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

Murray, Elaine Lab Dumfries Watch on SPTV

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 treatment due to attacks by dogs—not my own dogs. I was a signatory to the bill, and I have watched its progress with interest.

The principles of the bill have received support from a range of organisations: the Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Advocates for Animals, the Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union. One of the first questions I was asked when I visited local sorting offices before Christmas was, "What's happening with Christine Grahame's bill?"

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 makes it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place or in a private place where the dog is not permitted to be. In most instances when postal workers are attacked—indeed, in the two instances when I was attacked—the dog is in its own territory. Some 70 per cent of the 6,000 attacks by dogs on postal workers in the UK take place on private property where the dog's presence is permitted, and the extension in the bill of liability for a dog that is out of control to its behaviour in all places would help to protect those workers.

The bill rightly recognises the behaviour of dog owners as the primary cause of attacks by dogs. There are two principal reasons for that. The first is ownership of dogs by people who do not understand how to train and control them—if a human being is not in control, a dog may become aggressive because it is nervous or feels that it has to take control itself. The other reason, which David McLetchie and Mike Pringle referred to, is the deliberate encouragement of aggressive canine behaviour as part of the owner's more general antisocial behaviour. Dogs were used in warfare in many early civilisations, and unfortunately some are still obtained and used deliberately for the purposes of intimidation.

While I support Christine Grahame's bill, I believe that, as it stands, there is an anomaly in it. The bill concentrates on deed not breed, but the list of prohibited dogs—pit bulls, Japanese tosa, fila brasileiro and dogo argentino, which sound a bit like cartoon characters but are actually large US mastiff-type dogs—will remain. Only pit bulls have been an issue in Britain; the others are virtually unknown here.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was, in part, a response to the tragic killing of an 11-year-old girl in Dunoon by two Rottweilers. Other breeds, including Staffordshire bull terriers and one of my favourite breeds, the Jack Russell terrier, have been known to attack people. Indeed, Jack Russells have a bad record of on occasion killing young babies.

Pit bulls also have a bad reputation, but the pit bull is not actually a breed of dog. It is a type of dog that is defined by the characteristics of the American pit bull. It is therefore defined by physique and conformation, and not by lineage. A Staffordshire bull terrier crossed with a Labrador could produce a pit bull terrier type dog, and anyone who obtains a pup that grows up into that type of dog is in theory committing an offence if they do not have it destroyed. The law is unworkable in practice, which we know as there are many pit bull type dogs still living in the UK, some of which are dangerous but most of which are probably not.

The Kennel Club, which also submitted evidence on behalf of the dangerous dogs act study group, states in its own submission that

"it may not be practical in the current political climate to remove the list of banned breeds".

However, if the argument really is about deed not breed, that is a bit of a cop-out. Owners who have out-of-control, aggressive pit bull type dogs should be prosecuted; owners who have well-disciplined and well-behaved pit bull type dogs should not be forced to have them destroyed if the dog's only offence is the way that it looks.

My preference would be the repeal of sections 1 and 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, although I understand that that may be difficult at the moment. If that is not acceptable, I believe that the index of exempted dogs should be reopened to owner-led applications, which would enable the responsible owners of pit bull type dogs to apply for exemption and to register them if certain requirements are met, such as muzzling. I therefore suggest that the Scottish ministers invoke their powers under subsections (5) and (6) of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to reopen the index of exempted dogs to owner-led applications.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 10 Feb 2010

In the same item of business