Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, April 22, 2010

Official Report 1132KB pdf

---

Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6147, in the name of Christine Grahame, on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill.

15:18

I am delighted to open the final debate on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which is the culmination of three years’ sustained work. For that, I express my gratitude to the staff of the non-Executive bills unit—I wish that it had a catchier title—and the legal department for their dogged determination; that will be my only canine pun.

I also thank my colleague Alex Neil, who set the bill in motion before his well-deserved elevation; Duncan McNeil, for most ably overseeing the Local Government and Communities Committee’s consideration of the bill at stages 1 and 2; the committee clerks; all the witnesses and consultees, without whose input the bill could not have been developed; the cabinet secretary, for taking such a constructive approach; and Government officials, whose expertise was so useful. I also thank the many members of the public who have followed the progress of the bill and contacted me with their comments, and Patricia Ferguson, for her helpful amendments and interventions in discussions.

It is clear that the problem of out-of-control and dangerous dogs is growing across the United Kingdom. Scotland now sees around 600 reported dog attacks each year, which is more than double the figure 10 years ago. In 2007-08 hospitals treated 363 people who had been bitten or struck by a dog.

So what will the bill do? Its thrust is to promote responsible ownership of dogs. Local authorities will have the power to serve dog control notices on owners who do not keep their dogs under control. As pointed out in the stage 1 debate, many politicians have direct experience of out-of-control dogs while campaigning. I recall a canvassing expedition for some by-election or other, during which I discounted the snarls and growls of a canine occupant as it jumped up at a large picture window. Casually—a mite too casually, it turned out—on having no response to the bell ringing and door knocking I pushed a leaflet through the door, safe in the knowledge that the dog was elsewhere. It was not—the house, it appears, was open plan and the dog was open jawed by the letter box. The candidate’s leaflet was shredded, but my fingers were not. Therefore, although we may not be able to protect ourselves in time for the United Kingdom election, with a positive vote today MSPs could be voting for safer fingers for themselves in the campaign next year—by which time, if it is passed today, the bill will be in force. That is a reason to vote for it if ever there was one.

Although the hazards of our profession are cyclical, postal workers experience daily harassment from dogs. People walking their dogs are intimidated by out-of-control dogs, and some parks are no-go areas because of local delinquent dogs. All those situations and a myriad of others can be addressed by the bill, which will help to improve in a small and practical way the ordinary lives of the ordinary people of Scotland—which is what we are here for.

My bill also addresses another important issue regarding dangerously out-of-control dogs. It extends the offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control as defined in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to apply to all places. By amending the 1991 act, my bill ensures that dog owners can be held responsible at all times for their dog’s behaviour, including in their own home. Indeed, the incidents behind horror reports of children and infants being savaged to death have more often than not occurred in a private dwelling where the dog was permitted to be—a relative’s house for example.

There is one outstanding issue that I would like to address—the bill’s impact on working dogs that are legitimately carrying out their duties, such as pest control and flushing out or herding animals. I see Mr McLetchie in the chamber. At stage 2, he raised a concern that dog owners could be penalised because someone feared for the safety of a wild animal, such as a rodent, that is not otherwise protected in legislation—I did not know that he liked rats, but never mind.

The bill offers protection to other animals, but I also give assurance to people with working dogs who felt, for example, that a Jack Russell that is out ratting, a juvenile sheep dog in training that is overenthusiastically herding sheep, or a springer spaniel that is flushing out game fowl could be subject by some novice city visitor to a dog control notice. I have lived in the countryside for 15 years, and I represent a rural constituency. When developing the bill, I had in my mind the interests of rural communities. Working dogs by their very nature are well trained and responsive to their handler’s commands. In the cases that I referred to, the test of reasonableness would not be met because by their very nature such dogs are under control, which is the key test. If a dog is under control, it will not come within the ambit of the bill.

I can offer further assurances to Mr McLetchie and those who work the land that the bill will not have unintended consequences on the owners of working dogs. The bill provides five important safeguards. First, section 1(3) refers to the conditions that the proper person is not keeping the dog under control effectively and consistently and that the behaviour of the dog gives rise to alarm or apprehensiveness on the part of any person. Both parts must apply before the out-of-control test can be met.

Secondly, at stage 2, I proposed an amendment to section 1(3) to meet the committee’s concerns and to clarify that any alarm or apprehensiveness must not be unreasonable. The bill has been further amended and protection strengthened by the cabinet secretary’s amendment 2 this afternoon.

