Plenary, 10 Feb 2010

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Official Report 468KB pdf

---

Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5581, in the name of Christine Grahame, on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill.

It is with great pleasure that I open the debate on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and for making me feel briefly like a minister under interrogation. I also thank all those who have worked so hard on the bill, including the self-effacing non-Executive bills unit staff who are present in the chamber today, and my colleague Alex Neil and his staff for all the work that they put into developing the policy before Alex Neil was elevated to the lofty heights of ministerial office and became a willing victim of promotion.

Members who know Alex Neil will know that he does not get on well with dogs, but I am a dog lover. However, owning a dog is not a right but a privilege. Every dog owner, regardless of their personal circumstances, has a duty to ensure the welfare of their animal and to ensure that their dog is kept under control at all times, in the interests of public safety. If they cannot do that, their behaviour should be challenged, to be frank.

The bill is not intended to penalise responsible dog owners. It should improve their experience by addressing irresponsible dog ownership and reducing the threat that out-of-control dogs pose. Sadly, while most dog owners are responsible, there is a growing problem with dog owners who do not look after their dogs properly, whether through a lack of knowledge that means that they do not provide appropriate training or socialisation, for example, or by deliberate action, such as the use of status dogs that are taught to act aggressively.

We need only pick up the papers and read about recent dog attacks to know that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has failed to improve public safety. That legislation was passed in haste and has been repented at leisure. In Scotland, about 600 attacks are reported each year, which is more than double the figure 10 years ago.

By focusing on deed, not breed, my bill will reduce the number of attacks in two ways. The dog control notice regime will give authorities the power to require dog owners to keep their dogs under control or face a criminal conviction. If used properly, that power will reduce the number of lower-level incidents—I stress that phrase—in which dog owners perhaps need guidance on how to keep their dog under control. It will also prevent many dogs from developing more dangerous behaviour that might lead to dog attacks.

The bill requires owners to ensure that their dogs are kept under control at all times and in all places—I emphasise that. Currently, if a child is attacked in a dog's home, where it is permitted to be, the owner cannot be held legally responsible unless the dog is of a banned breed. That is clearly wrong. My bill extends to all places existing offences that relate to dogs that are dangerously out of control.

I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for supporting the bill's general principles. I will tackle the main issues that the committee raised, which were corroboration, the definition of "out of control" and implementation costs.

On corroboration, I agree with the committee that the bill does not require authorised officers to work in pairs to serve dog control notices. I understand that the committee's concern is that the validity of a notice

"may be used as a defence in a criminal prosecution."

My clear view is that the offence of failure to comply with a notice, as provided for at section 5, is a separate matter that relates to a separate and subsequent incident. Corroboration is therefore required only for the incident that is the breach. As I explained to the committee, that is because we will move from a civil matter to a criminal matter—a breach—that requires corroboration. If members would like the rather lengthy technical answer, I can return to the issue in my closing speech.

The definition of "out of control" gave rise to concern. The bill provides a two-part test to assist authorised officers in assessing whether a dog is out of control. The first part is that the dog

"is not being kept under control effectively and consistently"

and the second part is that the dog is causing

"reasonable … alarm, or … apprehensiveness".

The two parts must be taken together and provide the basis on which an authorised officer can determine whether a dog is out of control—the word "and" is crucial.

Formulating an appropriate test is not easy. Providing a definitive list of behaviours or actions to cover out-of-control behaviour is neither practical nor beneficial. Each case must be assessed on individual circumstances.

The committee heard concerns that "reasonable ... alarm, or ... apprehensiveness" is too imprecise and might lead to inconsistency in notices. Many acts use a reasonableness test, which is a widely recognised proposition. It applies to MSPs when we consider what interests to register. The test for registration is whether a fair minded and impartial observer would reasonably consider that an overseas visit, for example, would prejudice the member's behaviour. Historically, that was known as the test of what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think.

Under the bill, when considering whether a dog is out of control, authorised officers will have to act objectively and ask themselves whether a fair-minded and impartial observer would conclude that the dog was causing alarm or apprehensiveness.

In country areas, dogs often escape from gardens. If, for instance, a dog took a rabbit, a reasonable person might conclude that somebody would be apprehensive about that and not like it, but that would not come anywhere near what most people would consider alarm or apprehensiveness. Will the member make the intention absolutely clear?

The member has just illustrated why one would not try to pin down every circumstance. The facts and circumstances of every case determine what is reasonable. My observation on the case that the member cited is that it would not meet the reasonableness test: nobody would have been put in a state of alarm.

