Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. This Bill which seeks to reform the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 is currently going through the Scottish Parliament.

I would recommend that responsible dog owners should read this Bill. Go to the Scottish Parliament website - click "Current Bills" - the click "Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29)". There they will find the Bill, explanatory memoranda etc. Excellent bed-time reading.

First let me say that the Bill is quite good. It is better than the 1991 Act because it seeks to prevent dangerous situations arising from dogs. It however does not replace the 1991 Act, it merely supplements it and in some cases strengthens it.

The Bill is mainly based on the idea of a Dog Control Notice issued by a locally authorised officer to a dog owner whose dog in their opinion is out of control and is causing alarm and apprehensiveness to any person. Such a notice would lead to the Owner's name being placed on a national register, the dog between microchipped, instructed that it must be exercised only on a lead, muzzled, being neutered if it is a male, being kept away from certain specified places and being instructed to attend and complete a course in dog training.

Where a Dog Control Notice has not been effective then a Dog Control Order may be issued which would lead to an owner being disqualified from keeping a dog and to euthanasia of the dog concerned after rights of appeal if it is deemed to be dangerous. Where it appears to the authorised officer that a dog is out of control and dangerous then a Dog Control Order would apply.

It would be good to have more discussion from responsible dog owners on the merits and demerits of this proposed legislation but I would like to start with the following reservations.

1) The consultation preceding the Bill was woefully inadequate. 300 docs sent out - 80 replies received. If the consultation had been extended to all members of the CPGAW, all local authorities, all dog wardens, all veterinary practices, all licensed breeding and boarding establishments, all licensed pet-shops, all dog training clubs, all dog resue socities, all dog walkers, all dog fostering units, etc, etc, I am sure the docs sent out would have been over 4000. Whether the response would have been any better is anybody's guess.

2) Both Christine Graham and Alex Neil said that it was their intention that the priniciple of the new Bill would be "deed" not "breed", but Section 1(3)(b) the Bill says "a dog is out of control if its behaviour (or irrespective of its behaviour its size and power) give rise to reasonable alarm or apprehensiveness". This means that a dog is to be regarded as suspicious just because it is big, whereas we know that the majority of dog bites come from smaller breeds. In 49 years as a Vet I have never been bitten by a Rottweillor, Doberman, German Shepherd, Mastiff or any Giant breed of dog, but often by collies and small terriers.

3) At no place in the Bill does it state that the locally authorised officer should not act unless he has corroborative evidence of a dog's misbehaviour. Maybe this is assumed in all Scottish law but I would have thought it should be mentioned somewhere.

4) The term "alarm and apprehensiveness to any individual" is a very broad statement and would be interpreted differently by an individual who is a dog owner and someone who has a form of dog-phobia.

5) The Bill amends the 1991 DDA by substituting "dangerously out of control in any place" for the existing words "dangerously out of control in a public place". This creates the problem of a dog not under immediate control of its owners who reacts perhaps aggressively to an unauthorised and uninvited intruder attempting to enter the private property e.g. a house, garden, or a car when parked away from the owner's home.

6) We will have to clarify whether this amendment of the DDA means that the locally authorised officers operating under the new Bill cannot take action if the dog appears to be out of control in a private place.

7) The accompanying "Policy Memorandum" raises two points. The first is the qualification of "locally authorised officers". I feel that the paras in the memorandum are a bit sketchy. Overall I am impressed by the quality and dedication of dog wardens, but it is not a high paid job and this Bill suggests that they may become the "locally authorised officers". If dog wardens are to be used then both training and pay structure would have to be improved. The memo suggests the use of SSPCA Inspectors. This seems impractical since most seem to be pushed to cover their basic workload plus hanging about courts waiting for cases to be called.

The second point related to Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights. I am unaware of the matters which are raised in the Policy Memo about this point. However I feel that respect for a person's home can only be jeopardised by matters of public safety, and the right of officers to invade the home on the basis of statements from members of the public that a particular dog is dangerously out of control within that home seems to be a little chancy.

From here forward the Bill will got to Stage 1 which will be consideration by the relevant committees. This will probably be Local Government and Rural Affairs and Environment. I have written to both requesting that CCST be permitted to make representations during the Stage 1 presentation.