Thirdly, local authorities have a duty under section 1(7) to ensure that authorised officers have the appropriate level of skill to determine from an objective standpoint whether the dog is out of control and, importantly, to identify appropriate steps aimed at addressing its future behaviour. Government amendment 3, which will make it mandatory for ministers to issue guidance to local authorities on the function of the legislation, is a further protection that the law should be applied, so far as possible, uniformly Scotland-wide.

Fourthly, section 2(8)(d) requires authorised officers to explain the reasons, including a description of the circumstances, that have led them to issue a dog control notice. Fifthly, a person can appeal against the notice under section 3. Indeed, the bill aims to ensure that domestic dog owners raise their dog’s level of training nearer to that of a working dog.

The bill will bring certain benefits. I hope that more responsible dog ownership will follow from it. Public safety will be improved through preventive measures that will help people who are out with children or with their dogs. Also, the welfare of dogs will be improved, because dogs that are not properly cared for, exercised or socialised will benefit from specific measures being imposed on their owners, such as their being required to attend training classes with their dogs.

I hope that members agree that the bill is worth while. It gives local authorities and the police the legislative tools to deal with the growing problem of out-of-control dogs and attacks by dangerous dogs in private places.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:25

I thank Christine Grahame for the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill and join her in commending Alex Neil, who laid the foundations for the bill while he was a back bencher. As she correctly pointed out, a member’s bill does not reach this stage without significant commitment and a great deal of effort. I therefore join her in commending the non-Executive bills unit for all its work and effort in bringing the bill to this juncture.

The Local Government and Communities Committee, which is chaired by Duncan McNeil, carried out detailed and thoughtful scrutiny of the bill throughout the parliamentary process, and the bill’s general principles received unanimous support at stage 1. The bill was good to begin with, but it has become better through the small number of amendments that were made at stage 2.

We welcome the policy objectives of the bill, which tries to make our communities safer through enabling effective preventive action to be taken against dogs that are out of control. The bill is designed to identify and tackle out-of-control dogs at an early juncture and provide measures to change their behaviour and, frequently, the behaviour of their owners before the dogs become dangerous. We believe that the creation of a dog control notice regime will encourage dog owners to take responsibility for the actions of their dogs. Under the bill, authorised officers will be able to issue a dog owner or the person with day-to-day charge of the dog with a dog control notice if their dog is found to be out of control.

As the bill has progressed through Parliament, there has been some discussion of the costs of the new dog control notice regime. The main responsibilities under the proposed new regime will fall on local authorities. Members will recall that, during stage 1 evidence, some local authorities said that existing dog wardens would take on the role of authorised officer without any new costs being incurred. Others, to be fair, disagreed and suggested that higher costs would be incurred by their training and employing new staff. The Government’s view is that the new dog control regime is designed to be preventive and we do not expect thousands of dog control notices to be issued every week.

Under current law, when a dog is dangerously out of control in its own home, no criminal offence is committed by its owner under the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Section 10 of the bill will change that. The Government believes that the law should be extended to make it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place, whether a public place or a private place, such as the dog’s home. As Christine Grahame said, we all know of tragedies that have occurred not in a public place but in a private place, often the owner’s home. This change will help to ensure that dog owners take responsibility for the actions of their dogs in all places at all times.

This good bill, which will assist in making our communities safer while respecting dog owners’ rights, is an excellent example of the Parliament’s system of members’ bills. Alex Neil and then Christine Grahame drove forward the consultation process, which led to the bill’s drafting and scrutiny by committee and, finally, to this momentous day on which we hope the bill will be passed.

We welcome what seems to have been unanimous agreement at stage 1 and, as we expect, unanimity at decision time this afternoon that these changes need to be made. Although they are relatively minor, they might well have a significant effect in preventing some tragedies. The legislation will certainly help to drive home the message that although, as we all agree, dogs provide great comfort, friendship and solace for many, they have to be looked after and dog owners are required to be responsible.

Once again, I pay tribute to Christine Grahame and everyone else who has been involved with the bill. The Government will support the motion and will be more than happy to work with Patricia Ferguson and others on ensuring that members see the guidance that will be provided to local authorities. As I have said, it will be up to those in local government who are involved in the enforcement procedure to take the appropriate action, but we are more than happy to undertake this work to maintain unity in the chamber.