The bill requires authorised officers to explain the reasons that led them to issue a notice. If someone does not like the reasons and objects to the serving of the notice, they can appeal. The measure will be tested. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the bill. The reasonableness test is a common one. I also believe that the bill's definition of "out of control" will work in practice.

Given that I am short of time, Presiding Officer, I will deal quickly with the issue of size and power, which some committee members thought would undermine the theme of deed not breed. I do not share witnesses' concerns in that regard. The provision is framed in such a way that it focuses on deed. Let me explain. A dog that is large and powerful and which might otherwise cause alarm or apprehensiveness, such as a Rottweiler, but which is kept under control cannot be the subject of a notice. The same Rottweiler, if it were walked by an eight-year-old child who was incapable of controlling it because of its sheer size and power, could be considered to be out of control, but only if, for example, it snapped at people or other dogs. The deed is the actions of the dog allied to allowing a child to take charge of a dog that is simply too big for them to control.

Taking the argument one step further, a dog that is not large or powerful, such as a Yorkshire terrier, but which behaved in a manner that caused alarm or apprehensiveness and which was not controlled effectively and consistently would be considered to be out of control. That goes to the heart of the approach in the bill. The breed or size of dog that is misbehaving is irrelevant.

The member must now wind up.

I have other points to make, Presiding Officer. I hope that I can address them in my summing up.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill.

I call Duncan McNeil to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee.

I apologise, Presiding Officer, for arriving late in the chamber. I am getting confused in my old age. I noted down three different times for the debate—2.45 pm, 3.00 pm and whenever I was to arrive. Please accept my apologies. No offence was intended.

I am pleased to be taking part in this debate as convener of the lead committee that considered the bill. I pay tribute to Christine Grahame for bringing forward the legislation and to Alex Neil for his work on the bill before he was elevated to ministerial office. I also thank all the witnesses who provided the committee with evidence, particularly the dog wardens who gave good and practical evidence on their daily and weekly involvement in dealing with dogs that are out of control. I think that all committee members were impressed with the evidence. I am also grateful to my colleagues on the committee for their input and to our clerks and researchers, who were as hard working as ever.

In the time that is available to me, I intend to focus on just a few of the key issues on which the committee reported. The bill seeks to address the underlying reasons why dogs become out of control and dangerous. I am no expert on dogs. That said, all politicians have experience of dogs—including dangerous dogs—from delivering leaflets and campaigning. From the evidence of the experts, it is clear that a dog becomes dangerous; it is not born that way.

As Christine Grahame said, the bill is about prevention. It seeks to influence the behaviour of the dog owner in order to improve the behaviour of the dog. We all can conjure up images of people who use dogs almost as offensive weapons. In that regard, the committee supports the introduction of a dog control notice regime. The notices have become affectionately known in the media as dog antisocial behaviour orders—or dog ASBOs—a description that is perhaps not entirely wide of the mark.

The committee welcomes the fact that the focus in the bill is on deed and not breed. That is unlike much of the current dog legislation, where the focus is the other way round or, if I might be indulged for a moment, Presiding Officer, where the tail appears to wag the dog—boom, boom.

There were some concerns in evidence about the definition in the bill of a dog that is out of control and the use of terms such as giving rise to "reasonable … alarm" and "apprehensiveness". We felt that such language was imprecise and could lead to confusion in interpretation, particularly for those who are charged with determining whether a dog is actually out of control. It is important that there is clarity in that regard.

The committee welcomes the bill's intention to address a deficiency in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that if a dog attacks someone in the home in which it is kept, the owner will no longer be immune from prosecution. I am sure that all members have seen and read about the devastating consequences of attacks by dogs in the home, especially where young children were involved. If the bill goes some way towards preventing such attacks, it will be worth while.

I turn to the issue of cost. Given the poverty of information regarding the number of dangerous dogs in Scotland, the committee and Christine Grahame acknowledged that there is a degree of uncertainty about the financial assumptions that have been made in the financial memorandum. The Scottish Government also acknowledged that the estimates

"may be on the low side".

Local authorities expressed concern to us about the bill's assumption that no additional costs to them would arise from the legislation.

Does the member recognise that Dundee City Council agreed with the figures in the financial memorandum? Not all local authorities in Scotland took the same view.

The member is correct. However, councils operate at different levels; some have no dog wardens at this time. If the bill is passed, there will be an expectation, at least, that they should operate to a minimum required standard, which will incur costs. As some councils have said, they may have to employ additional staff to do justice to the bill. Councils also thought that there was the potential for additional costs to fall to them as a result of any transfer of responsibilities from the police, who, as members know, deal with many stray dogs at weekends and so on. The committee welcomed the Scottish Government's confirmation that it is seeking to engage with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the matter.

