The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-08221, in the name of Paul Martin, on the effectiveness of existing dog control laws. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes calls to review the effectiveness of existing dog control laws following what it considers a large number of dog attacks throughout Scotland, including in Glasgow; notes calls for compulsory microchipping of dogs to aid identification of dangerous dogs and encourage responsible dog ownership; considers that the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was a positive step forward in dealing with dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners but considers that more work needs to be done to prevent dog attacks, and notes calls for greater emphasis to be placed on assessing owners and the environment in which dogs are kept.
12:32
I thank all the members who have supported my members’ business motion and welcome the fact that it has received support from all the parties that are represented in the chamber.
On Friday 18 October last year, eight-year-old Broagan McCuaig suffered horrendous injuries when she was attacked by two American bulldogs in the back court of her home in the Garthamlock area of my constituency. Were it not for the bravery of a local passer-by, Broagan might not be alive today to tell her tale.
The physical and psychological wounds that Broagan suffered will take a long time to heal. She missed part of her education as she underwent a series of painful operations and skin grafts to repair the damage to her face and other injuries that many of us would consider extremely concerning.
Thousands of similar incidents involving out-of-control dogs have been recorded over the past five years in Scotland. Over that period, there has been a 17 per cent increase in the number of such incidents. Too many children have suffered because of the current dog laws and action must be taken.
Last month, I arranged a meeting with the First Minister and a number of mothers whose children have been the victims of dog attacks: Veronica Lynch, whose daughter, Kellie, was killed by two Rottweilers in 1989; Zoe Hall, whose four-year-old daughter, Sophia Bell, was seriously injured by a Labrador; and Broagan’s mother, Tracy Cox. The accounts that we heard were harrowing.
The Daily Record has printed a number of pictures of children who have suffered from dog attacks. They do not make comfortable viewing, but they tell the real story of the anguish that many families have experienced as a result of serious dog attacks.
So, what can we do? As a result of last month’s meeting involving the First Minister, the Scottish Government has launched a consultation document. I welcome that and the extremely positive discussions that took place during that meeting with the First Minister.
I also welcome the First Minister’s commitment to a summit to discuss how we take the issue forward and to look at how to promote responsible dog ownership. I hope that that will allow further debate on the issue and that we will consider putting in place robust measures to develop responsible dog ownership.
I put on the record the fact that I am strongly in favour of compulsory microchipping. We must look at using that method to promote responsible dog ownership. A lack of compulsory microchipping or any mandatory licensing suggests that we are not serious about ensuring responsible dog ownership. Proper enforcement of those control measures, combined with the regular maintenance of a central database, would be integral to their success. We would have to put in place the necessary resources to make a compulsory database a success.
Another measure that might be worth considering is the introduction of a restricted breeds list that is similar to the Irish model. The Irish list includes two breeds that are banned in the United Kingdom and large breeds such as Rhodesian ridgebacks, German shepherds and Rottweilers. Those animals or crosses of them must be muzzled in public places and walked on short leads by people who are no younger than 16. Those dogs earned their place on that list not because they are perceived to be more dangerous than other dogs or more aggressive than Jack Russells or Yorkshire terriers but because of their physical attributes. Their weight, height and jaw strength make them possibly dangerous dogs in public.
Broagan McCuaig was attacked for six minutes while she was being rescued by a grown man who punched and kicked the dogs that were mauling her. As I said, if it was not for that bravery, she would not be here to tell her story. Following such attacks, it often transpires that the owners were not fit to be owners. If a restricted breeds list was put in place, perhaps we could prevent such individuals from being owners.
More focus should be placed on assessing owners and considering the environments that dogs are kept in. When a family wish to rehome a dog from an animal charity such as the Dogs Trust, they are often required to undergo a home assessment. There is scope to introduce such measures for the ownership of dangerous dogs.
In the comfort zone of the debating chamber, it would be easy for us to play it safe and not consider introducing muzzling, licensing, microchipping or a restricted breeds list. However, we owe it to Broagan McCuaig and all the other victims to take robust action in a way that will make a genuine difference.
12:38
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate, although it follows extremely tragic circumstances, which he narrated. I note that the First Minister sat through Paul Martin’s speech and I welcome the First Minister’s establishment of the consultative forum on how to reduce, if not eliminate, dog attacks.
