Official Report 203KB pdf
We have with us Alan Sim, who is the secretary general of the Scottish Kennel Club. The procedure is that you speak for a few minutes, then I open it up to the committee for questions. Thank you for coming—it is over to you.
Thank you. The Scottish Kennel Club is well over 100 years old. I have been doing this job for slightly less time than that—24 years, to be precise. I have been concerned with dog legislation and proposed dog legislation for some years.
I want to ask a brief question, because I know that other members are interested in the wider issue. You support a voluntary scheme, which would be in place for a proposed five years. That seems to me to be rather a long time. Why should it be five years before we move to a compulsory scheme?
In the nature of things, it takes quite a long time to change people's views on such matters. It would probably take a year for the information from the education scheme to filter through, and you would need two or three years at least to assess its impact, so you will need four years anyway, with perhaps a further year to assess the proposals. What they had in mind south of the border was that by the end of five years they would have made a decision on whether to introduce a compulsory system.
So you think that five years is fair enough?
Yes.
First, I am pleased to see that the Scottish Kennel Club now has more members than the Liberal Democrats.
Kenny.
You said that the target of 75 per cent is ambitious but, in the long run, do you expect that that figure will steadily increase once it has been reached, or is the target of 75 per cent the final figure?
It would be perfectly possible to increase that value. It will depend on a number of factors, another of which, as I have said, is the cost of microchips, but another of which is the extent of the education programme, which will depend on the resources that are placed at the disposal of those who will introduce it.
You propose that the identification scheme should be voluntary. Given that the least responsible dog owners are more likely to have animals that will pose a threat to other beasts, do you think that a voluntary scheme will militate against responsible dog owners?
It will militate against them even more if you introduce a compulsory system, because you will place a burden—which does not have to be borne by less responsible owners—on responsible owners. All along it has been proved that far and away the best way to proceed is to have a voluntary system and encourage people through education. In addition, how on earth is a compulsory system to be made effective in practice? If a stray is taken off the street and it is not microchipped or tattooed, how on earth will you identify its owner? The voluntary system is clearly the answer.
One last question, convener. How would you like the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament to promote this scheme?
They should use all the means at their disposal. First, they should consult those of us who have wide experience of our own education programmes and of how they can be effective. After that, it would be a matter of whatever resources were available, and a decision on what would be a suitable campaign.
You will have to forgive me if I slip and call this a voluntary tie-up scheme. I might do that.
May I stop you for a minute, Gil? Will SNP members please stop doing that? If you continue to do that, I will not allow you to ask questions.
Well—
Gil, will you please ask your question.
Yes, I will certainly ask my question. It is just a bit strange, but never mind.
There is no proof that imposing things on people will make them change their minds in the way you have described, which is why the education programme is the obvious answer. Unless they are encouraged, people will not do something that they do not want to do, and that would be the case even if any compulsory measures were accompanied by an education programme. That argument has been raised time and again in relation to dog registration and I think that sense has now prevailed.
Are you sufficiently confident that, if the resources were available, the introduction of an education programme would have the desired effect?
I believe so. Other areas of dog ownership have shown that, by encouraging people through education programmes, they will see the sense of what is being proposed and will comply. For example, the fact that there are fewer strays in Scotland is not just down to the dog warden scheme, but to the wider education programme surrounding it. The dog wardens are—dare I say it—very educated people, and do a lot of good through educating the public about dog ownership.
I want to ask you about microchipping.
Nothing technical, I hope.
You mentioned microchipping and tattooing. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the two practices? Why would a microchip be used in one case and a tattoo in another?
You have raised a number of questions there. As I said, I am not technically minded, and I cannot comment too much on the microchip and its possible migration. Although I am not aware of this particular gentleman's research, all the research to date of which I am aware indicates that microchipping is a very safe form of identification. There have been one or two alleged cases of migration of chips, but the number of such cases is very small indeed. The practice has the general support of the veterinary profession and dog owners. Dog owners are usually very careful with their dogs, and if they were unhappy about implanting something such as microchips into them, there would have been a move against the practice long before now.
When would be the best time to implant the microchip? The SSPCA recommends that the best time is when the dog is sold.
It should possibly be even earlier than that. The Scottish Kennel Club's dogs are registered by the breeder, who must register the litter. The best way would be for the breeders to microchip their puppies. Although there would be resistance—for example, if a breeder had 10 rottweilers and was unable to pass on the charge, a fair cost would be involved—that would be the best way of registering the dogs. Generally, breeders are responsible and would be less likely simply to pass the dog on in the hope that the new owner would arrange for the microchip to be implanted.