15:31  

Given statistics showing a 160 per cent increase in the number of dog attacks between 1999 and 2007, it would be a real surprise if no one wanted to address the situation. Faced with that information, it is right that we have had the opportunity to look anew at the prevailing laws on dangerous dogs, particularly as the data that have been presented appear to indicate that the existing legislation has not addressed the problem that led to such a huge outcry in the years before the turn of the century. I therefore congratulate Alex Neil on his initial work and Christine Grahame on introducing the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill and giving the Scottish Parliament the chance to consider how we might improve on the measures that are available to our local authorities and police to tackle this increasing problem. I also congratulate NEBU and the Local Government and Communities Committee on assisting the bill’s progress.

As has been widely recognised and supported, the bill started out, rightly, by addressing the fact that the current law’s focus, which is mostly on dangerous dogs and particular breeds of dogs, is wrong. It is difficult, though, to establish hard and fast statistics on the extent of problem dog ownership in Scotland; indeed, that has been one of the discussion points about the bill. I do not think it unreasonable to accept the estimate in the bill’s supporting documents that there are around 550,000 dogs in Scotland. If the percentage of out-of-control dogs in Scotland is similar to that in London, at around 0.12 per cent, there are likely to be about 650 dogs whose behaviour needs to be addressed. However, given that in 2007 there were 623 reported dog attacks that resulted in injury, never mind the number of incidents of behaviour that would cause a reasonable person a degree of alarm, we might actually be underestimating the scale of misbehaviour in our communities. I think that I have been barked at by about 650 dogs already in this general election campaign, and I have been hospitalised on three occasions because of dog bites. Of course, that might just say something about my own relationship with dogs.

In any case, if we accept that the number of control notices can be expected to be close to 1,200, we begin to get to the issue that most concerned me during the passage of the bill and which I highlighted at stage 1: the bill’s cost implications. Information from local authorities indicates that the level of staff employed in the control of dogs is, at best, mixed, and that the expected burden on our councils is going to cause many of them difficulties. At a time when we are losing teachers, social workers, home care workers and other necessary front-line staff under the current local government financial strictures, it stretches credulity to be asked to believe that dog wardens and other costs associated with the bill’s implementation and application will be immune from the cost pressures that are afflicting other essential services. As many councils have repeatedly flagged up, even if we accept that administration costs will be fairly minimal, the fact is that staff costs will not be so low. That is the main issue confronting our local authorities, and no amount of wishful thinking or positive gloss by the bill’s supporters will eradicate local authorities’ genuine concern about the financial burden that the legislation will place on them.

That said, given the abject failure of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to defend councils from the Scottish Government’s cuts, I am a little surprised that it has been so exercised by the legislation’s impact. So, along with the majority of those who have commented on the bill, I will be looking at its positive aspects and overlooking COSLA’s concerns.

Improving the control of dogs, preventing dogs from becoming dangerously out of control, ensuring that owners are responsible for controlling their dogs wherever they are, including on private property, and improving the care and treatment of dogs are all worthwhile objectives and good enough reasons to support the bill, whatever the misgivings about the finances. I look forward to the remainder of this debate and hope that we will get the expected outcome when we vote at the end of today’s business.

15:35

Like others, I welcome the fact that today brings to a parliamentary conclusion the legislative process that was initiated by Alex Neil in January 2008 and carried on by Christine Grahame. I believe the bill to be worth while and well-founded in principle. It recognises the deficiencies in earlier legislative attempts to deal with dangerous or out-of-control dogs. In particular, the focus on deed not breed is an important principle, which highlights the responsibility of owners as much as the behaviour of their dogs, and avoids the problems that are inherent in legislation that focuses on specific breeds, some of which are not prevalent in this country, to the exclusion of other breeds or cross-breeds that might be equally dangerous if not properly controlled and managed by their owners. In that respect, Patricia Ferguson’s amendment, which was agreed to by Parliament, was consistent with that principle and in line with the unanimous recommendation of the Local Government and Communities Committee, as set out in paragraph 68 of its report to Parliament.

I welcome the fact that, in today’s stage 3 proceedings, we have approved a Scottish Government amendment that will lead to it issuing guidance to councils and authorised officers on the exercise of their respective functions under the act. I highlight two issues that I hope will be covered in that guidance. The first refers to my unsuccessful stage 2 amendment, which was motivated by the concerns of organisations such as the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and others that the bill as drafted could give rise to the service of dog control notices for the natural behaviour of working dogs in the open when they are interacting with wild animals as opposed to protected animals, as defined in animal welfare legislation that this Parliament has passed. That issue should be covered in the guidance that the Scottish Government will issue and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement in the short debate on amendment 3 that it will do so. I trust that that will reassure the owners of working dogs and be in line with the views expressed by the cabinet secretary in the Local Government and Communities Committee’s debate on my amendment, and with those expressed earlier this afternoon by Christine Grahame in her opening speech.