Such attacks are horrendous and avoidable. I stress that they are the fault not of the animal but of the owner. Under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, we shifted to considering the deed, not the breed. I note what Paul Martin said about a restricted breeds list, but in that lies the inherent problem of defining a breed. Many of the dogs that are bred for aggressive purposes are crossbreeds—crosses of lurchers with bulldogs and so on—and are not breeds of dog. One problem with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was that it listed four breeds of dog that were not the breeds of the dogs that then carried out awful attacks. Legislating involves difficult issues.
We need to consider measures carefully. The attack on Kellie Lynch, which has been mentioned, brought about the 1991 act. That was legislating in haste and has proved not to be effective legislation—it is not the only example of that.
A plethora of legislation deals with the important issues that Paul Martin has raised. We have the Dogs Act 1906, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Control of Dogs Order 1992, the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, local authority byelaws and the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. There is lots of legislation out there.
As part of the review, I want us to consider whether that legislation is effective and whether there is an opportunity, in reassessing it and perhaps considering new legislation, for a consolidation act. Instead of having all the legislation scattered to the winds, can we bring it together to deal with breeding, licensing, the sale of dogs, ownership and so on?
The clock is not showing how long I have spoken for, so it is difficult to tell how much time I have.
I went into the microchipping debate that Claire Baker secured. I am absolutely for universal microchipping, but have issues with its being mandatory—although again, I am open to argument. Will the bad owners—the people who we know breed dogs as aggressive weapons and use them to tear other dogs apart and for dog baiting—have their dogs microchipped? I do not think so. What would happen to the microchips of stolen dogs that are used as bait? They can be removed, although that is a wretched, evil process. Who will update the microchipping records? We already have that under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which is very useful but it involves tracking particular owners of particular dogs. Dogs changing hands is a difficult issue. That is not to say that the idea is not good, but the details and practicalities are important if we are legislating.
The Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young Cats and Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 are an example of a piece of legislation that really has not taken us anywhere. Those regulations are supposed to regulate the sale of kittens and puppies under the age of 12 weeks. I have submitted a freedom of information request to every local authority in Scotland and cannot find one application that has been made under those regulations. I do not believe for one minute that nobody is selling or dealing in puppies and kittens under the age of 12 weeks, but they are not applying for licences and being checked. The legislation is gathering dust on the shelf.
On the other hand, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010—I am not patting myself on the back for it, as the legislation was started by Alex Neil—has been relatively successful. Sometimes with legislation it is a matter of suck it and see. From February 2011 to November 2011, 67 notices were served, and there were 693 investigations. The approach has been going for only two years. In the full year from 27 February 2012 to the same time in 2013, 147 notices were served, but there were 2,080 investigations. What is happening is not good enough, but that is a wee piece of legislation that is working.
When we are considering what to do about these horrendous attacks, we must consider what works and what is sitting on the shelf.
I have no idea of the time, because nothing is working.
Unfortunately, you should draw to a close now. You have had around five minutes.
I have the shortest of paragraphs.
I welcome the continuing debate. The nail has been hit on the head about education, assessments in the home and assessments of lifestyle so that the right people get the right dog for the right reasons and look after it properly.
Apologies for the clock. We will reset it now.
12:44
I congratulate my colleague Paul Martin on enabling this debate on a serious issue: the ownership of dogs and the damage that can be done by dogs that turn out to be dangerous.
The Broagan McCuaig situation yet again highlighted the circumstances in which young people, in particular, can suffer the most awful experience at the hands of an out-of-control dog.
As all members know, daily, there are dozens of incidents involving dogs and, each year, incidents occur that result in serious injury or mishap. Dogs can bite, attack or frighten people. They can be used to provide security for criminals or to deliver a form of intimidation in neighbourhoods or estates. On occasion, dogs attack postal workers or other public service providers in our community. A side issue that we often forget is that dogs also foul public places, which concerns parents, who are worried about their children in public areas.
