Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, February 18, 2021

Official Report 631KB pdf

---

Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 (Post-legislative Scrutiny)

Agenda item 3 is post-legislative scrutiny of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting today. They are Ash Denham, who is the Minister for Community Safety, and Jim Wilson, who is a senior policy lead in the criminal justice division of the Scottish Government. I understand that the minister has a brief opening statement for us.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. Let me begin by expressing my thanks to all members of the committee for the report “Post-legislative Scrutiny: Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010” and its recommendations. I welcomed the opportunity to engage with the committee last year and the constructive discussion with members on a range of important points during that session. I am pleased to provide members with a further update today on progress by the Scottish Government since I was last at committee, as we continue to implement and progress the report recommendations that fall to us.

I can give a strong assurance that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to responsible dog ownership in order to help to keep communities safe. We are committed to driving, through partnership working, more action to tackle irresponsible dog ownership across our communities. To that end, we established with local authorities, Police Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other key stakeholders a working group, which now includes a victims’ voice representing survivors of dog attacks. The working group meets regularly to consider, deliver and progress collectively many of the recommendations.

The Scottish Government’s Covid-19 response has generally had an impact on availability of resources, but I am pleased to report that of the report recommendations that require some form of action, 20 out of 21 have either been fully delivered, partially delivered or remain in progress through the working group that is led by the Scottish Government. The breakdown is that five recommendations have been delivered, one is partially delivered and in progress, 14 are in progress and one is not yet started. That longer-term recommendation will be considered once reforms to the dog-control system are in place.

We want to build on completed actions, which include updated statutory guidance on the 2010 act, publication of a discussion paper on dog law reform and delivery of an awareness-raising campaign through social media last year. More action is planned. I am happy during this evidence session to talk through the Scottish Government’s plans, which include plans to run a marketing campaign in the coming weeks on promoting responsible dog ownership.

Engagement is key. We have welcomed engagement with COSLA community safety officials, the Improvement Service and Police Scotland to consider collectively the issues and the opportunities to tackle a range of matters. We continue to lead discussions and to engage in order to make clear the importance of close co-operation and strong partnership working, which are vital and necessary not just in order to progress the report recommendations, but because we must, going forward, continually review and assess what other policy measures—legislative and non-legislative—can and should be taken in the future. That will be achieved best through a strong collaborative approach and shared ownership of key workstreams.

In addition to parliamentary consideration and scrutiny, we must also learn from other jurisdictions to inform policy thinking, and in respect of sharing good practice. We valued and welcomed recent engagement with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs policy leads, Welsh Government policy leads, the Metropolitan Police, the safer Sutton partnership service and Middlesex University.

We are happy to speak to the committee about any of or all those things. Thank you, convener.

That was helpful. It was a little bit vague, but my colleagues will probably want to delve down into the detail, as you offered to do. I ask Colin Beattie to open questioning.

Your recent letter to the committee about the number of attendances at accident and emergency departments in which a dog attack has been recorded says that the number rose from 6,483 in 2018 to 6,992 in 2019. The note that accompanies the data says that we should not be using that to determine whether there have been increases or decreases in the number of attacks. Whatever way we look at it, it says that 7,000 people had to attend A and E to seek treatment following dog attacks. That is completely unacceptable. If drunken drivers were mowing down 7,000 people on the streets, there would be a bit more being done than a working group being put together. It is an absolute crisis, with the impact on the NHS in reconstructive surgery, on which we have taken evidence, and in relation to children, who are the prime victims of attacks because they are smaller and more vulnerable to dogs that would attack.

Can you reassure us that the matter is being treated urgently? What will be the timescale for a reduction in that level of, frankly, unacceptable behaviour?

Thank you. Of course it is completely unacceptable that that number of people seek treatment for dog attacks. I am concerned about the number of people who are having to attend hospital.

I take exception to how the member phrased that question, in saying that all that the Scottish Government has done is to set up a working group. That is absolutely not the case. I will run through some of the things that we have done since I started working on the issue.

We have progressed all the committee’s recommendations; they are all in train, apart from one, as I said earlier, which is to do with a longer piece of work. I have requested prioritisation within the justice directorate and I have had extra staff resource put on the team that is dealing with the matter. We have updated the guidance on the 2010 act and the protocol and we have done the review on operational effectiveness, which has found some gaps in the law and will be progressed as soon as possible. We have set up the working group, which is a good way to achieve the joint working and collaborative approach that I spoke about in my opening statement.