The committee reported on a number of other issues, such as corroboration of evidence and access to private property to serve a notice, that I do not have time to cover today. My final point concerns the power under the bill to establish a Scottish dog control database. The Scottish Government does not support that proposal, and the committee is not convinced of its merits, especially given the likelihood that only a small number of notices will be issued. However, the committee is attracted by the proposal that a register of disqualified owners be established, to enable information to be shared among local authorities, the police and others. The Scottish Government has indicated some support for that suggestion, and we have recommended that it be explored further.

This is a good bill with good intentions. It has a lot to commend it, and I hope that it will make a difference, if enacted. The committee therefore recommends that the general principles of the bill be agreed to.

I thank Christine Grahame and the non-Executive bills unit for their work. Like other members, I commend Alex Neil on laying the foundations for the bill and thank the members and clerks who were involved in preparing the stage 1 report.

The Scottish Government welcomes the policy objective of the bill, which is to make our communities safer by enabling effective preventive action to be taken against dogs that are out of control. The creation of a dog control notice regime will encourage dog owners to take responsibility for the actions of their dogs. Under the bill, authorised officers will be able to issue a dog owner with a dog control notice if their dog is found to be out of control. Such notices will be civil notices, but it will be possible to prosecute dog owners if they breach the terms of a notice.

Before a dog control notice can be issued, the dog in question must be deemed to be out of control. We are aware that some concern has been expressed about the definition of "out of control" in section 1. The out of control test is a two-part test, both parts of which must be met. In our view, the two-part test is satisfactory. However, we note that the stage 1 report suggests that the bill is "too imprecise" on exactly what constitutes

"reasonable…alarm, or apprehensiveness"

in the test. In their evidence, some people complained about the inclusion in the test of a reference to a dog's "size and power". It will be interesting to hear views on that during the debate.

There has been some discussion regarding the costs of the new dog control notice regime. The main responsibilities under the proposed regime will fall on local authorities, as Duncan McNeil mentioned. In their stage 1 evidence, some local authorities indicated that existing dog wardens would take on the role of authorised officer without any new costs being incurred. Others disagreed, suggesting that higher costs would result from employing and training new staff. Our position is that the new dog control notice regime is designed to be a preventive regime. We do not expect thousands and thousands of dog control notices to be issued every week.

We hope that local authorities will be able to act as Dundee City Council has done. In its evidence on the proposed new regime, it said:

"the costs can be absorbed."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 18 November 2009; c 2667.]

Should the new responsibilities, once implemented, give rise to a request from local government for extra central Government resources, discussions would have to take place in accordance with the concordat with COSLA and local authorities.

Historic.

Historic.

It's no historic any more.

You can have it as "historic" if you want. Anyway, those discussions would have to take place. I can tell Mr McLetchie—Mr McNeil referred to this—that we are conscious of the divergence of views on the matter.

Dundee City Council might have problems in some areas, as is the case elsewhere, but that authority feels that the matter can be dealt with under the existing regime. It seems to the Government that if Dundee City Council can deal with such matters, other local authorities, too, should be capable of addressing them using current resources.

The bill seeks to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, as Christine Grahame said, so that it will be an offence for a person to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in "any place". We recognise that that gap in the law has to be addressed. Currently, as Christine Grahame emphasised, a dog owner is liable only if their dog is dangerously out of control "in a public place". It is right and appropriate that dog owners are held accountable for their dogs both in public and in private, and we welcome the change.

For those reasons, we are happy to support the bill at stage 1.

I congratulate Christine Grahame on introducing the bill and on all her efforts since June last year, when she picked up the baton that was passed to her by Alex Neil, who pursued the issue originally. I thank the members of the Local Government and Communities Committee and their clerking team for their work in scrutinising the bill since being designated the lead committee. I also thank NEBU for its efforts to ensure that the bill could be discussed today. I pay tribute to those who gave evidence on the bill and highlighted a variety of pertinent issues, some of which remain outstanding this afternoon and have already been outlined.

Whatever issues remain outstanding, the starting point of the bill is right. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was much criticised at the time, as it was viewed as a knee-jerk reaction to a distressing problem. The spate of horrific dog attacks that preceded that legislation were not acceptable, and the issue required to be addressed. However, the haste with which that legislation was passed prevented effective analysis of the causes of the problem and a proper determination of the necessary measures to address it. Christine Grahame is therefore accurate in her assessment that the current legislation on dogs is piecemeal, and has tended to focus on breeds of dogs and dangerous dogs rather than on why dogs become out of control and on what has to be done to tackle the dog owner who fails to control their pet.

