Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill - what I propose, and why I am proposing it

I am writing in response Alison Green’s article “what we have here is failure to communicate” , in which she comments on the proposed Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill which I launched last week at the Scottish Parliament. I of course welcome all feedback on my proposals – positive and negative – as it all helps to produce sensible, workable legislation. However, much of what Ms Green argues seems to be based on misconceptions about what exactly I propose. I am therefore taking this opportunity to clarify certain issues. I should add that Ms Green was and is welcome to contact me directly if she has any questions, as are all other readers.

I would like firstly to clarify what I mean when I say “dangerously out of control”, as Ms Green seems to have taken this to mean something different, and argues there is nothing preventative about my proposals. ‘Dangerously out of control’ does not mean the dog has attacked someone. I am referring to dogs which act aggressively, and appear to the complainant that it may attack someone. There are many dogs which clearly have an aggressive nature, yet currently their owners are left largely to do as they please. I want people to be able to complain about such dogs, and I want the authorities to be provided with a sensible range of responses for such incidents. A dog would not have to attack someone to be issued with a control order – but if it regularly behaves aggressively, then the authorities could order it to wear a muzzle, be kept on a leash etc. to minimize the risk of it actually attacking someone. This is where the preventative measures come in – I am not aiming to prevent dogs showing aggression, I am aiming to prevent such dogs being able to attack people. One of the questions I ask in my consultation is for people to describe how they think we should define “dangerously out of control” – readers are welcome to submit their own definitions.

A further point Ms Green makes about this – and I believe she contradicts herself – is that if your dog attacks someone in your home “surely a criminal conviction couldn’t make you feel any worse or take it any more seriously? Surely you would not have let it happen if you could have?” This may be the case, but criminal convictions do not stop the attacks from occurring in the first place. After high-profile tragic attacks occur, we often hear neighbours and friends saying they were not too surprised by the attack as the dog was known to be aggressive. We need to bring in measures that force owners of aggressive dogs to minimize the risk of their dogs being able to attack anyone.

A loophole currently exists in the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act in which attacks that occur on private property are not criminal offences. Ms Green rightly points out that civil proceedings can be brought under the 1871 Dogs Act -however, this is rarely used. With civil laws, members of the public have to fund the civil action themselves. This effectively makes the Dogs Act inaccessible to much of the population. If it were criminal law they could simply complain to their local police station.

Additionally, the police have no power of seizure under this Act, meaning that owners of dogs deemed ‘dangerously out of control’ under the 1871 Act, can remain with their owners. I gave an example in my consultation of why this is a problem. The Japanese Akita which attacked the 2-year-old girl living next door was able to remain living next door to the girl. As the attack happened in the dog’s own home, and the owner did not want the dog put down, the police have no power to remove the dog. I completely disagree with this.

Ms Green also questions why the DDA is difficult to enforce. I consulted with the Association of Chief Police officers in Scotland (ACPOS), who helpfully conducted their own investigation into enforcement of the DDA. Police receive many reports of suspected pit-bull terriers acting dangerously, but are reluctant to become involved because of the confusion surrounding this ‘breed’. Much time is wasted deciding whether or not a dog is actually a pit-bull, before they have the power to seize it and pursue the owner.

The DDA is a drain on resources because dogs the police actually seize often spend months languishing in kennels, whilst the courts decide whether or not it is of a banned type. Even vets cannot agree. It is unsurprising, given these problems, that the number of prosecutions under Section 1 of the DDA has steadily dwindled to zero in Scotland. My proposals allow police to act on dogs of any breed which is acting dangerously, instead of wasting so much resources pursuing only certain types of dog, whilst leaving owners of other breeds largely to do as they please.

Regarding my proposal to micro-chip dogs with Control Orders – this is not so the police can patrol the streets randomly scanning dogs to see if they have a control order. The microchip will record the details of the owner – so that the owner cannot escape responsibility for ensuring the requirements of the control order are met. Should the dog attack someone, its owner can easily be identified. On occasion, people awaiting court appearances have been able to escape prosecution by transferring ownership of the dog to someone else – this is another loophole that needs to be closed down.

Ms Green rightly points out that much of what I propose is technically already in existence. Certainly, the £5,000 fines and/or six months’ imprisonment are the existing punishments under the DDA. These would be used for aggravated offences (i.e. where a dog actually attacks someone), and I see no reason to change them. In addition, courts can currently order ‘any means necessary’ to control a dog. However, this power is irrelevant if it is not being used. It is not being used because, like much of existing legislation, it is unclear and difficult to enforce. I do not think it is good enough to say ‘any means necessary’ - there needs to be a clear, flexible and practical range of control orders that courts can rely on, simplifying the process for everyone. Again, I have asked people to suggest control orders as part of the consultation process.

My proposal aims “to modernize the law on dangerous dogs” – not to start from scratch. I hope that this clarifies some of the points raised in Ms Green’s article. I have consulted extensively with various stakeholders while drawing up these proposals, but I do not pretend to have all of the answers – the consultation period allows the public to provide their thoughts. I would encourage Ms Green – and all readers – to submit a response to the questions asked in the consultation, to allow them to be formally considered before the next stage of the Bill. The paper can be downloaded from www.alexneilmsp.net and responses must be submitted by 14th April. Thank you.

——————————————————————-
Alex Neil is an SNP MSP, representing Central Scotland.
He last week launched the consultation for his proposed Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill.

Author Details
K9 Magazine welcomes submissions from freelance contributors. If you would like information on submitting dog related articles for publication see our webpage - See this author's webpage

Popularity: 8% [?]