The second issue was raised with me by my constituent Catriona Brown, who submitted evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee about the commercial walking of large numbers of dogs. That was born out of an unfortunate experience that she had while walking in the Pentland hills regional park in my constituency. Catriona was attacked by three large and powerful dogs, which were under the control of a commercial dog walker who, at the time, was exercising 13 dogs, all of which were off the leash and unmuzzled. A number of dog walkers appear to be running such businesses and using the park for that purpose. Not surprisingly, perhaps, in communication with the committee, Ms Grahame and myself, Ms Brown expressed the belief that the bill should be sufficient in its scope to cover such activities. Indeed, she suggested that we might want to lay a statutory basis for the sort of byelaws that have been introduced by Wandsworth Council in London that specifically regulate the exercising of groups of dogs on a commercial basis in its parks, and put a limit—normally a maximum of six—on the number of dogs that can be exercised at any one time. The byelaw also requires professional dog walkers to have public liability insurance and a licence from the council.

Given the stage that had already been reached in the progress of the bill, I did not think that it was appropriate to lodge amendments to introduce a scheme of that nature, as it would have had to have been the subject of a consultation, which, quite clearly, had not taken place. Moreover, Christine Grahame was right to underline the point that, under the bill, an owner is not absolved from responsibility for the behaviour of his or her dog simply because the exercise of that dog is contracted out to a third party. However, I hope that in putting together its guidance, the Government will consider that issue and perhaps consult councils throughout Scotland to determine whether it is a problem in parks and public spaces elsewhere. I also hope that the Government will remind dog walkers of their obligation to comply with the legislation on behalf of the dog owners who employ them.

I have much pleasure in expressing my support for the bill, and I hope that it will be passed by Parliament today.

15:41

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill has been an interesting one on which to take evidence in the Local Government and Communities Committee. I commend the significant work that was done by Alex Neil, prior to his taking up ministerial responsibilities, Christine Grahame, who is now sponsoring the bill, and the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee.

The aim of the bill, which is to move away from banning certain breeds of dog to a focus on the deeds of some dogs, is widely supported in the Parliament and in the wider Scottish community.

We are all aware of concerns about some dogs, whether they involve causing fear and alarm, biting people or other animals, or, in the most unfortunate cases, fatalities among our young people. However, the vast majority of dogs are well behaved and well looked after. Most are loving family pets who bring a great deal of enjoyment to their owners and their families. Such owners have nothing to fear from the bill. However, dog owners who do not take responsibility for their dogs, who do not ensure that they are reasonably trained, who do not keep their dogs on a leash when in public and who have their dogs as status symbols had better watch out—this legislation is coming to bite them.

When this bill is passed tonight, it will give local authorities the ability to serve a dog control notice on owners who have not kept their dog under control. Importantly, that control will extend to public and private areas, including dwellings, and will mean that the level of care that is required to prevent a dog from becoming dangerously out of control is quite high.

It is important to note that the bill contains a number of steps, from serving a dog control notice on the owner to implanting a microchip in the dog that carries details of the dog and its owner to, ultimately, destroying the dog if it is dangerously out of control. Although destroying the dog is unlikely to be carried out in any more than a few cases, I believe that that crucial ultimate sanction is required to ensure public protection.

Although most issues were overcome at stage 1, a few issues remained to be dealt with today at stage 3. In the debate on amendment 1, which concerned the size and power of dogs, it was clear that Christine Grahame and Patricia Ferguson were trying to achieve the same end, albeit by different means. We all agree that the wording in the bill should be clear and concise. However, unfortunately, the wording that Miss Grahame wished to leave in the bill confused the issue. Patricia Ferguson’s amendment 1 sought to leave out the extra text, and I believed that it would make the bill clearer and ensure, albeit by insinuation, that all types and breeds of dog were covered. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats had pleasure in supporting Patricia Ferguson’s amendment this afternoon.

Kenny MacAskill’s amendment 2 sought to provide extra clarity without adding any confusion, so we supported it. Mr MacAskill’s amendment 3 sought to add reasonable guidance to the bill, and we supported it as well.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the bill. It will provide clarity for dog owners, teeth for enforcement officers and, most important, protection for our communities.