Shining the spotlight on the act that takes place instead of on the type of dog involved is eminently more sensible, and it is hardly surprising that the Kennel Club and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals support the bill as a result. Nevertheless, Labour members are concerned about aspects of the bill.

The bill primarily aims to create an administrative regime that seeks to influence the behaviour of dog owners and to promote responsible ownership, but the measures that are outlined to achieve that will require a sizeable injection of cash into local authorities, especially to provide for the administration of dog control notices. Christine Grahame has argued that the officers who would be involved are already employed by local authorities, which must deal with dogs, and that the new duties in the bill would be subsumed into existing duties. However, although the Scottish National Party Government has tried its best to deny the consequences of its budget, the reality is that local authorities are cutting staff by the thousand and that cuts are falling in areas such as community safety and are affecting community wardens and other people who deal with responsibilities in relation to dog fouling and dog-related antisocial behaviour.

The evidence that was presented during the consultation is a year old, but even a year ago local authorities were advising the Parliament that they would need to recruit additional staff to implement the proposed DCN regime. If the regime would have been a problem for councils in 2008-09, it would be a bigger burden on councils this year, given the fiscal constraints that they face and will face in the future.

Issues that have been raised about corroboration are of equal concern. The validity of corroboration is a complex issue, which requires much more scrutiny. The definition of "out of control" is an issue, because judging what it means is subjective. The formulation of a test that applies across a range of situations is a major concern.

With respect, does the member appreciate the distinction between civil and criminal law? There is no mandatory requirement for corroboration in a civil matter.

That argument has been made, but the issue still requires scrutiny, because what frightens one person might not concern another. The "how long is a piece of string?" approach to the definition is not good enough, and assertions of validity are not sufficient. We need to be confident that the bill would be effective.

I look forward to the rest of the debate. I hope that members raise the financial and technical issues that were identified in evidence at stage 1, and I hope that answers that alleviate our anxieties will be provided.

I apologise for my late arrival in the chamber, particularly to Christine Grahame, and to Duncan McNeil, during whose speech I arrived. I was caught out by the speed with which the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body dealt with members' searching questions on its stewardship of the Parliament.

When that political Rottweiler, Alex Neil, was promoted to the post of Minister for Housing and Communities, to lead the SNP's savage attack on the rights of Scotland's tenants, one of the few welcome consequences of the change was that Christine Grahame became the member in charge of the bill.

I ask the member to desist from calling me a poodle.

A poodle?

Yes.

Can we get on with the bill, please?

I had no intention of calling Ms Grahame a poodle. I commend Alex Neil for his work on the bill proposal and Christine Grahame for the characteristic vigour with which she picked up the baton, as Mr McMahon put it—or indeed the stick, leash or muzzle.

The legislation in the field is in need of modernisation. On the basis of all the evidence, it is fair to conclude, as the Local Government and Communities Committee did, that the breed-based approach that was taken in the 1991 act has not worked. Particular breeds have been banned and might even have died out in this country, but there are still many cross-bred dogs that have been bred and trained to exhibit aggressive behaviour, which cause alarm to people and are a threat to public safety. For people who take a perverse delight in intimidating their neighbours, engaging in gang conflict or strutting their stuff in the hood, a powerful dog is a fashion accessory and a weapon. In many cases, as we know, the dog owners are a good deal more dangerous than the dogs. We need to change the law, as Christine Grahame has said. We need to focus on irresponsible dog owners and to extend the ambit of the law to cover the behaviour and control of dogs on private property.

The bill will create dog control notices and place dog wardens, who are employed by local authorities, at the forefront of policing irresponsible behaviour. I confess that I am sceptical about the modest costs of the new approach as claimed in the financial memorandum. My view is shared by the National Dog Warden Association, which provided evidence. However, that is not an argument against the measures in the bill, although the issue will bear further examination as the bill progresses through the Parliament.

Some of the evidence that the Local Government and Communities Committee heard focused on whether corroboration will be necessary in the serving of a dog control notice, given that the breach of such a notice might lead to a criminal prosecution, in which the notice's validity might be an issue. That has a bearing on the financial aspects, because it could require dog wardens to work in pairs to provide corroboration, thereby increasing the costs that are associated with the bill. However, on the basis of the further submission that Christine Grahame made to the committee and the discussion to date in light of the committee's stage 1 report, I am satisfied with the analysis that corroboration is not a legal necessity.

