Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 06 May 2014

06 May 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Responsible Dog Ownership

Chisholm, Malcolm Lab Edinburgh Northern and Leith Watch on SPTV

I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. I think that it is our third debate on dogs in the past few months—my colleagues Paul Martin and Claire Baker having secured the earlier ones—which shows what an important subject dogs are to a lot of people.

I do not have any background with dogs, but as a constituency MSP, I know that dogs are a massive issue in my constituency, as it is in others. They come up nearly every week when I go to meetings. I apologise because I might have to leave this debate early if it runs on; I have to go to a meeting this evening, at which I expect dogs will be mentioned. Dog fouling is the issue that is usually mentioned at residents meetings, but last week someone was complaining about a Dobermann that regularly visits the house next door. The owner does not have it on a lead and it has been growling at the resident’s children. Those are examples that come up every week.

I suppose that I have a personal angle on this now, because I have grandchildren and I go to the park with them. Of course, they cannot play in lots of the parks because of the dog fouling. The worst example that I saw a couple of weeks ago was dog fouling on a roundabout in a children’s playground. The issue comes up all the time.

I am slightly disappointed by the Scottish Government’s consultation. I totally welcome it and I absolutely support microchipping, in support of which I spoke in Claire Baker’s previous debate, so I will not repeat the arguments in favour of it, which seem to have widespread support in Parliament. I am disappointed, however, because only the last two pages of the consultation document refer to the two issues that really concern my constituents and, I am sure, other members’ constituents:dog fouling and dangerous dogs.

As Alex Fergusson said, the idea of muzzling all dogs is a straw man, if that is the right phrase. I have never come across anybody who proposes that, so why on earth it is the only substantive suggestion in the section on dangerous dogs is a bit of a mystery to me. It is an opportunity that other options for control of dangerous dogs are not being given. Equally, on dog fouling, there are no proposals at all, although the obvious suggestion of increasing the fine seems to me to be something that we should certainly pursue.

Let us concentrate on dangerous dogs. I totally agree with what Christine Grahame has done and said on that issue. If the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was being implemented effectively, in principle that would be the right approach. Action should be targeted against particular individuals who are causing problems, although we would want to rely on the courts imposing proper penalties and sanctions.

I had another constituency example recently of someone whose dog had behaved absolutely horrifically. It was coming to the end of the control period and a constituent of mine was worried that the dog owner would be allowed to own a dog again. If someone’s dog has caused absolute havoc, they should never again be allowed to own a dog.

We need to look at intermediate options. No one is suggesting muzzling all dogs, and microchipping will not solve the problem, so we have to consider muzzling some dogs. I know that some people do not like the idea of picking particular breeds and I know that in principle that is not right but, realistically, it might be an option that we have to consider. If muzzling is ruled out, why not let us look at the issue of dogs on leads. If more dogs that are a threat to the public were kept on leads, especially short leads, that would help to avoid the problems that arise.