We did a marketing campaign last summer. I have sought, and have been given, the budget to do another marketing campaign, which will start shortly. I have also managed to get funding for a training fund and have budget to set up and run a pilot. We have produced a discussion paper on review of the criminal law and offences relating to dangerous dogs. I hope that the committee will agree that that is a substantial amount of work that is being taken forward.

10:30  

However, I agree with Colin Beattie that there is more to be done. We will all be pleased when we see numbers of people presenting at A and E starting to decrease. The best thing to do with the data that Public Health Scotland has given us is to use it for enforcement purposes. I have asked my officials to give the data to the enforcement agencies, which are Police Scotland and local authorities, in this case. Because the data is broken down by health board area, it gives a map of hot spots across the country. If that information is taken by the enforcement agencies, resources can be targeted and deployed to reduce the number of dog attacks in those communities.

Operational matters are for the independent local authorities and for Police Scotland. It would not be appropriate for me to interfere, but I take the matter seriously. It is for the Scottish Government to facilitate enforcement, as much as possible. We are using the working group as one way to do that.

I mentioned the discussion paper a few moments ago. We are looking at the legislative framework, which is right. We have, through the review, identified gaps in the law to do with enforcement. We are now looking at review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the criminal offence of a dog being dangerously out of control; we are seeking people’s views on whether it is appropriate or should be changed. I hope many people will respond, because that will help to shape decisions in the next session of Parliament about how we make the legislative changes that we have spoken about during the last few times in which I have appeared at the committee.

One of the concerns has been about the lack of reliable data. Are we now getting reliable data from NHS boards on dog attacks? One of my local medical centres sees three or four dog attack victims a week, but they are not recorded anywhere. We may see figures that come through from NHS boards, but not from surgeries. How do we bring all that together so that we understand the scale of the problem, which, anecdotally, is very large indeed?

That is a key point. It is important that we have accurate and consistent data to inform policy choices. I have concerns about the data and how it is being produced and whether that is being done consistently. My officials have pursued the data issues with Public Health Scotland, but it has indicated to us that it is more of a general issue with recording and diagnosing injury in A and E. There is a lack of suitably robust data in respect of dog attack injuries, which is part of a wider issue with data on people who present at A and E.

I understand that Public Health Scotland is looking at that and wants all NHS boards to record in the same way. There is quite a bit of detail on the recording of data at A and E, so I will bring Jim Wilson in to speak about that.

I will quickly flip back to the first question, on dog attack data. I want to pick up the point that the minister helpfully made during her opening remarks on engagement with DEFRA and Welsh Government officials. That made me think about looking at cross-nation discussions to explore policy approaches in other jurisdictions, with an opportunity to share good practice. Ultimately, the problem of dog bites, admissions to A and E and so on is a global one, and it is important to learn from others and look at measures that could reduce the number of dog attacks and hospital admissions. We need to look at the issue through a broad lens.

On the commitment around on-going engagement with DEFRA, I know that it has commissioned Middlesex University in London to undertake research into the dangerous dogs legislation. I understand that that report, which is currently subject to peer review, should be published in the coming weeks. I would be happy to ensure that a copy of the report is shared with the committee, once I have permission to do so.

On the second point—

I am sure that the committee can access research on this if it wishes. Could you tell us, please, what the Government is doing? Mr Beattie asked whether dog bites have been recorded and we heard from the minister that there are some issues. It sounds as if A and Es are telling you that they cannot record when an injury has been caused by a dog bite. Can you give us a clear answer on that, please?

Yes. More than a year ago, there were some discussions around all the NHS boards using the emergency care data set—ECDS—clinical codes. However, challenges remain for some NHS boards, in that there are local systems that make it difficult to change clinical codes—indeed, funding would be required to do so. The onset of Covid-19 has led to the reprioritisation of some reforms within NHS boards, which has hindered their ability to make substantial progress. However—

Are you saying that there is no code on the computer to record a dog bite?