Having said that, because breach of a dog control notice will be a criminal offence, it will have to be corroborated by witnesses. We are all well aware that it can be difficult to persuade people in some communities to come forward in support of complaints and to act as witnesses to the breach of a notice in relation to other aspects of antisocial behaviour. Therefore, witnesses to the breach of a dog control notice may still have to come from the ranks of the professionals rather than the public if justice is to be done and our neighbourhoods are to be made safer.

The Conservatives support the bill's objectives. We hope that the mechanisms that it introduces and the changes in the law that it makes will fulfil those objectives, make our communities safer and advance the welfare of animals in Scotland. For that reason, the bill deserves a fair wind in the Parliament, and I look forward to its passage on to the statute book.

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 22 June 2009 by Christine Grahame MSP. The bill seeks to modernise the law on the control of dogs and has four main aims: to introduce a new regime of dog control notices, which will enable local authorities to impose measures on owners or persons in charge of dogs; to provide the Scottish ministers with a power to establish a national database of dog control notices; to enable a local authority to apply to a court to have a dog destroyed if it considers that the dog is out of control and dangerous; and to extend a person's liability for a dog that is dangerously out of control such that it applies in all places.

The policy memorandum suggests that irresponsible ownership of dogs is the main factor underlying the increasing rate of dog attacks. Such irresponsibility includes owners not undertaking training with their dogs, not treating dogs correctly or not socialising dogs properly. Other factors that are highlighted include individuals who are engaged in criminal or risk-taking activities keeping powerful dogs as status symbols or accessories to their own aggressive behaviour and a growing trend for urban gangs to use aggressive dogs as weapons.

Four United Kingdom acts relate to dangerous dogs: the Dogs Act 1871; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which amends the 1871 act; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997, which amends the 1991 act. The reason that I mention all four acts is that that complexity causes considerable problems in the courts, as a friend of mine who is an advocate has experienced. He has prosecuted in several dangerous dog cases and feels that there are problems with the way in which owners are prosecuted. Several different laws can be used to prosecute, which means that there are often unintended consequences and that punishments are not necessarily uniform.

The principle in the bill of focusing on deed not breed caused considerable discussion. In the consultation, 39 respondents explicitly supported that approach, while only six were opposed. However, some breeds are clearly far more aggressive than others. For example, a Rottweiler is obviously more dangerous than a Chihuahua, Scottie or west Highland terrier due to its sheer size, weight and bite force. I suggest that more work needs to be done on that area of the bill.

Will the member give way?

I do not have time. I am sorry.

The consultation by Alex Neil MSP dealt with the definition of a dog "being dangerously out of control" and elicited a wide range of responses. Respondents either offered definitions of the phrase or gave examples of behaviour by dogs that could constitute being dangerously out of control. However, I am not sure that the definition of a dangerous dog has been bottomed out.

No financial costs are expected to fall on the Scottish Government, assuming that the Scottish dog control database is not established initially. Should such a database be created, it is anticipated that it will cost £7,500. However, I do not think that the cost has been defined, as others have said. The figure was based on the experience of establishing a nationwide database under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, but I am not sure that the cost will be the same for the proposed dog control database.

As we have heard, the costs that are set out in the financial memorandum caused the committee some concerns. Michael McMahon, in particular, has expressed those concerns. Concerns were also expressed by local authorities, which felt that the estimates were on the low side. The committee will revisit that issue at stage 2, and it has asked the member responsible to respond to the concerns that have been raised.

I congratulate Christine Grahame on her work on the bill. We do not know how many dogs there are in Scotland, but we guesstimate that there are between half a million and a million. I wonder whether there is a connection with the Scots language itself in terms of the ambiguity of its syntax, an absolutely inscrutable example of which the great Conservative politician John Buchan encountered in the Borders: "Whae belangs this wee dug?"

It is a fact that, in 2006-07, 623 offences were recorded under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—the numbers have been steadily increasing since 1999. The 1991 act banned a number of breeds as particularly dangerous, and the intention was that they would die out altogether. However, there are still perhaps 10,000 pit bull terriers in Britain, though it is reassuring that there are not many Japanese tosas, which I have seen defined as a sort of canine sumo that weighs up to 17 stone—members will know one when they see one.

The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 amended the 1991 act by allowing owners of four dangerous breeds to reapply for their dogs to be placed on the index of exempted dogs, subject to various conditions. However, that legislation placed great emphasis on the dog and less emphasis, as people have pointed out, on the owner. Christine Grahame's bill nails the owners of out-of-control dogs. Dog notices served on owners of such dogs will ensure that offending dogs are microchipped. As we have heard, authorised officers will be able to impose further conditions.