15:44

I thank Christine Grahame, as others have done, for all the work involved in bringing the bill to Parliament after she took it over from Alex Neil. I also thank the clerks to the Local Government and Communities Committee for their help and advice, and all those who gave evidence and spoke with such passion about dogs and the importance of training and proper care.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced in reaction to a number of extremely serious incidents. Unfortunately, serious and indeed fatal dog attacks have continued to take place since the act came into force. The previous legislation identified several breeds that were to be defined as dangerous in law. However, my contention—and that of the bill and Christine Grahame—is that any dog can be dangerous if it is not cared for properly, not trained properly and not socialised with people and other dogs. The bill’s emphasis on the deed and not the breed is welcome. I hope that my amendment 1 will assist in the delivery of the policy behind the bill.

However, we will have to be vigilant in monitoring the implementation of the legislation. There is uncertainty about the number of dangerous dogs in Scotland, so it is difficult properly to judge the accuracy of the bill’s financial memorandum, particularly the cost that will accrue to local government. What we do know, though, is that in 2006-07—the most recent year for which there are records—there were some 623 offences under the 1991 act. It is therefore important that local authorities move quickly to employ wardens and properly resource and train them. I took cognisance of what COSLA said about cost, but the cost of not taking action could be even higher in terms of the use of the national health service, the police and other authorities. It will be interesting to see how that goes forward.

Another welcome aspect of the bill is the fact that it will be an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control anywhere, even in a private place. I listened carefully to Christine Grahame when she recounted her experience of campaigning, and of the barking dog at the window. In my experience, however—Ms Grahame may also have experienced this—it is not the barking dogs that we have to be aware of but the silent ones that sit behind the letter box. If we are lucky, we feel their breath at the moment we withdraw our fingers from the letter box.

While there are occasionally injuries among our campaign teams, other stories are not frivolous or funny. The Communication Workers Union’s written submission detailed an attack on one of its members—a postman with 30 years’ experience—as he went about his duties. As he walked up a garden path in Glasgow, two Japanese Akita dogs ran from the back garden of the house, through an insecure fence, and attacked him as he made his way to the front door. Despite the very serious injuries he sustained, Strathclyde Police were unable to prosecute, because the attack happened on private property. Although the bill will not prevent such incidents, I hope that it will at least ensure that action can be taken against the dog owner.

I do not have a dog. My job and that of my husband involves us being out of the house for long periods, which would not lead to sensible dog ownership. However, I have often felt that, for the sake of the dog and that of the surrounding community, it is the owner who needs training, not the dog. The effect on the community ranges from the kind of serious attack on that postman to the incredible nuisance these days of dog fouling on our streets, which we see as we are out campaigning.

I hope that we never get to the stage at which a bill has to come before Parliament that seeks to license or train dog owners. I very much look forward to seeing the guidance from the minister, which I am sure will be comprehensive. It is important that Parliament, which takes a great interest in these matters, has the opportunity to scrutinise such information. Again, I sincerely thank Christine Grahame and Alex Neil for bringing this important issue to Parliament and for giving some reassurance to people who fear dogs or who, because of the nature of their work, have to experience dogs—good and bad—as they go about their business.

15:50

This afternoon’s debate has been interesting, if brief. Members have touched on a number of key issues. The dog control notices that I mentioned in my opening speech will be the key level of enforcement. However, there may need to be other levels of enforcement if, as Patricia Ferguson said, a dog control notice is not enough to bring the owner, far less the dog, under control. The cabinet secretary highlighted that issue and mentioned that the enforcement officers who will serve notices must be accountable and properly trained to do that.

David McLetchie mentioned dog control notices and the early amendment that he lodged on working dogs. I believe in all sincerity that the bill as it stands covers that issue. However, the member made an important and welcome point about some professional dog walkers and the issues that they face.

The monitoring of dog control notices is key to taking forward the bill and ensuring that it is an effective measure. I am glad that the minister has indicated that the Government will continue to monitor the situation. If any changes are needed, I am sure that we will discuss those in the chamber and in committee. Patricia Ferguson, too, said that monitoring of the bill is an essential outcome. I welcome that.

A few individuals may fail to comply with dog control notices. I welcome the fact that the bill contains measures to ensure that further action can be taken. As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate sanction is to destroy a dog, where it is deemed to be absolutely dangerous and out of control.