The whole area is a nightmare in terms of our experience and otherwise, but the context is that there is no doubt that we are a nation of dog lovers. I have owned dogs and enjoyed every moment of that ownership—thankfully, the dogs that were under my control were not involved in any such incidents. However, we need to take cognisance of the matters that my colleagues Paul Martin and Christine Grahame have raised. No matter the amount of legislation that has been introduced, we still face monthly the problems of people being attacked and seriously injured, and we need to try to find some means of dealing with the threats.
I welcome the beginning of a consultation process. I hope that, on the back of that process, an expert group can be brought together to act with some speed to consider the consultation and, on the basis of evidence, to consider the way forward and make recommendations. There is significant public concern about the issue. The group should consider licensing and the opportunity to train owners to ensure that they are fit and proper people to have dogs under their control. There is no doubt that the danger comes not from dogs per se but from a lack of good ownership and proper control of dogs by human beings. The issue is about people accepting their responsibility.
Microchipping is an important issue. If we know where a dog has come from, we can identify who the owners should be and who should have maintained control. Other issues that the group should analyse are the use of leads in public areas to properly control dogs and the use of muzzles. Muzzles are controversial, and it has been suggested that they can cause more aggression rather than reduce it, but we need to get good advice in that regard. Consideration should be given to the proper enforcement by housing associations of the conditions that apply to tenants with regard to dogs. We should also look at ridding our communities of stray dogs, the numbers of which are of much concern. Thankfully, stray dogs are not often involved in the sort of terrible circumstances that have been described, but they add to the problems and the threats that our communities face.
I am delighted that my colleague introduced the debate and I am pleased to have taken part in it.
12:48
I thank Paul Martin for bringing this important debate to the chamber. It is totally unacceptable that dog attacks occur, as they do every year in Scotland, including some horrendous attacks on children. However, it is also essential that those attacks are put in perspective and that we remember that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible and that the number of dog attacks in Scotland is, thankfully, falling.
A range of measures is currently available to control dangerous dogs and prevent them from posing a threat to the general public. Those include educating owners on how best to train and control their dogs, intervening on irresponsible owners and tough sentencing, including banning orders that disqualify a person from owning a dog. The question is whether those measures are sufficiently robust and are working in practice. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to consider whether further measures such as compulsory microchipping—which is to be introduced in England and Wales next year and which can benefit all dog owners—are necessary.
It is important not to exaggerate microchipping’s potential impact on responsible ownership. The Government has revealed that it is estimated that only 50 per cent of dog owners held a licence at the time when mandatory licensing of dogs was abolished. That highlights the problems to do with enforcement. Irresponsible owners will continue to be irresponsible. It would therefore make sense for breeders to be required to microchip the puppies and dogs that they sell.
Compulsory muzzling of all dogs would be excessive and would penalise the vast majority of dog owners, who are responsible and whose dogs present no threat to the public. Furthermore, it would do nothing to prevent the vicious attacks that take place in the home. Nor would it help to address dog attacks on Royal Mail postmen and women—there are more than 100 such attacks in Scotland each year. However, the home assessments to which Paul Martin and Christine Grahame referred would certainly help in that regard.
There should be a move towards tougher banning orders for irresponsible owners and harsher penalties for breaching a dog control notice. South of the border, measures are to be introduced to increase the maximum sentence for an owner whose dog injures or kills, which should help to address the problem of dangerous dogs being bred and trained to act as weapons for their owners. The penalties should be equivalent to sentences for the use of conventional weapons. Such dogs are a world apart from the hundreds and thousands of dogs in Scotland that are not just pets but integral members of the family.
I very much welcome the Government’s consultation, but it is essential that measures that are taken to prevent irresponsible dog ownership are fair to the vast majority of owners who have well-behaved dogs. The real objective and difficulty will be to strike the right balance between sending an uncompromising message to irresponsible dog owners, who range from hapless individuals to people who breed dogs with the intention of using them to cause injury, and recognising the rights of responsible dog owners and dog lovers—among whom I count myself and declare an interest, as the owner of 15-month-old West Highland terriers Jack and Jamie.
12:52
I congratulate my colleague Paul Martin on securing this important debate and I wish Broagan McCuaig a full and speedy recovery.