Vagueness about dog numbers potentially raises a financial issue, as Michael McMahon pointed out. A long-term decrease in dog attacks and incidents involving dogs will mean savings. In that context, the reintroduction of dog licences might be worth considering. The history of dog licences slept and slept: they were 7/6d when they were first imposed in Queen Victoria's day and remained at that price into the decimal age, until Thatcher abolished them in 1987. In Europe, dog licences do not seem to be a problem. Dogs must be registered, with tattooing and micro-chipping often required, in almost all European Union countries. Ireland collects an annual licence fee, and it costs about 150 euros a year in Germany to run an Alsatian. In Switzerland and Austria, mandatory registration and insurance are accompanied by a dog tax that is paid annually to local authorities. Incidentally, one should always remember the great definition of American democracy, which is that everyone is elected—from dog catchers to Presidents. They sometimes seem to make terrible mistakes, though, in electing people to the latter position.

Dog taxes that are dependent on the size and breed of dog have the advantage of making people think twice about dogs that are big or hard to control. With regard to dog licences, we need funds to install bins for dog dirt, fence off kids' playgrounds and make parks safe for children. Judging by the letters that I get about park conditions, I am sure that angry voters send photographs of canine deposits on the grass to many MSPs, who of course realise the threat that such deposits pose to children running free. A small licence fee would not put great pressure on individual dog owners, but would provide local authorities with the means to fund cleanliness measures and the dog control measures that are specified in the bill.

Christine Grahame's bill parallels European measures. The 1991 act caters for all breeds of dog, including dogs that could benefit from the proposed new measures. Targeting deed, not breed, would be a considerable improvement on the existing legislation.

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.

I have given my support to Ms Grahame to ensure that the bill is debated both in committee and in the chamber. I have done so because I am concerned that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 may not now provide adequate protection to members of the public—we have certainly heard evidence of that today.

As many other members have done, I want to emphasise that the bill is by no means an attack on dog owners—far from it—but it is a serious attempt to put in place training for people and animals when such training is necessary, and to implement enforcement procedures such as dog control notices.

I applaud Alex Neil, whose elevation to high office meant that he could no longer proceed with the bill, and Christine Grahame, for introducing it. The simple focus of their concern, which involves a change of emphasis from breed to deed—and the deeds that very few dogs carry out—is correct. The Local Government and Communities Committee's evidence sessions on the bill were among the most informative that I have taken part in in more than two years, and there have been a number of extremely good and heartfelt speeches in today's debate.

I want to touch on what members have said about some of the key points in the bill. The minister was among those who said, quite rightly, that the bill will help dog owners to become more responsible. That is very much the case, given that it adopts a carrot-and-stick approach. It makes it clear that when a dog needs training, that will be a requirement. The associated issues of the cost and availability of such training should be examined in more detail at stage 2 but, in many ways, the bill provides a preventive regime, which is most welcome.

Most members have dealt with the bill's focus on deed not breed. Michael McMahon was quite right to say that the bill is a welcome step forward from the 1991 act, which David McLetchie and others, including me, feel has not worked. It had the wrong emphasis and, as many members have said, was brought in in haste after some extremely concerning incidents in Scotland and elsewhere.

Only a few members have discussed the Scottish dog control database. Further investigation is required at stage 2 of the Government's ability to provide it and the costs that would be involved. It appears, certainly from the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, that those costs might be relatively low. As I said in committee, I believe that there are advantages to having a centralised database when the information is largely already collected by our local authorities at a fairly minimal cost.

We have all encountered dangerous dogs during our campaigning, which involves putting our fingers through letterboxes. Fortunately, I and others have come back with our fingers intact, but there have been a few close shaves over the years. In 25 years of campaigning, the closest that I have come to being attacked is feeling the warm breath of a dog or a wet nose on my fingertips, and that is quite close enough. That is one reason why I feel that the focus on deed not breed is so important. The big dogs tend to give a warning when someone comes near their letterbox, whereas little terriers hide at the back and wait for the chance to snap at whoever puts their fingers through—including Tories.

Joking aside, the points that have been made are well founded. The issue is a serious one, whether we are talking about politicians, posties or anyone else. We must ensure that anyone who goes near dogs will be safer. Unfortunately, it is often close family members who are the victims of attacks.

I am supportive of the bill. I believe that it makes major improvements to existing legislation and that it will provide better protection for constituents of all ages. Although members of the Lib Dem group have a free vote on the issue, I hope that many of them, and others, will join me in supporting the bill at stage 1 later this afternoon.

