I thank the convener and the committee for inviting me to this evidence session as you review the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010.
I note the presence of Alex Neil MSP. As the committee might be aware, he did all the heavy lifting on the 2010 act—I just dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s. The act was significant and important at the time, and it is still a very important piece of legislation. Following an incident many years ago when a little girl was savaged by Rottweilers, legislation in the form of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was put through at pace. Like many pieces of legislation that are done at pace, it was flawed, because it focused on breeds. The 2010 act put the focus where it should have been, on the owner—it became about the deed, not the breed.
The 2010 act is still a substantial piece of legislation and it has been relatively successful, with regard to not just recorded dog control notices but unrecorded data, such as when a dog warden or an environmental warden simply to speaks to somebody discreetly, as a light touch, before proceeding further. They might make a note of such events, however—that also happens. I will come to that later. Therefore, to a limited extent, the act has been successful—and I will come on to why its success has been limited.
The 2010 act was important in turning the 1991 legislation on its head and making the owner—the controller—of the dog responsible, not the dog itself. The vast majority of dogs do not have behavioural problems if they are properly handled.
I took the opportunity to read some of the evidence that the committee has obtained and I will—if the committee wishes—focus on the following: the training of dog wardens; the number of dog wardens; which agency has responsibility for what—the police or the council; public knowledge of the legislation; the national database issue that the committee has raised; and dog licensing. I will take those issues in order.
With regard to training, I agree with the committee that there are disparities throughout Scotland. I have met the dog wardens in my constituency, which covers parts of Midlothian and the Borders. Both the main dog wardens there—one is a dog warden and the other is a dog/environmental warden—are very experienced dog behaviourists and I have huge regard for them. The dog warden in Midlothian has a police logo on the side of his van. He told me that if he is taking a light-touch approach, he parks his van away from the house where the dog is and goes around to talk to the people. He does not make a big deal of it or cause a big scene, but he warns them that there will be consequences if they do not do certain things. However, a note is taken, which is given to the police. If there is a repeat incident, the next step that must be taken in the process will be taken. However, that is not a uniform approach throughout Scotland.
The question of which agency is responsible for what is a nightmare. Many people do not even know that the 2010 act exists. I note with interest Finlay Carson’s declaration that he is a member of the NFUS. At an agricultural show, I met someone from the NFUS who was going on about dogs upsetting sheep and savaging them. I asked whether they knew about the 2010 act, but they had no idea about it. I said that it could be used by a farmer whose sheep are in lamb if someone has their dog with them—even if the dog is on a leash—but is too close. They did not know about that, and nor do the man and woman in the street.
I see from the committee’s evidence that people find it difficult to know, between the police and councils, who is responsible for what. I have had cases in which people have told me that they got the police involved in dealing with a dangerous dog. My response is to ask whether they had thought of using the 2010 act, but people do not know about it. I am not talking about an incident that would come under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which would be in a different category entirely. The 2010 act is for such things as being frightened by a dog next door or when passing a gate.
Public knowledge of the legislation is a huge issue. A bugbear of mine is that a member’s bill gets no publicity other than that provided by the member. That is fair enough at the beginning, when a consultation is put forward, and at the point when it becomes an act of Parliament, but after that, there is no publicity. The Scottish Government can give it publicity if it wishes to, but it does not have to and has not done so as far as I know. Unless the member pays for publicity out of their allowances, nobody gets to know about their bill.
I absolutely agree about having a national database. We have about 10 microchipping companies that the Government has said are certified, so surely there could be a portal. I am not technical, but information could be fed into a national database so that we would not have the problem of an out-of-control dog whose owner is served with a notice being moved to another area. I do not know why there is not a national database; that would help in relation to my forthcoming proposal for a responsible dog ownership bill.
I can see that you want to move on, convener—I quite understand. Perhaps I can answer any questions that members may have on dog licences. My proposed member’s bill would deal with dog licences, too.