I realise that it was noting short of a parliamentary frame-up which led to the 1991 Act being passed in another place in eight hours flat under a guillotine motion which required all stages of the Bill to be completed in one day.

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed, for noble Lords contributions to this debate. In the remarks that have been made, coming as they do from a collection of Peers of great wisdom and experience, there should be some message to the Government tonight.

If the regime that we are employing for the control and elimination of Dangerous Dog were to be applied to human beings, there would be demonstrations of protest, as there were in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill.

I know that one does not have to economize on justice, but one should economize on injustice. There is no economy on the injustices which are going on at the present time.

The Home Office is saddled with the full responsibility for this great amount of trouble.
We cannot let things go on as they are. Sometime soon we shall have to have he judgement of an independent body which can tell us more than we know.

To my mind no stain is so deep on he statue book as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

This time attention is concentrated on the biggest evil of that disreputable piece of legislation, the mandatory death sentence in sections 1 and 3 of the principal Act.
The sentence deprives the accused citizen of the right to justice.

We are drifting towards a regime of oppression, suppression, injustice and cruelty which we should not tolerate in Society.

The whole Act is designed to promote death. It is clear that there is a presumption of guilt.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior (Conservative Peer):

Other problems lie in the long term detention of dogs, its cost and the effect of such detention on the dogs and their owners. One needs only to read the press to learn of the problems in that area.

Lord Glenartbur (Conservative Peer):

I speak from the point of view of one who, for a few years, was a minister at the Home Office.
Four years later, we have a much better picture of how the real holes in it have become full exposed. They are not merely weaknesses as has been illustrated this evening, they are plain nonsense. I hope that those mistakes will be put right.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat Peer):

Every noble Lord has recognised the need for Dangerous Dogs legislation, but has recognised also the need to ensure that the legislation operates fairly, rationally and in accordance with the rule of law.

That well intentional but, in some respects unfair, costly and unworkable measure received Royal Assent just over two months after the Government announced their intention to legislate. The vice of a mandatory death penalty is, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, indicated, that it is a denial of the due process of law, contrary to ancient common law principal. 

It deprives the courts of any discretion and does not enable the courts to have regard to the particular circumstances of the individual case. Therefore, it results in cases with profoundly unfair consequences.

The 1991 Act does, I believe bring British Justice into disrepute.

Baroness Wharton (Cross bench Peer):

Common sense should prevail.
Under the 1991 Act, the prosecution does not have to prove anything. I believe that that brings British Justice into disrepute.

Lord Rennell (Conservative Peer):

As it stands, the law is far more likely to punish the good rather than the bad owners.

As we have heard, there are too many unhappy but good owners who are not receiving justice from the Government.

The above  quotations are taken from a debate in the House of Lords on March 1st 1995.

Unfortunately, the Act continues to fall short of protecting people & dogs, ten years later!