The issue is inconsistency of coding. I am having a discussion with Public Health Scotland and John Thomson, who is an emergency medicine consultant in NHS Grampian and currently vice-president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, to explore the known data issues and to look at securing buy-in from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to improve recording via its membership. That conversation has been arranged for a week today, on 25 February. More generally, I know that there are bi-annual conversations between Public Health Scotland and health boards around a range of data issues.

I share the member’s concern around the data inconsistencies. We are determined to work with Public Health Scotland and health boards to address those issues. It is important that we have a reliable and strong baseline figure that gives us confidence that we understand the scale of the problem with the current data on dog bites. Without doubt, what is made available could be strengthened.

It is quite clear that you are telling me that the high probability is that dog attacks are being underreported: health boards are not able to extract the statistics, so the data must be fairly limited. That would indicate that the problem is even bigger.

I have first-hand experience of the issue. I have constituents who have suffered life-changing injuries as a result of dog attacks. These attacks are going on all the time. It is a matter of real urgency; it is not something for a bi-annual conference or a discussion. Our citizens are being attacked almost daily, and something has to be done. We need to protect our citizens. We need to ensure that responsible dog owners are still able to enjoy their companions, but we need to crack down heavily on out-of-control dogs and irresponsible dog owners. My question is very simple: what timescale are we looking at to stop this level of injury and attack on our citizens? When will we see real action?

I am taking real action. I have just laid out all the actions that the Government is taking. We will continue to do that because we take the issue extremely seriously.

I agree with the member completely. We do not want to see out-of-control dogs attacking people who then have to report to A and E or their doctor’s surgery for treatment. We are taking forward workstreams in all these areas to get this under control.

We have concerns about the data. Jim Wilson has explained a little bit about that. However, that is not totally within our control, as the committee will understand. There is possibly some underreporting, but there is also possibly some double-counting, because we know that people can be counted more than once. However, we have concerns about the data.

Minister, Colin Beattie asked for a timescale. Can you answer that specific question? Do you have a target to reduce dog attacks by 50 per cent by X date, or do you not have such a target?

I do not have such a target at the moment, no, but we are working on this as fast as we can. We have a number of workstreams that we are progressing at the moment. I am keen to see a reduction. We are working with the enforcement agencies, which are on the front line and are able to make a difference.

We would expect that.

We are talking about dog attacks on human beings, but there is also the volume of dog attacks on other dogs, which are unrecorded. Again, I have first-hand experience of that through my constituents. Small family dogs have been attacked by out-of-control larger dogs and literally ripped apart. There are no statistics covering those attacks, but they are very traumatic experiences for responsible dog owners whose pets—their companions—are attacked and savaged by out-of-control dogs. Perhaps that should be considered, alongside attacks on human beings.

I will leave it at that, convener.

I have a question for Jim Wilson. It has been months since the committee published its report, and one of our key recommendations was on the data issue. Why is the meeting with the doctor in Grampian only now being arranged?

As a bit of context around the point that the minister made about the impact of Covid on resources, I head up the—

Sorry—we know that Covid has been difficult, but our report came out pre-Covid. Could you answer the specific question, please? Why has it taken until now to organise the meeting?

To put it in a nutshell, I am currently dealing with a range of Covid matters. I have policy responsibility for dogs, but since 18 March last year, I have also been heading up a justice Covid hub.

I recognise the urgency around the need for reassurance on the data, and I appreciate Mr Beattie’s point about the dangers of underrecording. For example, there might be an incident involving a dog bite laceration, but how is the NHS board recording that? Does it simply go in the system as a laceration, or does it go in as a dog bite laceration? These key issues need to be explored with Public Health Scotland and John Thomson, the named contact I mentioned.

I would have liked to move faster to address the data point, but I give the committee reassurance that we are looking to engage with public health officials.

The letter from the minister to the committee was sent on 23 December. At that point, we had had some conversations with Public Health Scotland in which we raised concerns about the data and inconsistencies and asked what steps would be taken around an improvement plan to address those concerns. Health boards were quite quick to point out the resourcing pressures from Covid, which is a relevant point. However, I am on the case and I look forward to the meeting a week today.

Our committee report was published in July 2019. The response to the pandemic did not start until March last year, six or seven months later.

Graham Simpson is next.