The motion rightly recognises that the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was a major step forward in tackling the problems that are experienced in many of our communities. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which Christine Grahame introduced, sought to ensure that it was not the breed but the actions of a dog that constituted an offence, recognising that it can be difficult to establish the breed, as Christine Grahame said, and that in the right—perhaps that should be “wrong”—circumstances, almost any dog can become out of control and cause problems.
We have read in our newspapers and heard during the debate many harrowing stories about dog attacks on children—young people whose minds and bodies are scarred because a dog was out of control. The fact that there have been so many instances in the past years suggests that the legislation perhaps does not go far enough or is not being resourced to the level that would make it as effective as it could be.
I accept that no legislation, however robust it is, can entirely remove the possibility of someone being bitten by a dog. However, we must ensure that we have done everything in our power to reduce as far as possible the threat that out-of-control dogs pose.
Let me say that I am a dog lover, like most other members. I regret very much that the lifestyle of my household is such that it is not sensible for us to have a dog. Indeed, it would be downright selfish of us to own a dog, because our working hours are such that there is rarely anyone at home and we could not provide a dog with the amount of exercise or attention that it would need. However, some people seem to see a dog as a status symbol, a fashion accessory or, frankly, a sign of how tough they are, and give little thought to whether the environment and life that they can offer a dog will meet its needs. The consequences of having a frustrated, angry or out-of-control dog are all too obvious.
Paul Martin is absolutely right to call for all dogs to be microchipped and their owners’ names and addresses to be registered on a database that can be checked by the police, or by dog wardens, who now have the prime responsibility in this area. Let me demonstrate briefly why I think that a register is needed. Last year, a constituent of mine was out walking her daughter’s small dog in her local area. Out of the blue, a larger dog, which lived at the home of her neighbour, ran out of its owner’s garden, grabbed my constituent’s dog and savaged it to such an extent that the vet had to destroy it an hour or so later.
However, the story does not stop there. My constituent and her daughter were distraught and reported the incident to the police. That is when the problems really began, because the people who owned the house where the dog was on the day in question denied that they were its owners. It belonged to their son. When questioned by the police, the son also denied ownership and claimed that the dog belonged to his partner. She, in turn, said, “No, it’s my uncle’s dog.” The upshot was that it became difficult to identify the owners, which made my constituents’ experience even more difficult than it was already.
We need to have a way in which dogs can be easily identified and in which their owners can be traced with some certainty. Microchipping dogs at the point at which they are sold or exchanged should be compulsory. I accept that there are problems attached to that but we can legislate in this country for the movement of livestock so surely it is not beyond the will of parliamentary draughtsmen to put in place something that would work.
As I have said, when we consider the way in which some dogs are trained or bred to be violent or are denied the amount of exercise or stimulation that they need, it is perhaps no wonder that they sometimes go wrong. In previous times, all dogs had to be licensed but that system did not work either. Perhaps we now need to consider licensing the owners but only after they have proved themselves to understand their dog’s needs and are committed to training their dogs, and looking after them, as befits their breed type and the owner’s home circumstances.
For now, at least, let us get the dogs microchipped and have a real debate around the very welcome consultation that the Scottish Government has undertaken to ensure that we put in place a regime that is not only robust and properly resourced but of which we can be proud, and which gives us some certainty that we have done everything that we can do, as legislators, to try to resolve the issue.
Several more members would like to contribute to the debate. To allow them to do so, I am minded to accept a motion to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Paul Martin.]
Motion agreed to.
12:58
I, too, congratulate Paul Martin on lodging his important motion following the terrible attack that took place in his constituency, and on all the campaigning action that he has taken following that attack.
It is not just Paul Martin’s constituency that is affected. Unfortunately, most of us here have stories to tell from our constituencies about terrible attacks, some of which have got into the newspapers. Not long ago, a dog attacked five people in a block of flats in my constituency. Jenny Marra will describe similar attacks. However, attacks take place every day that we never hear about in the newspapers. It is a massive problem that must be addressed. That is why I welcome the Government’s consultation paper, which I hope will lead to changes in the law. The consultation paper ranges broadly and includes important issues such as dog fouling. While we need action there, too, that is not the subject of today’s debate, which is attacks by dogs on human beings.