The proposal for a Scottish dog control database was not touched on in the debate but was discussed extensively in committee. I understand the Government’s concern about advancing that proposal, especially given the cost implications. However, it is important that the Government keeps it under consideration as a means of measuring what I hope will be the success of the bill, so that we can see how the use of dog control notices, first and foremost, and anything that comes from them is developing across Scotland and ensure that they are an effective measure for controlling out-of-control dogs.

The danger of unresponsive dogs, if we have any, must be properly dealt with. I am glad that the minister, among others, highlighted the fact that the bill’s aims will ensure that we focus on the deed, not the breed, as the previous legislation did. That will be crucial. Michael McMahon mentioned that change in focus. Other members know the previous legislation better than I do, as they were parliamentarians when it was passed, but I agree with them in welcoming the change of emphasis and direction that the bill brings, to ensure that we have better control over irresponsible dog owners in Scotland.

I am sure that, when they wind up, other members will indicate that they intend to support the bill. Liberal Democrat members will support it as amended today.

15:53

Like Jim Tolson, I have enjoyed this short debate and the contributions that this small band of dedicated dog lovers have made to the bill that is before us. As all members of the Parliament are aware, legislation relating to animals and animal welfare can generate large postbags, strong passions and fierce controversy. In my 11 years in the Parliament, we have covered salmon fishing, fox hunting, fur farming, dog fouling, animal health and welfare, aquaculture and, most recently, snaring. Given that history, any member who voluntarily ventures into the field with a legislative proposal that deals with animals must do so with a degree of apprehension. Against that backcloth of our experience in the Parliament, we should commend the efforts of Alex Neil and, latterly, Christine Grahame in steering the member’s bill through the Parliament to its conclusion today.

Concerns have been expressed in a number of quarters about different aspects of the bill, the resources to operate the new system of dog control notices, the exact wording of the provisions, and how the new law will be applied in practice. Some of those concerns were expressed by Michael McMahon and my committee colleagues Jim Tolson and Patricia Ferguson. Concerns are, of course, expressed about virtually every new bill that we consider, but the widespread support for the bill’s key principles has been refreshing. I congratulate the promoters of the bill—Christine Grahame and Alex Neil—and everyone who has worked with them on the initial consultation and the drafting of the bill and in the various stages of the legislative process. As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which considered the bill, I can say that it made a welcome and interesting diversion from our staple diet of cooncils, housing and planning.

There is a great deal more to be done to make the bill that is passed effective in helping to control the behaviour of dogs and irresponsible owners and making our communities safer. I think that we all recognise that passing a bill is only the start of a process, not the end of it. A great deal of interest will undoubtedly centre on the guidance that is to be issued by the Scottish Government, which Mr MacAskill’s amendment flagged up. As I said in my opening speech, the content of that guidance will certainly be of considerable interest to me and my constituents. Passing the bill will be a good start, and I hope that it will be passed with the unanimous support of members. It certainly has my support and blessing.

15:51

We can legislate for aspects of many issues that we debate in the Parliament, such as problems with alcohol, diet or antisocial behaviour, but resolution of the problem will mostly lie with the degree of responsibility that we as individuals take. The same can be said for the behaviour of dogs. It is self-evident that some dogs are more dangerous than others, but all dogs can be potentially dangerous. Various breeds can be considerably stronger and larger than a person of average size, and some breeds are more aggressive because of years of breeding. However, whatever type of dog we are discussing, we know that effective training, socialisation and proper care can make a significant impact.

Owners who do not properly socialise their dogs and individuals who are engaged in criminal or risk-taking activities and who keep powerful dogs as a status symbol or an accessory to their own aggressive behaviour are more often the problem than the type of dog that is being considered. We should never lose sight of that, even if we think that some breeds are problematic in themselves.

There is evidence of a growing trend for gangs to have aggressive dogs as weapons, and genuine concerns exist among some dog owners that the bill will do nothing to affect the criminal element that is most likely to keep dangerous dogs. They are concerned that we are in danger of criminalising law-abiding dog owners. I think that there are good enough safeguards in the bill to ensure that dog owners will not be subjected to unwarranted action against them, and hope that concerns that some people might have will ultimately prove to be unfounded when the bill’s provisions begin to take effect.

There is some justification for arguing that the current law on possession of banned breeds is not being enforced, but that could be down to flaws in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which we expect to be addressed by passing the bill. There is no doubt that the current legislation on banned breeds is ineffective and difficult to enforce, but I am confident that the new legislation will create the potential for a better system. Moving away from breed-centred legislation will help us to move towards improving public safety, provided that financial resources are provided to make the provisions work.