10:45  

Thank you, convener. I share your frustration—I cannot believe what I am hearing. Colin Beattie asked about data. It struck me that if I turned up in hospital with injuries having been attacked by another person, that would be recorded, but if I had been attacked by a dog and had possibly more severe injuries, that might not be recorded. That is extraordinary.

I want to explore another area around data, which relates to engagement by councils in undertaking their duties. Enforcement will work only if councils sign up to it. The level of engagement that we have had is pretty low. Nineteen councils responded to your own consultation, minister, 22 responded to our request for information and 15 responded to the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland’s request for information on local authority spending on dog control. In the paper from the society, South Lanarkshire, where I live, is recorded as saying:

“We do not record this information”—

and it was not the only one. If councils do not record information, how on earth are we meant to know how effective the legislation is?

No one can force local authorities to engage. The committee has at times struggled to get engagement on dog control matters with local authorities, and the same is true, unfortunately, for the Scottish Government.

A step forward has been taken with the creation of the working group, which is designed to facilitate engagement and communication between all the key bodies that are involved in enforcement and to raise the profile of the importance of effective dog control enforcement, which is what we need to see.

I have been engaging with COSLA on this, and have had several conversations with Councillor Kelly Parry, who is COSLA’s spokesperson for community safety and wellbeing. I spoke to her in November about a range of issues, especially dog control. It is important that we have that engagement with COSLA, because we need local authorities to look carefully at their approach in undertaking their statutory duties under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and to highlight and support the activity that the Scottish Government is taking forward.

I will ask Jim Wilson to come in. He has been leading some of the engagement with the dog control wardens. That links into the issue of local authority response and enforcement.

I want to touch on some recent engagement. I spoke at the National Dog Warden Association’s annual general meeting a few months ago, which gave me an opportunity to have a wide-ranging conversation with a good number of dog wardens who hold membership of the association.

I have also spoken to James Crawshaw from Glasgow City Council, who plays a lead role in the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland, and to one of the working group leads, Hazel from Aberdeen, who plays a lead role in the Royal Environmental Health Institute for Scotland. I am looking at opportunities to have wide-ranging conversations with the full membership of those groups, because that will be critical.

There is always more that can be done to boost and strengthen local authority engagement. When I came into my post in January 2020, one of the first things that I decided to do was reflect on my policy input more than decade ago. I dealt with policy on dog control back then, when Alex Neil MSP’s member’s bill was introduced to Parliament. I had dog control tours, which involved significant travel and engagement with a wide range of local authorities—including the Shetland Islands—and helped me to meet dog wardens and understand local issues and any concerns around the legislation.

There are also opportunities to look at individual engagement with a number of local authorities. Although the working group membership has four local authority representatives and we use that as a way of engaging with local authorities, there is always room for further engagement.

It feels as if we are getting a lot of answers about engagement, meetings and conversations but not a lot of action.

Graham Simpson, do you want to continue?

Yes. The minister has spoken to Councillor Parry and Mr Wilson has attended an AGM and has spoken to someone called Hazel from Aberdeen, but the upshot is that we are no further forward from when we last spoke to the minister and she said that engagement by councils was not good enough. If it was not good enough when you last spoke to us, minister, and it is still not good enough, what are you doing about it? We need to know the full picture. That should not be too difficult.

I agree with you that we could have better engagement with local authorities on this issue. I am trying to bring the issue to the forefront, to highlight it and to impress upon local authorities that it is extremely important. It is particularly important that we consider the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 regime as a preventative one, which I do. It is about getting to out-of-control dogs before things escalate and they become dangerous dogs. When I last appeared in front of the committee we had a conversation about the number of dog wardens and so on. I have continued to impress the importance of that on stakeholders.

Since I last spoke to the committee, we have updated all the statutory guidance. The committee recommended that that be updated and that has been done. It has been refreshed to assist enforcement agencies with the operation of their powers. I hope that they can improve their operational ability by looking at the guidance, which has best practice examples and so on. That should help.

We will run another marketing campaign in the next few weeks. I do not know whether the committee would like me to explain a bit about that.

Not quite at the moment, minister. I want to bring all the questioners in first. You have mentioned it a couple of times.

Graham Simpson, do you have another question?