As was the case during the Local Government and Communities Committee's deliberations on the bill, there has been an understandable consensus on the aims and general principles of Christine Grahame's bill. The proposal to focus on deed not breed and to establish an administrative regime to influence the behaviour of dog owners has widespread support. Requiring a dog owner to keep their dog on a lead, among other things, does not appear to be a particularly onerous requirement when the safety of individuals and our wider community is at stake, so it is hardly surprising that the bill's measures have found support.

However, we cannot ignore the concerns that emerged during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. Earlier, I raised the issue of the cost to local authorities of the bill's provisions. Those fears have not quite abated as the debate has unfolded. Even the Scottish Government considers that the financial estimates on the establishment of a DCN regime may be on the low side. We must be careful not to burden our councils with measures that have resource implications that are not properly provided for.

Most of the local authorities that gave evidence expressed concern about the bill's cost implications. Scottish Borders Council specifically asked for central Government to make additional funds available to pay for the impact of the bill. Christine Grahame has repeated her comparison between her bill's potential financial impact and the impacts of the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to argue that costs will not rise, but I remind her that councils have rebutted that comparison and called it "disingenuous", among other things. They have pointed out that her bill will place a duty on them to act and to monitor compliance, and that that will have considerable costs.

Concerns have also been expressed about the increases in costs that will be incurred by the transfer from the police to councils of responsibilities for dealing with stray dogs. It was claimed in evidence that was provided to the committee that the costs to local authorities would soar, because they do not currently provide 24-hour cover and out-of-hours working, and do not have the facilities or the funds to do so. It is also worrying that no discussions appear to be taking place between the police and local authorities on the transfer of budgets to cover any shift in responsibility.

In such a short debate, it has not been possible for me to cover all of the bill and to consider the implications and merits of provisions such as those on a Scottish dog control database or the opportunities that could have been missed in not seeking to amend further the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I am pleased that other members have focused on those issues, which can be considered at stage 2. We can look forward with confidence to the committee dealing with those concerns and others that must be addressed at that stage. In the meantime, we will give the bill a fair wind, as others have asked us to do, and encourage the bill's progress. I will be happy to support its general principles when we vote this afternoon.

Christine Grahame ably laid out the purposes of the bill, which has received uniform support across the chamber. As Michael McMahon said, there are legitimate matters that will have to be teased out—that will be the committee's purpose—but I think that everybody supports the points that Christine Grahame made. Possessing a dog is not a right; it is a privilege. It is not a matter of being anti-dog. We have heard numerous jokes and anecdotes, but, sadly, tragedies occur. Related legislation has been passed as far back as the 19th century. Even during my time as a practising agent, three related bills were introduced because the existing provisions were not fit for purpose. Those pieces of legislation have been referred to.

It seems to me that Christine Grahame has managed to address a lacuna in the law. There are matters that must be addressed, but the bill strikes a balance. We should not interfere with people enjoying the company of a dog and the responsibility that goes with having a dog, never mind people's need for working dogs in rural and other areas. Equally, we must remember, as Christine Grahame pointed out, that there have been 800-odd reported attacks that have affected people at work and in their own homes. That is tragic and is why we must tackle the matter.

The bill seems to us to be a proportionate response to deal with the issues that we face. As I have said, points have been made that will have to be teased out. Ms Grahame will doubtless mention those in summing up, and they will be considered further.

Members, including Michael McMahon, have, correctly, mentioned costs. In my opening speech, I said that it appears that there is a dispute about costs between councils. Scottish Borders Council seems to think that significant costs will be incurred, but Dundee City Council seems to think that the bill will simply give it additional powers to take action, and that it will operate within the framework that it currently uses. If the bill is passed, we will be happy to discuss such matters with local authorities, but it seems to us that additional funding will not be required. There is certainly no available funding at present. Our view is that Dundee City Council's suggested approach is appropriate.

David McLetchie rightly raised in committee the issue of corroboration, which Christine Grahame has addressed, and which can be further teased out. We are talking about a civil penalty that will have criminal consequences if it is breached. Corroboration will be required not at the instance of the imposition of the initial civil penalty, but with respect to whether the criminal penalty has been issued. Such matters arise in various other walks of life. It is clear that we must ensure that the legislation is appropriate so that those who breach it can be held to account and can face appropriate punishment. We recognise that corroboration is required for the latter purpose.

Mr McLetchie made the valid point that some people who have a propensity to be on the receiving end of notices might be people who cause alarm to others in the community. If the question is whether corroboration can be dealt with by wardens or officers, that seems to us an appropriate matter to consider.