Throughout the passage of the bill, it has been clear that the real issue is responsible ownership. While people remain too lazy to give their dogs the tender loving care that they deserve, we will continue to have a problem with out-of-control dogs. I doubt that the bill will be a magic wand that is capable of dealing with all the issues relating to dangerous dogs—indeed, I am not sure that it was ever intended to be that—but it is entitled to our support nonetheless, and it will have it at 5 o’clock.

15:59

Given the backdrop of the general election with its hustings and argy-bargy, it is probably good for the people of Scotland to realise that debates on subjects such as the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill see members of whatever political colour come together in the chamber .

The tenor of the debate has been one of acceptance that there is a problem that we must address, whether for individuals on the campaign trail—we heard anecdotes about that from Christine Grahame—or, as in Patricia Ferguson’s story, for the postman who was assaulted but unable to get any satisfaction or take any action.

Patricia Ferguson and Michael McMahon made the appropriate point that this is a focused bill. It will not be a solution to all incidents out there; no Administration and no legislation could ensure that no child or adult will face being bitten by a dog. We must control loopholes in legislation that, through no one’s fault, has been proven not to be fully fit for the purpose of dealing with changing circumstances, as Mr McLetchie mentioned in his speech. However, the bill will provide some salvation following incidents such as the nasty attack on the postman by Japanese dogs. Equally, the bill will help to drive home the message that there has been a specific change in powers and that dog owners have to act responsibly.

Michael McMahon raised the question of cost. As I said in my opening remarks, COSLA seems divided on the matter. Some local authorities see the situation as one that can be dealt with by existing dog wardens. Our view is that the financial impact on local authorities of the new dog control notice regime will depend to a large extent on how they make use of it. We tend to think that those powers should be used sparingly and that the very existence of dog wardens’ powers should act as a powerful deterrent. However, we recognise that these are tough financial times and that local authorities’ ability to improve services or react to increasing needs is restricted. That said, there is the fallback position that if a clear problem is being faced by local authorities, this Administration has mechanisms by which we can discuss matters with COSLA. I give the chamber the guarantee that if there are problems, we will continue to discuss and debate with COSLA.

As David McLetchie and Patricia Ferguson mentioned, we are moving towards emphasising deed not breed. We are happy to accept Patricia Ferguson’s position—it is not a matter of semantics to say that we accept and welcome the will of the Parliament. David McLetchie’s point about dog walkers has come from left field and perhaps shows why the legislation might need to be amended in due course. We could argue that the dog walker situation might be better dealt with by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but that is not the case. It is clear that we live in a world where people walk other people’s dogs and they have to accept responsibility for them. We must make sure that that situation is addressed in the guidance.

The guidance is meant to deal with those in both rural and urban areas who have an interest because of their professional standing, whether they are gamekeepers or from the British Veterinary Association. I give an assurance to both Mr McLetchie and Patricia Ferguson that we will liaise with parliamentarians but, equally, that we will take on board the needs and wants of stakeholders. The kind of guidance that we want to issue is based not on the ideology of any Administration, whatever colour it might be, but on the specialised advice of those who are best placed to provide it. We also take on board the will of the Parliament.

Jim Tolson raised the issue of a database. Obviously, we already have an enabling power and we are not persuaded that a database is either needed or wanted—nor is the committee. However, if the situation should change, the bill gives us the ability to act.

We believe that the bill strikes the correct balance. Although I am not a dog owner, I recognise that owners are entitled to exercise their ability to deal with their dogs. We recognise the benefits that dogs bring to people, not just as a comfort or solace to the elderly or by what they provide to those who work with them, but as part of the fabric of our society. People must recognise, however, that as well as the right to own a dog and the right to roam with it, there is the responsibility to ensure that that dog is under control.

We welcome the bill, which takes on board the need to address specific problems that we face. We have to recognise that if we are to minimise the dangers that dogs can pose to children, postmen, adults or whoever else, individual owners have to take responsibility. The bill is a welcome improvement on existing legislation and we are delighted to support it.

16:05

I start by applauding the member’s bill mechanism. After 11 years in the Parliament, it is delightful to have the chance to have a bill of my own—this is the closest that I will ever get.