There is not much point, convener. I am not getting anywhere. It is not good enough. You can move on, thank you.

I have also managed to get £100,000 to set up a training fund. That could be key, if we work with dog behaviourists to deliver training on the content of the legislation and to enhance enforcement skills, the approach and so on. We are looking into the development of that now, and we hope to give the committee an update on it. That is positive and I hope that it will help with enforcement on the ground.

Who is being trained? Is it dog wardens?

Yes.

Minister, you said in the evidence session in August that you and COSLA agree that dog wardens need to be in place in order for enforcement to be effective, but the recent data that has been provided to the committee does not suggest that there has been a notable increase in dog wardens since the committee began working on the issue in 2018. In my experience, the Highland Council website says that, if people have a problem with a dog, they should phone the police. They have four people covering an area the size of Belgium, who are not dog wardens but assistant community people. What can you do about that? What level of importance should local authorities place on having dog wardens?

It is a key issue. I think that it is of the utmost importance. Clearly, we will not be able to operate any kind of enforcement regime if we do not have the boots on the ground and the people who are able to do it. I have just mentioned—and we spoke about this last time—the need for them to be highly trained and highly effective so that we can get the enforcement to where we want it to be in order for it have the preventative effect that we all want it to have. I hope that the funding that I have managed to get to improve training will be effective.

It is for local authorities to decide for themselves how they allocate their resources. We all know that. It is not for me to tell them how many dog wardens they should have. Ms Ross has made the point that local authorities are different and they have different geographies and so on, so the numbers of dog wardens that are needed will vary. However, I certainly agree that we do not have enough dog wardens. I would like to see local authorities prioritising them and bringing in more.

I have given some thought to how I could try to move this along. I have managed to get some funding for a pilot. I have £184,000, which is in the justice budget line for the financial year 2021-22. The pilot approach would be to fund dog wardens. I want to test whether giving additional resources to one or two local authorities will prove successful in strengthening the enforcement that we are talking about, which we hope will, in turn, reduce the number of dog incidents. If that proves to be successful, I think that it will strengthen the case for looking at future funding opportunities, possibly nationally. That would stand a good chance of success if the evidence can be demonstrated. That plays strongly into the preventative spending approach.

Officials have spoken to local authority representatives about that possibility and we are seeking an in-principle agreement to progress the pilot. Further discussions on that will happen through the working group and outwith it. We will be happy to update the committee shortly when we have some more detail that we can give, but I hope that that will have the effect that the committee is looking for.

Providing extra money to local authorities to employ more dog wardens would certainly help with the issue. Instead of doing a pilot project with one or two local authorities, maybe the Government should just provide that funding to all local authorities now so that we do not have to wait for a pilot to finish and basically tell us something that we already know.

If additional funding was provided to local authorities through the block funding position, it would then be up to local authorities to decide how to spend that money. Unless the funding was ring fenced specifically for dog wardens, which is not something that the Scottish Government typically does, it would not work in quite that way. Obviously, I am not in charge of the funding for local authority block grants. That comes under the finance portfolio. However, I have managed to get the funding that I mentioned, which I am going to spend through the pilot on dog wardens.

That is welcome, but there are a lot of ring fenced funds within local authorities and I am sure that it would be possible if we wanted it to be. Thank you, convener.

I agree with Gail Ross. As Colin Beattie said, if we were seeing the same amount of injuries due to drunk drivers, the Scottish Government would have no hesitation in ring fencing additional funding for local authorities to tackle it. I do not see what that problem is.

11:00  

Going back to the data issue in relation to the health service and the disparity in accident and emergency data collection, I note that there is probably far more activity around dog injuries in the primary care sector, and particularly at GP surgeries, than there is at A and E. What is the state of play with data collection in primary care, and particularly at GP surgeries? It seems to me that we should be capturing that data as well as the A and E data.

Yes—that is a key point. I ask Jim Wilson to explain the way that that data is collected.

I thank Mr Neil for the question. I would not be able to provide any statistical information off the top of my head, but I will be more than happy to raise the point in the conversation that I will have a week from today. I am sorry that I cannot provide any information just now.

