Chamber and committees

I would say that that was in the past year and a half.

We have had quite a lot of engagement with local authorities and other stakeholders. The committee might be aware that the Scottish Government leads a working group on dog control and dangerous dogs, which covers the other part of the legislation—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That group has lots of members, including COSLA, the Scottish Community Safety Network, a victims’ voice—we thought that it was important to have that—the National Dog Warden Association and Police Scotland.

I think that the convener asked about whether local authorities have raised issues and what we have done to work through those. I can think of a couple of things that came up.

There have been issues relating to the migration of data. The populations of local authority areas vary, so I guess that it makes sense that there is variation in that some give out very large numbers of DCNs and others give out quite tiny numbers of them. There was some concern about pressure on local authorities to migrate that data on to the database. We are working with them, as the Improvement Service is, to make sure that we are not putting undue pressure on them but, equally, to ensure that we get the data on there so that we can start to use it. We think that we have sufficient time in the roll-out plan to make sure that that happens in a timely fashion.

The other issue was costs to do with developing the database—the set-up costs and the running costs. The Scottish Government has funded the set-up costs, and it has agreed to fund the running of the database for the first two years. We are in on-going discussions with stakeholders about what might be called a fair funding model and how that will go. Further discussions are under way on that.

I ask Jim Wilson to give a bit of the flavour of the engagement that we have done with local authorities.

It is. We have committed to that. I want to have the most effective dog control regime. We have been talking about two acts. It is envisaged that the 2010 act should act as a preventative regime. We want people to be responsible dog owners by keeping their dogs under control and behaving when they are out, so that they do not become dangerous dogs, which is an issue that is covered by the 1991 act.

There is quite a complex interplay, with dog wardens at one end and Police Scotland and the Crown at the other. There is an opportunity to look at everything in the round and to see whether the legislation needs to be strengthened, although I think that we all agree that it does need to be strengthened. There is an opportunity to consider all those factors. Miles Briggs has raised a good point.

Absolutely. I have had conversations with the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home about the issue. As you said, it and a number of smaller stakeholders with expertise in the area want to contribute to the development of the work. We will expand the working group, because we want to ensure that we have the right expertise on it. We are moving from considering operational issues relating to the 2010 act to considering wider policy and legislative changes. We will keep Miles Briggs’s point in mind.

The provisions in the 2010 act control what we can do in establishing the database, and they are very specific. The act sets out what data we can hold and who can access it. At the moment, we are able to enact only what the act’s provisions give us the power to enact. That is what we have done; we have gone as far as we can. We have followed the act’s provisions in laying the draft order that is in front of the committee. That is why the order refers only to the organisations that you mentioned.

You are right to say that there is the potential for other organisations with an interest to be able to access the database and for additional data to be held on it. When the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee considered the matter, there were questions about whether the database should hold additional data. For example, should it hold all the complaints that have been made about the conduct of a certain dog? Should it contain information on whether a DCN has been breached? At the moment, such data is not able to be held on the database because there are only specific provisions that we are allowed to enact.

However, I am going through a process of looking at what needs to be done to improve the enforcement of the provisions in the 2010 act. This session is part of that process. In the previous session, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee produced a report on the issue—which I am sure this committee will have seen—and recommended that that work be done.

We have now moved on to review the wider regime of dog control. That includes consideration of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which I am committed to reviewing. We will go through a number of steps in doing that. Once we have done that, we will introduce—I hope, in this parliamentary session—a bill on the control of dogs regime. If we want to change the database to allow additional information to be held and additional organisations to access it, that needs to be done through primary legislation, and the forthcoming bill will give us an opportunity to do that. We are actively considering including all those things in that bill.

That is an important point. From the beginning of the process of developing the database, we have involved the Information Commissioner’s Office. Obviously, the database will contain personal data, and we are required to ensure that the data is used and held appropriately.

The Government carried out a data protection impact assessment. I hope that the committee has that assessment as part of the documents that accompany the draft order, so members can have a look at that if they are interested in the detail. The ICO was also involved in the preparation of the draft order, and it is content with the policy as it stands.

There is a little complexity in relation to joint data sharing and so on, so a process needs to be worked through. The Improvement Service has what it calls framework service agreements, which will cover data sharing between all the organisations that are data controllers. Those agreements will need to be in place with all 32 local authorities. Local authorities will be issued with those agreements, and they have a statement of work that they will need to sign up to before the database goes live.

Have I missed anything out, Jim?

Yes, we have. We have had quite a large amount of consultation with local authorities and others on the design and implementation of the database. I will ask Jim Wilson to give some of the detail of that.

Right at the beginning of the process, I initiated direct engagement with Councillor Kelly Parry, who is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities spokesperson for community safety and wellbeing. That was to ensure that COSLA was sighted on what we were doing and to get its full involvement in the plan for initiating the design of the database and so on. I think that I have met her twice over the past year—I ask Jim Wilson to confirm whether that is right.

No, that would not be an offence under the 2010 act. We might look at that as part of our review in relation to potential future legislation.

That issue could be considered, but I think that that is more to do with animal welfare. I think that there is a reporting duty in the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. I did not work on that legislation, but there might be opportunities for justice and animal welfare colleagues to work together on such issues. I know that Jim Wilson works with them, so he might be able to give the committee an update.

Good morning. I thank the committee for inviting me to speak about the draft order that has been laid for Parliament’s approval. I very much welcome the opportunity to give evidence. I also thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its consideration of the draft order earlier this month.

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 introduced the dog control notice regime. Local authority dog wardens are able to issue a dog control notice to a dog owner who allows their dog to be out of control. The civil notice can contain a number of conditions, such as the need to muzzle the dog or to keep it on a lead whenever it is in a public place. Breach of a dog control notice is a criminal offence.

Section 8 of the 2010 act provides the Scottish ministers with an enabling power to make an order to establish a national database of dog control notices. The intention of the draft order is to provide for the establishment of such a database. Each local authority already has a statutory responsibility to monitor the effectiveness of every dog control notice that it has issued, but the national database will bring together the records of all local authorities in a centralised database that will be accessible to local authorities and Police Scotland. The database will be a valuable tool in improving the effectiveness of the 2010 act.

The information that will be held on the database will include the name of the person to whom the dog control notice applies, the address of that person, and information relating to the dog, such as whether it is microchipped and the name of the animal.

That is a brief overview of the draft order. I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee has about it.

That was our understanding of the way in which the regime is functioning at the moment. One of the reasons for implementing the database is to make enforcement easier in cases in which someone is issued with a dog control notice in, say, Fife, but they then move to Lanarkshire. We think that the enforcement process will be easier for local authorities and, we hope, for Police Scotland.