I start with the principle that all that matters here is the safety of children and other people. The rights of no single dog owner override that. We must do whatever is necessary to protect children and young people. As I said in a recent debate on microchipping, I feel particularly strongly about that now that I have four young grandchildren. There is no debate about it—we need microchipping. Patricia Ferguson clearly demonstrated why microchipping is necessary and important.
Licensing should be seriously considered; my current view is that reintroducing it would help in assessing whether owners are fit to possess a dog. We are told that there are issues with enforcement, and indeed when licensing was previously in force, half of dog owners did not license their dogs. However, what we are saying today rests on the assumption that we have a strong dog warden workforce, as we already do in many areas.
With regard to assessing fitness for ownership, we should be saying more frequently, “That person will never have a dog again in their life.” If a person has been found guilty of having a dog that has attacked someone, particularly if the attack is serious, they should forfeit the right to have a dog for the rest of their life. Some of my constituents expressed that concern recently, following the attack in the block of flats that I mentioned. I will not go into the details of that situation, but it impressed on me the need for such provision.
The issue of leads and muzzles is more controversial—Paul Martin dealt with it comprehensively and fairly, and I take more or less the same position on the matter. Dog control notices require leads and muzzles for certain dogs, but there are two problems with such notices. First, they are not used often enough—in fact, I believe that some local authorities never use them at all—and secondly they are used after a problem has arisen or an attack has occurred. We need more dog control notices, but—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am in my last minute—I am not sure that I can. Can I take the intervention, Presiding Officer?
Yes—I will reimburse the time.
Okay.
On a brief point of information, the intervention currently takes place not after an attack has happened but at a much earlier stage, when people are concerned for their wellbeing and safety. The notices are used long before an attack takes place.
I thank Christine Grahame—who obviously knows about the 2010 act, as she introduced the bill—and I take her point on the matter. In a sense it is consistent with what I am saying. I am not speaking against dog control notices, but we should use them more frequently; that was my fundamental point.
However, pre-emptive action over and above dog control notices may be necessary, particularly as they are not used very frequently. I am inclined to support the Irish system in which certain breeds of dog must be muzzled and on leads at all times. That is the precautionary principle, and I am of course happy to listen to views on and objections to that suggestion in the next few months. However, I restate the principle that nothing is more important than the safety of children and other people, and precautionary action should therefore be supported.
13:02
Just this week, Sheriff Alastair Brown commented on a case in Dundee sheriff court that involved an attack on a two-year-old, of which I think that we are all aware. He said that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which John Major’s Government introduced after the brutal killing of Kellie Lynch by two Rottweilers, also in Dundee, is insufficient and does not give courts the proper powers to punish.
In the case that was in the news last week, the sheriff was not able to punish the dog owner properly under the 1991 act, so I am very pleased that a review of dog legislation is taking place at Westminster, as that is very important. However, there is so much more that this Parliament can do. Christine Grahame, Kenny Gibson and I have spoken before in the chamber about the dog antisocial behaviour order—or doggy ASBO—legislation that Christine Grahame introduced just a couple of years ago.
I was interested to hear the figures that Christine Grahame gave. She might agree with me that the legislation is not properly understood throughout Scotland, which perhaps offers an opportunity for a bit of post-legislative work by the Justice Committee. She cited some figures to show that the 2010 act is being used, but in my region Dundee City Council has not issued any dog ASBOs, and only one has been issued in Angus.
Some of the community wardens to whom I have spoken believe that dog control falls within police powers, but the 2010 act places it under local authority control. Given how many dogs and how many dangerous breeds there are in Scotland, it is important that our legislation is clear and unambiguous so that we know who has the power to reprimand the owners and take control of situations.
The member mentioned Dundee, and I have the figures in front of me. She is quite right that there have been no dog ASBOs, as she called them. However, the good thing in Dundee is that although there were only two investigations in the first six months, in the following full year there were 136 investigations. I do not think that we should underestimate the significance of dog wardens turning up and investigating an issue. It is a bit of a warning shot in the first place.
Indeed. I agree with the member about that. However, I think that we need to improve awareness.
Having looked at the issue over many years, I believe that the legislation that we have in place does not go nearly far enough. Since the introduction of the 2010 act, there have been horrific attacks in Dundee—for example, one little girl was severely mauled by a dog last summer. The legislation that we have in place is not preventing attacks. We need preventative measures because no amount of reprimanding owners after an attack has happened will give any comfort to the children who have been mauled, maimed and terrified in attacks and the parents who have to watch their children go through that.
