Hansard

It is with great pleasure that I open the debate on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and for making me feel briefly like a minister under interrogation. I also thank all those who have worked so hard on the bill, including the self-effacing non-Executive bills unit staff who are present in the chamber today, and my colleague Alex Neil and his staff for all the work that they put into developing the policy before Alex Neil was elevated to the lofty heights of ministerial office and became a willing victim of promotion.

Members who know Alex Neil will know that he does not get on well with dogs, but I am a dog lover. However, owning a dog is not a right but a privilege. Every dog owner, regardless of their personal circumstances, has a duty to ensure the welfare of their animal and to ensure that their dog is kept under control at all times, in the interests of public safety. If they cannot do that, their behaviour should be challenged, to be frank.

The bill is not intended to penalise responsible dog owners. It should improve their experience by addressing irresponsible dog ownership and reducing the threat that out-of-control dogs pose. Sadly, while most dog owners are responsible, there is a growing problem with dog owners who do not look after their dogs properly, whether through a lack of knowledge that means that they do not provide appropriate training or socialisation, for example, or by deliberate action, such as the use of status dogs that are taught to act aggressively.

We need only pick up the papers and read about recent dog attacks to know that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has failed to improve public safety. That legislation was passed in haste and has been repented at leisure. In Scotland, about 600 attacks are reported each year, which is more than double the figure 10 years ago.

By focusing on deed, not breed, my bill will reduce the number of attacks in two ways. The dog control notice regime will give authorities the power to require dog owners to keep their dogs under control or face a criminal conviction. If used properly, that power will reduce the number of lower-level incidents—I stress that phrase—in which dog owners perhaps need guidance on how to keep their dog under control. It will also prevent many dogs from developing more dangerous behaviour that might lead to dog attacks.

The bill requires owners to ensure that their dogs are kept under control at all times and in all places—I emphasise that. Currently, if a child is attacked in a dog's home, where it is permitted to be, the owner cannot be held legally responsible unless the dog is of a banned breed. That is clearly wrong. My bill extends to all places existing offences that relate to dogs that are dangerously out of control.

I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for supporting the bill's general principles. I will tackle the main issues that the committee raised, which were corroboration, the definition of "out of control" and implementation costs.

On corroboration, I agree with the committee that the bill does not require authorised officers to work in pairs to serve dog control notices. I understand that the committee's concern is that the validity of a notice

"may be used as a defence in a criminal prosecution."

My clear view is that the offence of failure to comply with a notice, as provided for at section 5, is a separate matter that relates to a separate and subsequent incident. Corroboration is therefore required only for the incident that is the breach. As I explained to the committee, that is because we will move from a civil matter to a criminal matter—a breach—that requires corroboration. If members would like the rather lengthy technical answer, I can return to the issue in my closing speech.

The definition of "out of control" gave rise to concern. The bill provides a two-part test to assist authorised officers in assessing whether a dog is out of control. The first part is that the dog

"is not being kept under control effectively and consistently"

and the second part is that the dog is causing

"reasonable … alarm, or … apprehensiveness".

The two parts must be taken together and provide the basis on which an authorised officer can determine whether a dog is out of control—the word "and" is crucial.

Formulating an appropriate test is not easy. Providing a definitive list of behaviours or actions to cover out-of-control behaviour is neither practical nor beneficial. Each case must be assessed on individual circumstances.

The committee heard concerns that "reasonable ... alarm, or ... apprehensiveness" is too imprecise and might lead to inconsistency in notices. Many acts use a reasonableness test, which is a widely recognised proposition. It applies to MSPs when we consider what interests to register. The test for registration is whether a fair minded and impartial observer would reasonably consider that an overseas visit, for example, would prejudice the member's behaviour. Historically, that was known as the test of what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think.

Under the bill, when considering whether a dog is out of control, authorised officers will have to act objectively and ask themselves whether a fair-minded and impartial observer would conclude that the dog was causing alarm or apprehensiveness.