Hansard

I do and I shall, convener. Knowing what it is like to be in your place, I will be as brief as possible.First, I must commend Alex Neil, who did a lot of the groundwork on this bill. As members are aware, there has been a marked increase in the number of out-of-control dogs in Scotland. Indeed, the problem's scale is illustrated in the number of dog attacks that have been reported to police in Scotland: in 1999 to 2000, 239 such attacks were reported but by 2006-07 the number had increased 160 per cent to 623.As existing legislation has clearly proved inadequate, we need to change our approach. That is why the focus in the bill moves from the breed to the deed—in other words, the bill makes owners responsible for their dogs. As the dog wardens pointed out last week, it is not the dogs but the owners that are at fault.Although the bill has a simple aim, its technical nature has led to some misunderstandings about its provisions. No doubt members will ask me about that and, indeed, my letter to the convener, which deals with what I feel are inaccuracies about corroboration in particular. To control dogs, the bill would provide existing local authority staff who have dog-related skills—including dog wardens, community wardens and environmental health wardens—with powers to secure a significant reduction in dog attacks through preventive action. That is the key to the bill: it seeks to reduce problems through preventive and corrective measures with regard to owners. I am pleased that at last week's meeting the witnesses agreed that the bill could be an additional tool and would, as a dog warden made clear, ensure that action would be taken at a much lower level. I am confident that the bill will reduce significantly the number of attacks on individuals and animals through the use of its powers and without the need for additional staff.As so often with legislation, the problem is that existing legislation is piecemeal; in this case, it is focused primarily on particular breeds. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 outlaws specific dog breeds but, according to evidence received from the police and other key stakeholders, it does not adequately address the behaviour of irresponsible dog owners which, in most cases, is a huge contributory factor to dogs eventually behaving in a dangerous way.Furthermore, the 1991 act does not cover dog attacks that occur on private property where the dog is permitted to be, such as a private dwelling. We usually read in the newspapers that a dog has been put down with the consent of its owner, but there is no statutory right for the dog to be put down. The bill will remove that loophole by extending the provisions in the 1991 act to make it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control anywhere—public, private with permission or private without permission. That will make the 1991 act consistent with this bill, which applies to all places.The bill repeals the Dogs Act 1871 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 in so far as they apply to Scotland. Under the 1871 act, a court can make an order that a dog be kept under control or destroyed, following a complaint that it is dangerous and not kept under proper control. The 1989 act supplemented that. It extended the powers of the courts by creating the criminal offence of failing to comply with an order and enabling the disqualification of a person from owning or keeping a dog. My bill replaces the provisions in those acts with similar provisions in a single bill with significant additions that address irresponsible dog ownership. I repeat that the aim of the bill is to intervene before a dog becomes dangerous. In evidence from the National Dog Warden Association, the words "out of control" and "dangerous" were used interchangeably, but a DCN would apply only when a dog is out of control. Dangerous dogs remain dangerous dogs; a different route is taken in dealing with them. By our estimate, just over 1,000 dog control notices will be served in Scotland in the first year, giving an average figure for each local authority of 36 a year or three a month. I appreciate that the figures are broad estimates, but they are the best figures available from research.Last week's evidence made it clear that there is agreement about the worthiness of the bill, albeit that there is some disagreement over cost. Given the low numbers, those concerns are not substantive. The information on current roles and training needs was based on information that the City of Edinburgh Council supplied. I understand that the council is already in discussion with the SSPCA on training for its dog wardens, should the bill become law. Both Dundee City Council and Aberdeenshire Council confirm that the costs can be absorbed. Any downstream costs in pursuing a small number of breaches will be offset by a reduction in the number of dogs that are out of control that authorised officers have to deal with.The police will benefit from a reduction in antisocial behaviour, including between neighbours—the cabinet secretary referred to that—and from having to deal with fewer dogs that have become dangerous. The national health service will benefit from dealing with fewer patients who have been attacked by dogs. More sensible dog ownership will reduce costs across the piece. In addition, the Scottish Government agrees that significant financial savings should result from a reduction in criminal injuries compensation payments.I present this package of measures with the sole focus of ensuring that dogs in Scotland that are out of control are brought and kept under control. The powers that the bill gives to local authorities will make that possible. Scotland is at the forefront of dealing with the issue. The Northern Ireland Assembly is looking to introduce dog control legislation and is watching closely the progress of the bill.