There are two things we need to know. First, what do the existing statistics for primary care show us, if they are collected at all? If you can get that information for us as a result of your meeting next week, it will be helpful, because it will give us a bigger picture of the incidence of dog bites and attacks. Secondly, do you have the methodology problems with collecting the data across primary care that are evident in trying to get a consistent approach across accident and emergency departments?

There are issues around the methodology point. I have spoken at length with health analytical colleagues about the concerns that the minister and I have about the accuracy and type of data that is produced currently.

I am more than happy to take those two helpful points away and explore them further. We will come back to the committee in writing once we have an update. I recognise the frustrations around the data position. As I said earlier, it is important that we establish a firm and reliable baseline so that we understand the scale of the problem.

I suspect that you will have to recruit the assistance of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport to crack this one, quite frankly, because things move slowly in the health service and, at the moment, the matter is not at the top of the in-tray for most people. I suspect that you and the minister will have to talk to Jeane Freeman.

I move on to another area where we are expecting progress. Where are we with the establishment of the Scottish dog control notice database?

We are making progress with that. When I was in front of the committee previously, we said that we were going to be involving the Improvement Service. In September, we commissioned it to look into the feasibility of the database. The situation is that we have 32 local authorities and they have a variety of different information technology systems. They do not all work from a single IT system. The Improvement Service was brought in to have a look at the current infrastructure, understand the current approach and analyse ways in which it could be transformed and improved. It has looked at what top technology would be available, how it could be maintained and the likely costs for setting it up, maintaining it and so on.

That scoping study has completed—it ran from November to February—and the report went to my officials last week. We are now in on-going discussions with local authorities, Police Scotland, COSLA and other stakeholders to consider the next steps. I will bring in Jim Wilson to give a bit more detail about that, but I say to the committee that the way that we are going to progress it initially is by conducting a proof of concept. We will work through it with a couple of local authorities to see how it would start to work.

However, I can advise the committee that we are on track to deliver the database by the end of this year.

To clarify, are you saying that the national database will be up and running by the end of this calendar year?

Yes, but I make the point that, because of the way that the legislation is set up—we have discussed this before—the database that is set up will be able to hold only the information about DCNs. I know that the committee was very interested in the database being able to hold other data such as details of complaints that have been investigated and warnings that have been issued, and information of other types. The current powers under the 2010 act mean that we cannot do that at present, but I want to progress that by regulation.

That is the caveat—the database will be up and running, but initially it will only be able to hold that information. If we expand it, we will need to do that by secondary legislation.

To add to those helpful points, I stress that there is a need to think about the technology that is selected for the national dog control notice database, because it has to be future proofed to ensure that it will be available in future.

I made this point to the committee when the minister and I gave evidence back in August, but it is important. We are tied to the provisions in the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, and at present it would be possible to exercise the order-making power in section 8 only if we had a national dog control notice database that could hold information relating to the contents of notices. However, we want to ensure that, if policy changes are made in the next session of Parliament, the technology is such that it will be possible to include more key information relating to investigations, breaches of dog control notices and so on.

The proof of concept point that the minister made is important. I have had a number of conversations with COSLA officials about it, and it is worth adding that the scoping study included 27 representatives from councils who engaged in a workshop session with the Improvement Service on 15 January. There is strong buy-in from local authorities, with 100 per cent of those who attended that engagement with the Improvement Service saying that this is the right thing to do and that it will be a useful enforcement tool.

I am conscious of the time, but I will provide a snapshot of some of the key points that came out of the scoping study, and I should add that we will be more than happy to share it with the committee—

I am sorry to interrupt, but it will probably be easier if you could share that with us in writing after the meeting. I am sure that the convener will be happy with that.

Yes—that would be helpful.

I have one more question. You mentioned the need for secondary legislation in order to facilitate the national database and make it do the things that we want it to do. When will that secondary legislation be laid for approval?

More generally, we have made it clear that we believe that a new control of dogs act is required. We should not just update the act that we passed 11 years ago; we should update the antiquated legislation that still is on the statute book, which needs to be updated. We made that point clearly in the committee. This is a question for the minister, because it is a political one. What commitment is there that—depending on the election result, obviously—a new control of dogs bill will be introduced in the first half of the next session of Parliament?

