Chamber
Plenary, 10 Feb 2010
10 Feb 2010 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 22 June 2009 by Christine Grahame MSP. The bill seeks to modernise the law on the control of dogs and has four main aims: to introduce a new regime of dog control notices, which will enable local authorities to impose measures on owners or persons in charge of dogs; to provide the Scottish ministers with a power to establish a national database of dog control notices; to enable a local authority to apply to a court to have a dog destroyed if it considers that the dog is out of control and dangerous; and to extend a person's liability for a dog that is dangerously out of control such that it applies in all places.
The policy memorandum suggests that irresponsible ownership of dogs is the main factor underlying the increasing rate of dog attacks. Such irresponsibility includes owners not undertaking training with their dogs, not treating dogs correctly or not socialising dogs properly. Other factors that are highlighted include individuals who are engaged in criminal or risk-taking activities keeping powerful dogs as status symbols or accessories to their own aggressive behaviour and a growing trend for urban gangs to use aggressive dogs as weapons.
Four United Kingdom acts relate to dangerous dogs: the Dogs Act 1871; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which amends the 1871 act; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997, which amends the 1991 act. The reason that I mention all four acts is that that complexity causes considerable problems in the courts, as a friend of mine who is an advocate has experienced. He has prosecuted in several dangerous dog cases and feels that there are problems with the way in which owners are prosecuted. Several different laws can be used to prosecute, which means that there are often unintended consequences and that punishments are not necessarily uniform.
The principle in the bill of focusing on deed not breed caused considerable discussion. In the consultation, 39 respondents explicitly supported that approach, while only six were opposed. However, some breeds are clearly far more aggressive than others. For example, a Rottweiler is obviously more dangerous than a Chihuahua, Scottie or west Highland terrier due to its sheer size, weight and bite force. I suggest that more work needs to be done on that area of the bill.
The policy memorandum suggests that irresponsible ownership of dogs is the main factor underlying the increasing rate of dog attacks. Such irresponsibility includes owners not undertaking training with their dogs, not treating dogs correctly or not socialising dogs properly. Other factors that are highlighted include individuals who are engaged in criminal or risk-taking activities keeping powerful dogs as status symbols or accessories to their own aggressive behaviour and a growing trend for urban gangs to use aggressive dogs as weapons.
Four United Kingdom acts relate to dangerous dogs: the Dogs Act 1871; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which amends the 1871 act; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997, which amends the 1991 act. The reason that I mention all four acts is that that complexity causes considerable problems in the courts, as a friend of mine who is an advocate has experienced. He has prosecuted in several dangerous dog cases and feels that there are problems with the way in which owners are prosecuted. Several different laws can be used to prosecute, which means that there are often unintended consequences and that punishments are not necessarily uniform.
The principle in the bill of focusing on deed not breed caused considerable discussion. In the consultation, 39 respondents explicitly supported that approach, while only six were opposed. However, some breeds are clearly far more aggressive than others. For example, a Rottweiler is obviously more dangerous than a Chihuahua, Scottie or west Highland terrier due to its sheer size, weight and bite force. I suggest that more work needs to be done on that area of the bill.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5581, in the name of Christine Grahame, on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 scrut...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
In country areas, dogs often escape from gardens. If, for instance, a dog took a rabbit, a reasonable person might conclude that somebody would be apprehensi...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
The member has just illustrated why one would not try to pin down every circumstance. The facts and circumstances of every case determine what is reasonable....
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
The member must now wind up.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I have other points to make, Presiding Officer. I hope that I can address them in my summing up.I move,That the Parliament agrees to the general principles o...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I call Duncan McNeil to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee.
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
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...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Does the member recognise that Dundee City Council agreed with the figures in the financial memorandum? Not all local authorities in Scotland took the same v...
Duncan McNeil:
Lab
The member is correct. However, councils operate at different levels; some have no dog wardens at this time. If the bill is passed, there will be an expectat...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):
SNP
I thank Christine Grahame and the non-Executive bills unit for their work. Like other members, I commend Alex Neil on laying the foundations for the bill and...
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con):
Con
Historic.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Historic.
Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) (LD):
LD
It's no historic any more.
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
You can have it as "historic" if you want. Anyway, those discussions would have to take place. I can tell Mr McLetchie—Mr McNeil referred to this—that we are...
Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab):
Lab
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 ...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
With respect, does the member appreciate the distinction between civil and criminal law? There is no mandatory requirement for corroboration in a civil matter.
Michael McMahon:
Lab
That argument has been made, but the issue still requires scrutiny, because what frightens one person might not concern another. The "how long is a piece of ...
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con):
Con
I apologise for my late arrival in the chamber, particularly to Christine Grahame, and to Duncan McNeil, during whose speech I arrived. I was caught out by t...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I ask the member to desist from calling me a poodle.
David McLetchie:
Con
A poodle?
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Yes.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Can we get on with the bill, please?
David McLetchie:
Con
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 ...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 22 June 2009 by Christine Grahame MSP. The bill seeks to modernise the law on the control of dogs and h...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Mike Pringle:
LD
I do not have time. I am sorry.The consultation by Alex Neil MSP dealt with the definition of a dog "being dangerously out of control" and elicited a wide ra...
Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate Christine Grahame on her work on the bill. We do not know how many dogs there are in Scotland, but we guesstimate that there are between half ...
Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
I speak as a dog lover who has had the pleasure of owning several dogs over the course of my life. I also speak as someone who has twice received hospital tr...
Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) (LD):
LD
I have given my support to Ms Grahame to ensure that the bill is debated both in committee and in the chamber. I have done so because I am concerned that the...