I believe that we are at the stage when we seriously need to consider muzzling and perhaps requiring leads for dogs in public places. It is not an easy issue to deal with and it is controversial. However, I believe that the Irish Government has produced a list of 10 breeds of dogs and crossbreeds thereof for which specific measures are in place to prevent attacks. I think that we need to look at that. How many more attacks in our communities must we witness until we look properly at preventative measures?
13:06
First, I thank Paul Martin for bringing this topic to the chamber. I genuinely believe that it is a very serious issue and I know that he has very serious concerns about it, particularly in trying to help his constituents to overcome the difficult period that they have gone through.
As a young boy, I had some horrific experiences with dogs. I have seen people breed dogs for the sole purpose of making them fight each other. I have seen breeders breed dogs for the sole purpose of being violent guard dogs and the like, with no consideration whatsoever for what the outcome would be if the animal attacked an innocent person or whether the dog itself would be in danger, let alone human beings. It is horrific to experience such violent dogs and the experiences that I had will never leave me. I was once chased by a dog like that, and I can assure members that it is not a pleasant experience.
I think that what most people are now concerned about is seeing an end to there being victims of dangerous dogs, particularly in the home. I am a politician and, like the postman, I have gone to many letterboxes. I can assure you that when a dog jumps at you at the door, it gives you a fright—even at my age. There are therefore issues about how the animals are kept.
Members have suggested that it is not the fault of the animals, which is right: it is not. It is the fault of us, the human beings who are supposed to be controlling, helping and supporting those animals, training them appropriately and ensuring that they have the right attitude for living among children in particular and in human society in general. Our youngsters are at risk from dogs and we know that because we have the facts in front of us. People who have been viciously mauled by such animals carry that experience for the rest of their lives.
We need to take this topic very seriously, and I am glad that Paul Martin has brought it to the chamber today. It is important that all dogs be chipped, but I think that we need to go further than that. The people who perpetrate what I call the crime of breeding dogs specifically to hurt each other and to hurt people are the ones who will not chip the animals and who will still slip through the system. It is important that we ensure that that is not allowed. I have known people to breed dogs in farms and backyards without registering or training them but deliberately making them violent and training them only to be aggressive. That happens all round the world, but we in Scotland need to take the lead once again and ensure that we address the problem in a positive way. We need to get a grip on it, not just in relation to animals coming into Scotland but in relation to farms, businesses, security firms and the like.
The police and armed forces represent a good example in that they have highly trained dogs that do not go around mauling people. It is possible and doable, but we need to have the tools of the trade, and we need to give people the tools to ensure that the problem is eradicated. We need to visit farms and kennels and ensure that shop owners and those who trade in the business are responsible and chip any animal that they sell.
That concludes the open part of the debate. I invite Roseanna Cunningham to respond.
13:11
I welcome all the speeches that have been made and I congratulate Paul Martin on bringing this debate to the Parliament. We discuss the issue today against the background of recent and continuing reports of dog attacks, including the particular cases that Paul Martin mentioned.
It is useful to remind the Parliament that both civil and criminal law can apply in respect of a dog’s behaviour, and that the basis and the standard of proof for each is different. I turn first to the civil law. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 gave local authorities new powers to help to promote responsible dog ownership. Where a dog is considered to be out of control, a local authority can issue its owner with a dog control notice . Christine Grahame was right to remind us that the 2010 act is preventative, as a dog attack does not need to have happened before a dog control notice can be issued. It is important to remind ourselves of that.
A number of conditions can be imposed through a dog control notice if it is decided that that is required. As well as a mandatory requirement to have a dog microchipped, other conditions may include having the dog muzzled while in public and the owner having to undergo training in the control of their dog.
The minister is absolutely right to reinforce the point about prevention, but my colleague Jenny Marra hit the nail on the head when she said that not everyone is aware of the rights that they have so they do not always report it when a dog is beginning to exhibit such tendencies. It might be worth while to have an education programme or advertising programme to help with that.