I thank NEBU, which is very much unheralded and does a great deal of work. It is rare that it gets a bill to this stage—often members’ bills do not get beyond proposals. NEBU is hugely supportive, as we all know, and I applaud its work.

I will pick up some of the points that members have made in the debate. Michael McMahon expressed some concerns, which were undermined to some extent by his colleague Patricia Ferguson’s contribution, about the cost to local authorities. At stage 1, Dundee City Council told the Local Government and Communities Committee that it agreed with the figures in the financial memorandum and believed that the bill could be implemented using existing resources. It also highlighted the point that the threat of a dog control notice might reduce the number of notices needed—as the cabinet secretary said, the notices are a preventive measure. In any event, all local authorities already carry out dog-related duties under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and animal health and welfare legislation. I believe that councils must already be staffed appropriately to deliver those duties and that they can subsume the duties of issuing dog control notices within that. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that if I am proved wrong it will be for COSLA to negotiate that with the Scottish Government in line with the procedures under the concordat.

Further to Michael McMahon’s point about dog control notices and criminalising people, I make it clear that a dog control notice is a civil order, not a criminal matter. The order has to be breached in order to transmogrify, as it were, into a criminal matter, so we are not criminalising people.

I thank Christine Grahame for making that point, but the point that I was making was that people expressed concern throughout the bill’s progress that the bill could criminalise them. I was saying not that that would be the impact of the bill but that that concern had been expressed.

I apologise for misunderstanding. I am glad that that is now on the record. I make it plain that the bill is about early intervention before a dog becomes dangerous. We are talking about dealing with dogs that are out of control and preventing them from getting to the dangerous stage.

I want to pick up the points that David McLetchie made. He was quite honest about the licensing issue, which came in very late in the day. I submit that a member’s bill is not really the place to start putting in complexities, which can probably go in some local government legislation. However, there is cover in the bill. In the event of a dog being out of control while in the care of a dog walker—they define themselves as professionals; I do not think that they have to meet any standards—it would have to be established who the proper person was. That is likely to be the owner and, therefore, the dog control notice would be served on them, rather than on the dog walker. An authorised officer would have to consider the appropriate measures to include in the dog control notice to bring the dog back under control. The notice could specify that the dog could not be walked with more than two other dogs at the same time, for example. The proper person would also have to consider whether there was a likelihood of the dog control notice being breached by the dog walker—the entrusted person—as a breach could result in a fine of up to the current maximum of £1,000. David McLetchie’s constituent has been in touch with me about that matter. I hope that what I have said will allay those genuine fears.

I hope that what I said about working dogs in my opening speech provided some comfort. There is a test under section 2(8)(d), which states that a dog control notice must include

“the reason for the authorised officer concluding that the dog has been out of control (including a description of the circumstances on the basis of which the officer has come to that conclusion)”.

So, an innocent from urban life wandering about the countryside thinking that a sheep dog is harassing the sheep too much might find that it would not be reasonable to issue a dog control notice in those circumstances. It would certainly not stand up to scrutiny if that was put down as one of the reasons for issuing a dog control notice. At the end of the day, if such a circumstance arose, there would be a right of appeal, as there should be to comply with the European convention on human rights. I hope that that provides some comfort.

I thank Patricia Ferguson for her contribution. I am now quite relaxed about her amendment. It was important to put the debate about it on the record. I absolutely support her view that the care, training and socialising of dogs is the key. I was once a dog owner myself, but I no longer have a lifestyle that would support my owning a dog. I wish that more people took that view before they bought a dog.

The bill is about early intervention, but I found what Patricia Ferguson said about serious attacks on postmen extremely interesting. Although the bill is about out-of-control dogs, it does amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that it will apply to a private place where the dog is permitted to be. That will not be the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but it will be the case in Scotland. The postmen and women of Scotland may rejoice because they can now do something about the problem.

I have dealt with Jim Tolson’s points, including his points about working dogs and places where dogs are permitted to be. I am grateful for his support.

I conclude by thanking all those who contributed to the development and scrutiny of the bill and all members who have been in the chamber to discuss it today.

As a postscript, I remind canvassers that, even if the legislation is passed at 5 o’clock today, it will not be in force until next year, so they should watch out for those fingers, particularly if, as Patricia Ferguson tells me, there are sneaky, silent dogs lurking at the letterbox.

I commend the bill to the Parliament.

That concludes the stage 3 debate on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. As it is not yet time to move to the next item of business, I suspend the meeting until 15 minutes past 4.

16:11 Meeting suspended.

16:14 On resuming—