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

McLetchie, David Con Edinburgh Pentlands Watch on SPTV

I had no intention of calling Ms Grahame a poodle. I commend Alex Neil for his work on the bill proposal and Christine Grahame for the characteristic vigour with which she picked up the baton, as Mr McMahon put it—or indeed the stick, leash or muzzle.

The legislation in the field is in need of modernisation. On the basis of all the evidence, it is fair to conclude, as the Local Government and Communities Committee did, that the breed-based approach that was taken in the 1991 act has not worked. Particular breeds have been banned and might even have died out in this country, but there are still many cross-bred dogs that have been bred and trained to exhibit aggressive behaviour, which cause alarm to people and are a threat to public safety. For people who take a perverse delight in intimidating their neighbours, engaging in gang conflict or strutting their stuff in the hood, a powerful dog is a fashion accessory and a weapon. In many cases, as we know, the dog owners are a good deal more dangerous than the dogs. We need to change the law, as Christine Grahame has said. We need to focus on irresponsible dog owners and to extend the ambit of the law to cover the behaviour and control of dogs on private property.

The bill will create dog control notices and place dog wardens, who are employed by local authorities, at the forefront of policing irresponsible behaviour. I confess that I am sceptical about the modest costs of the new approach as claimed in the financial memorandum. My view is shared by the National Dog Warden Association, which provided evidence. However, that is not an argument against the measures in the bill, although the issue will bear further examination as the bill progresses through the Parliament.

Some of the evidence that the Local Government and Communities Committee heard focused on whether corroboration will be necessary in the serving of a dog control notice, given that the breach of such a notice might lead to a criminal prosecution, in which the notice's validity might be an issue. That has a bearing on the financial aspects, because it could require dog wardens to work in pairs to provide corroboration, thereby increasing the costs that are associated with the bill. However, on the basis of the further submission that Christine Grahame made to the committee and the discussion to date in light of the committee's stage 1 report, I am satisfied with the analysis that corroboration is not a legal necessity.

Having said that, because breach of a dog control notice will be a criminal offence, it will have to be corroborated by witnesses. We are all well aware that it can be difficult to persuade people in some communities to come forward in support of complaints and to act as witnesses to the breach of a notice in relation to other aspects of antisocial behaviour. Therefore, witnesses to the breach of a dog control notice may still have to come from the ranks of the professionals rather than the public if justice is to be done and our neighbourhoods are to be made safer.

The Conservatives support the bill's objectives. We hope that the mechanisms that it introduces and the changes in the law that it makes will fulfil those objectives, make our communities safer and advance the welfare of animals in Scotland. For that reason, the bill deserves a fair wind in the Parliament, and I look forward to its passage on to the statute book.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 10 Feb 2010

In the same item of business