On the question of a database, we believe that the committee and others are correct to argue that a national database is not necessarily appropriate. We have to consider what such a database would be for, who would access it, why they would access it, and what they would do with the information. It is clear that appropriate information should be available. As far as I am aware, most police forces have a database, because, whether they meet the 17-stone Japanese dogs that Christopher Harvie mentioned or any other dogs, they require to know whether a household has a weapon, such as a shotgun, or a dangerous dog. Such information is already taken on board by the police and other authorities. However, who else would access the information on a national database, and why? If somebody who should not hold a dog was doing so, what would we do about it? We do not rule out using the benefits of modern technology, but we have to work out a system that is not unduly bureaucratic and does not simply result in increased costs, given that the question of costs appears to be significant to some councils. We also have to work out what we would do with the information. We are genuinely open-minded on the issue, and the details can be discussed and debated by the committee.

It simply falls to me to say that we are grateful to Christine Grahame for bringing the bill to the Parliament and that it seems to us that it should be supported at stage 1. There are matters that have to be further teased out, but there is a gap in the law and the bill will improve the situation.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise, as the committee does and as Michael McMahon said, that there is an issue about the current warden service? In effect, local authorities are providing a 9-to-5 service. We heard in evidence that, outwith those hours and at weekends, responsibility for the control of stray dogs is transferred to the police, with an associated cost. What discussions have taken place with the police authorities? Does the cabinet secretary recognise that there is an issue about the need to transfer responsibilities and about the budgetary issues that arise from that?

There are two issues. The first was raised by Mr McMahon, who asked what the costs of the bill will be. We stand behind Dundee City Council, which says that they can be soaked up. Scottish Borders Council says that that is not the case, but our view is that some councils have expressed their ability to deal with the matter and so should others. The second issue is a matter of debate between Strathclyde Police and local authorities, and discussions on what should happen continue between COSLA and the police forces. As I said, there are two issues. The second is a matter of discussion and negotiation. The first issue requires further consideration and the committee will doubtless touch on it.

I thank the cabinet secretary and all members who have spoken. I particularly welcome their critical comments because those are always important in testing legislation at stage 1. I will address some of the points that were mentioned, particularly on costs, as I was not in a position to do that in my opening speech.

Local authorities will play an integral part in enforcing the bill, but they already carry out many dog-related duties under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and various pieces of animal health and welfare legislation. They have to be staffed appropriately to carry out those duties and obligations. In relation to Scottish Borders Council in particular, the community wardens already deal with dogs on the loose in parks and so on.

I understand the remarks that were made about the financial memorandum, but it contains the best evidence that was available and I have been unable to secure any other—I will be delighted if the committee can obtain better evidence. However, we should acknowledge that the bill will lead to savings on two levels. First, by identifying and managing the behaviour of out-of-control dogs early on, it will ultimately reduce the workload for the police and, in turn, procurators fiscal and the Scottish Court Service. As a culture of greater owner responsibility develops, the workload of local authority staff will reduce.

The second and evidently more important saving relates to trips to accident and emergency units and general practitioners—and, indeed, the saving of lives in general. I was interested in Elaine Murray's comment that the important issue was the deed, not the breed, and that Jack Russells have been the perpetrators of savage and often fatal attacks in the home.

I think that the issue of stray dogs is a bit of a red herring. My bill does not disturb the present legislation's position on that issue. As a dog unaccompanied in a public place will continue to be treated as a stray under section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906 and sections 149 and 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it can still, when discovered by the police or a local authority officer, be seized, sold or destroyed. In fact, my bill could directly assist by ensuring that the owners of abandoned dogs are identified. After all, if the dog has already been the subject of a dog control notice, it will have been microchipped.

In that respect, with regard to Christopher Harvie's remarks about dog licences and in response to the suggestion that all dogs be microchipped, I point out that this is a member's bill and has to be simple and straight to the point. I have sympathy for such points of view, but I think that that debate is for another time.

David McLetchie dealt with the issue of corroboration with his usual elegance, and he has conceded that although corroboration is not necessary in civil matters, it is when the matter becomes a criminal one. However, on the question whether the test of reasonableness has been properly applied with regard to a dog control notice, someone who has been served with such a notice can within 21 days appeal under the civil appeals procedure the appropriateness of the decision. In any case, when the decision to issue a notice is close to the wire and when there might be something of a grey area, the decisions made by sheriffs will set the bar and act as a guide. Such an approach is nothing new and is, in fact, consistent with other legislation.

I think that I have covered most of the issues that have been raised—I do not think that I have missed anything. I certainly do not see anyone trying to intervene or draw to my attention the fact that I have not responded to their points.

I am quite prepared to meet the concern expressed by the Subordinate Legislation Committee about an amendment to a particular section. It is a bit of a belt-and-braces matter, but I do not think that it will give me any difficulties.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and look forward to stage 2.