Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 10 Feb 2010

10 Feb 2010 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

McNeil, Duncan Lab Greenock and Inverclyde Watch on SPTV

I apologise, Presiding Officer, for arriving late in the chamber. I am getting confused in my old age. I noted down three different times for the debate—2.45 pm, 3.00 pm and whenever I was to arrive. Please accept my apologies. No offence was intended.

I am pleased to be taking part in this debate as convener of the lead committee that considered the bill. I pay tribute to Christine Grahame for bringing forward the legislation and to Alex Neil for his work on the bill before he was elevated to ministerial office. I also thank all the witnesses who provided the committee with evidence, particularly the dog wardens who gave good and practical evidence on their daily and weekly involvement in dealing with dogs that are out of control. I think that all committee members were impressed with the evidence. I am also grateful to my colleagues on the committee for their input and to our clerks and researchers, who were as hard working as ever.

In the time that is available to me, I intend to focus on just a few of the key issues on which the committee reported. The bill seeks to address the underlying reasons why dogs become out of control and dangerous. I am no expert on dogs. That said, all politicians have experience of dogs—including dangerous dogs—from delivering leaflets and campaigning. From the evidence of the experts, it is clear that a dog becomes dangerous; it is not born that way.

As Christine Grahame said, the bill is about prevention. It seeks to influence the behaviour of the dog owner in order to improve the behaviour of the dog. We all can conjure up images of people who use dogs almost as offensive weapons. In that regard, the committee supports the introduction of a dog control notice regime. The notices have become affectionately known in the media as dog antisocial behaviour orders—or dog ASBOs—a description that is perhaps not entirely wide of the mark.

The committee welcomes the fact that the focus in the bill is on deed and not breed. That is unlike much of the current dog legislation, where the focus is the other way round or, if I might be indulged for a moment, Presiding Officer, where the tail appears to wag the dog—boom, boom.

There were some concerns in evidence about the definition in the bill of a dog that is out of control and the use of terms such as giving rise to "reasonable … alarm" and "apprehensiveness". We felt that such language was imprecise and could lead to confusion in interpretation, particularly for those who are charged with determining whether a dog is actually out of control. It is important that there is clarity in that regard.

The committee welcomes the bill's intention to address a deficiency in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that if a dog attacks someone in the home in which it is kept, the owner will no longer be immune from prosecution. I am sure that all members have seen and read about the devastating consequences of attacks by dogs in the home, especially where young children were involved. If the bill goes some way towards preventing such attacks, it will be worth while.

I turn to the issue of cost. Given the poverty of information regarding the number of dangerous dogs in Scotland, the committee and Christine Grahame acknowledged that there is a degree of uncertainty about the financial assumptions that have been made in the financial memorandum. The Scottish Government also acknowledged that the estimates

"may be on the low side".

Local authorities expressed concern to us about the bill's assumption that no additional costs to them would arise from the legislation.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 10 Feb 2010

In the same item of business