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

McMahon, Michael Lab Hamilton North and Bellshill Watch on SPTV

I congratulate Christine Grahame on introducing the bill and on all her efforts since June last year, when she picked up the baton that was passed to her by Alex Neil, who pursued the issue originally. I thank the members of the Local Government and Communities Committee and their clerking team for their work in scrutinising the bill since being designated the lead committee. I also thank NEBU for its efforts to ensure that the bill could be discussed today. I pay tribute to those who gave evidence on the bill and highlighted a variety of pertinent issues, some of which remain outstanding this afternoon and have already been outlined.

Whatever issues remain outstanding, the starting point of the bill is right. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was much criticised at the time, as it was viewed as a knee-jerk reaction to a distressing problem. The spate of horrific dog attacks that preceded that legislation were not acceptable, and the issue required to be addressed. However, the haste with which that legislation was passed prevented effective analysis of the causes of the problem and a proper determination of the necessary measures to address it. Christine Grahame is therefore accurate in her assessment that the current legislation on dogs is piecemeal, and has tended to focus on breeds of dogs and dangerous dogs rather than on why dogs become out of control and on what has to be done to tackle the dog owner who fails to control their pet.

Shining the spotlight on the act that takes place instead of on the type of dog involved is eminently more sensible, and it is hardly surprising that the Kennel Club and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals support the bill as a result. Nevertheless, Labour members are concerned about aspects of the bill.

The bill primarily aims to create an administrative regime that seeks to influence the behaviour of dog owners and to promote responsible ownership, but the measures that are outlined to achieve that will require a sizeable injection of cash into local authorities, especially to provide for the administration of dog control notices. Christine Grahame has argued that the officers who would be involved are already employed by local authorities, which must deal with dogs, and that the new duties in the bill would be subsumed into existing duties. However, although the Scottish National Party Government has tried its best to deny the consequences of its budget, the reality is that local authorities are cutting staff by the thousand and that cuts are falling in areas such as community safety and are affecting community wardens and other people who deal with responsibilities in relation to dog fouling and dog-related antisocial behaviour.

The evidence that was presented during the consultation is a year old, but even a year ago local authorities were advising the Parliament that they would need to recruit additional staff to implement the proposed DCN regime. If the regime would have been a problem for councils in 2008-09, it would be a bigger burden on councils this year, given the fiscal constraints that they face and will face in the future.

Issues that have been raised about corroboration are of equal concern. The validity of corroboration is a complex issue, which requires much more scrutiny. The definition of "out of control" is an issue, because judging what it means is subjective. The formulation of a test that applies across a range of situations is a major concern.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 10 Feb 2010

In the same item of business