The member is absolutely right about that, but I remind her that the 2010 act aims to empower local authorities to be able to do a lot of this work. I will come back to that later.
The aim of the 2010 act is for steps to be taken by dog owners before an out-of-control dog becomes a dangerous dog and someone is attacked. In civil law, cases require to be proved on a balance-of-probability basis.
Between February 2011 and February 2013—the first two years of operation of the 2010 act—local authorities carried out approximately 3,200 investigations into potentially out-of-control dogs, as a result of which 240 notices were issued. However, as some members noted, there are large variations in how local authorities are using the legislation. In Edinburgh, for example, 164 investigations were carried out between February 2012 and February 2013, but in the same period Glasgow City Council conducted only five investigations. As an exemplar, I note that Aberdeen City Council conducted 317 investigations. It is difficult to understand why the variations have occurred and I think that a little bit of work needs to be done in respect of that, because these are important powers for local authorities and we are clear that they should be using them to help to control dogs in their communities. I remind members that there is no need to wait for an actual attack, as the provisions can be brought into play before that happens.
Alongside the new 2010 act, we have long-standing criminal laws to deal with dangerous dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which provides for prison sentences. Under existing criminal law, however, a dog owner can be held criminally liable for their dog only if they had a reasonable apprehension that their dog would behave in a dangerously out of control way. That issue has come to the fore as a result of the Dundee case. The Government is determined to ensure that our approach to dog control keeps our communities safe, and I assure members that we will look at whether our criminal laws should be changed to keep them more in line with how the civil dog control notice regime works.
Such a change would have the effect that no prior knowledge by the owner about the likelihood of a dog’s aggressive behaviour would be needed before a conviction could be obtained. There would be controversy about that, so it would have to be considered carefully. The criminal standard of proof required is that the case be beyond reasonable doubt, which is a different standard of proof. Consolidation, as suggested by Christine Grahame, would therefore be even more complicated than such exercises usually are, given that we are dealing with both criminal and civil law.
I have a caution on the listing of breeds. I understand why people raised that, but the only time that I have been bitten by a dog—when I was bitten on the face as a small child—a dachshund did it. I am pretty sure that a dachshund would never be listed, so we have to be careful when we talk about breed listing.
Just after Christmas, the Scottish Government launched a consultation to seek views on what new measures may be needed to deal with both the public safety and dog welfare problems associated with irresponsible ownership. Our consultation seeks views on a number of measures that may help to promote responsible dog ownership, although that does not exclude the suggestion, discussion and consideration of other issues.
We have raised the mandatory microchipping of all dogs. Personally, I have to say that it is hard to argue against the mandatory microchipping of dogs in the circumstances. We know that some dogs are still unfortunately mistreated and that where their welfare has been compromised, that can sometimes lead to dogs lashing out, which Patricia Ferguson was right to point out. Compulsory microchipping could reinforce the responsibility an owner should have for their dog’s wellbeing. We want to talk to people about the practicality and effectiveness of the widespread microchipping of all dogs.
In addition, we are raising the issue of dog licensing. The reintroduction of dog licensing would have to be done differently to how it was before, because it was ineffective before. It could be done in conjunction with mandatory microchipping—the two are not mutually exclusive—and those two things together probably would promote responsible dog ownership.
Will the minister give way?
I need to press on, if the member will allow me.
There has to be some question of criteria for ownership. If we are going to reintroduce dog licensing we would need to understand that potential owners are suitable.
We have raised the issue of compulsory muzzling and I hear the views in the chamber. I think that that could be the most controversial aspect of the consultation.
The consultation runs until the end of March and I urge people with an interest to offer their views. In March we will hold a summit, bringing together key interests such as local authorities, the police, victims groups, a wide variety of organisations and others to discuss what more can be done to promote responsible dog ownership.
As a number of people have said, we have to remind ourselves that the vast majority of dog owners and dogs in Scotland are well behaved, socialised and cause no danger to anybody. Our consultation, the summit and our review of the criminal law is focused on seeking views and evidence on what more practical things we can do to increase the safety of all of our community. It is right that the Government is doing that, and what we do can, of course, include measures in addition to the three referenced in the consultation. I congratulate Paul Martin again on bringing forward the issue.
13:18 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time