You are quite right. The legislative framework is clearly an important part of all the different strands of work that we are doing, and we are progressing it. Last year, we did the review of the operational effectiveness of the 2010 act, and we identified a number of gaps that we have now put into the list of things that need to be taken forward in primary legislation. We are currently doing another review, which is the discussion paper, to see whether the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 needs to be reviewed and updated. We also have a question about whether it should be consolidated to make it easier to operate, more straightforward and so on.

The piece of work would be to incorporate all those different strands—the operational effectiveness work and the gaps we identified in that, along with what respondents to the discussion paper say about the 1991 act and whether it should be updated—and then take them forward in a bigger piece of legislative work. I think that the 1991 act probably does need to be updated. Obviously, I do not know who will be in my post after the election—indeed, we do not know who the Government will be—but officials are working on the matter and I can give an assurance that, if we have an SNP Government, it will be taken forward early in the next parliamentary session.

Minister, I would like to ask about the “one bite” legislation that the Government has out for consultation. Are you in favour of changing the law in that area?

There is a strong case for updating the law, and that is why we are consulting on the subject. We had a discussion about it in our previous conversation with the committee and it was mentioned in the committee’s report. We have a discussion paper out at the moment and I encourage people to respond to it. The responses that we get will inform policy going forward, which will, as I have said, be part of the update to the legislative framework on the control of dogs, be it in terms of civil law or criminal law. That will be taken forward early in the next parliamentary session.

I think that I speak on behalf of my whole committee when I say that we are really quite frustrated by the pace of progress. The consultation that you have just mentioned closes on 30 April, I think, or certainly at the end of that month. We will be in an election period then. Our report on dogs was released in July 2019, which is a long time ago—it is 18 months ago—and we said at the time that it was the hardest-hitting report that the committee had published, because we felt so strongly about public safety and the injuries to children. You must have seen or read the testimonies from the families that we had at our committee. I make the point again that, if such injuries were happening in any other way, the matter would be a much higher priority for the Government.

We have heard excuses from the Scottish Government about Covid, but the report was published seven or eight months before any of us had heard of Covid. The “one bite” consultation could have closed in that time and we could have looked at changing the law. It could have been done within the current session of Parliament. Instead, we do not even know whether GPs record the data, and we are 18 months or nearly two years on from our report. Frankly, I have run out of optimism that the Scottish Government is actually going to do anything. Unfortunately, we will have to leave it to colleagues in the next session of Parliament to take up the issue, which most of us still believe is very important.

It is a very important issue—I completely agree, convener—and I reassure the committee that the Scottish Government is working on it. It may not be at the speed that the committee expects, but I assure the committee that I take it very seriously and I have been working hard on it with the small team that I have in Government.

The reason why we only did the discussion paper on the 1991 act is that we decided to do the operational effectiveness review first because it would be clearer how we would frame that if we had that consultation first. There were things that we needed to work through in order to have a look at the 1991 act. That is why that has been done as it has been.

The legislative changes are certainly an important part of the picture, but they are not the whole picture. I have had an opportunity to talk today about other things that the Government is doing, such as the further awareness raising that we will be doing, which will start in the next few weeks, and the work that we are doing with enforcement and engagement with local authorities. I hope that the committee can see that the overall picture is one where the Scottish Government is working towards definitely making improvements in the area.

Minister, forgive me. I have never been a minister in government, but is there any scope within your Government to make a decision and get on with it rather than having all these working groups, consultations and endless discussions about taking action at a point in the future?

It is important to engage with stakeholders. We all expect the Government to produce good law, and in order to do that we need to engage with stakeholders, test the arguments and have the discussions, particularly if we are going to change the criminal law. I think that the committee would accept that.

I am committed and I have put the matter forward for the legislative programme for the next parliamentary session. I am in control of doing that and it has been slotted in early in the next session. I give the committee a commitment that it will be taken forward early in the next session.

If you are in government.

If the SNP is in government—yes. Well, I would hope that any Government would take it forward, to be honest.

Absolutely. I think that the committee felt that we did a lot of the preparation and consultation work for the Government and we were hoping that you could take it on quickly after that.

Anyway, all of that being said, I thank the minister, Ash Denham, and Jim Wilson very much indeed for their evidence this morning. That ends the public part of the meeting and we will now move into private session.

11:17 Meeting continued in private until 11:43.