Who should pay the cost?
I would like the dog owner not to have to pay, but I see no other way round it. Paying for the implantation of the microchip would become part of the cost of owning a dog. In fact, £20 or £25 is a small part of the total cost of owning a dog. I guess that the measure would be accepted.
Some charities help people on benefits with the cost of dog identification. If we went down the road that is being suggested, would charities still be able to do that? The cost seems reasonable, but should we look at the issue?
The cost will have to be looked at. A few companies make microchips and encouraging competition among them would, I hope, drive down the cost. The SSPCA and other bodies do excellent work but, like all charities, they have finite resources. Some form of subsidy would need to be introduced somewhere along the line. Although one might say that people who cannot afford it should not have a dog—broadly, that is correct—there are widely known benefits of owning a dog. It would be wrong to deny people a dog, which might for different reasons be of benefit to them, simply because they could not afford a microchip.
My question may go back to the earlier question about the membership of the Scottish Kennel Club. I do not know whether it is accurate to say that your organisation has more members than some political parties, but I am sure that your members probably have more maturity—in fact, the dogs might have more maturity—than some political parties.
Excuse me.
The dog identification group's report referred to the make-up of dog ownership and how people in social classes 1, 2 and 3 are more likely be able to afford to look after their dogs. Do you have any evidence that stray dogs are prone to come from families or owners who are in the lower socioeconomic groups?
The Scottish Kennel Club does not have any evidence of that, but it is generally accepted that that is the case. If one looks at the pattern of where strays are collected by the dog wardens, one generally finds that the strays come from the housing scheme areas, such as the well-known housing schemes in Edinburgh. Apart from that, people who live in flats in the centres of cities and towns are perhaps more likely not to look after their dogs. The dogs might be chucked out in the morning and, with a bit of luck, brought back in at night. There is quite a lot of information on that.
Would a registration scheme help to deal with that kind of animal welfare issue?
No. A compulsory scheme would not help at all.
Does the Scottish Kennel Club permanently identify dogs that are rehomed?
We have no involvement in identifying stray dogs. The welfare body, the SSPCA, and the dog and cat homes such as the one in Edinburgh are the organisations that take in strays. However, we fully support what those organisations do in that respect. It makes sense for stray dogs to be microchipped when they are taken in by those organisations, and certainly before the animals leave their premises.
You talked about taking an holistic approach to legislation. Could you elaborate on those remarks, making reference to the DIG report? What do you see as the difficulties with existing legislation?
Owing to the vagueness of current legislation, the average dog owner is confused about his or her rights. I am aware that other pieces of legislation may be introduced but, before we go too much further, it would be sensible to sit down and look at what is already available and whether that can be brought together in some way.
You commented on the fact that there is a lot of animal welfare legislation. Certainly, we are well aware of that. As much of the matter is devolved, your comment leads me to think that we need joined-up legislation as well as joined-up government. On your suggestion about consultation, I am sure that members of the Local Government Committee agree with me that, when the time comes, people such as you should be consulted.
I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence. I will leave members two copies of our annual report.
Comrades, we now have with us representatives from the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home: David Ewing, who is its general manager, and Heather McLean, who is an assistant manager. As they have been sitting in the public gallery, they will know the format, which is for them to speak for a few minutes before I open up the meeting for questions.
For those who do not know the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home, let me say that we are the oldest animal charity in Edinburgh. We have been in existence since 1873. Our main remit is to try to reunite lost dogs and cats with their owners. We also take in unwanted pets from owners who, for one reason or another, no longer want them. Our function is to try to rehome those animals. We also board animals when people go on holiday.
We offer a microchipping service to dog owners at a reduced rate: we charge £12.50. We regard that as extending our work and making it easier to reunite people with their pets. The drawback with the microchip system is that people sometimes do not inform us when they have moved house or changed their phone number, for example. The only situations in which we have found it difficult to return a microchipped dog to its owner are when we have not had the owner's phone number or current address.
Given what you have said about microchipping and the education that you provide, do you think that there is a need for an advisory group to link with the Scottish Executive, which is about to consider legislation? Would that be useful in ensuring consultation?
It would be very useful. Much more feedback could be passed on to the Parliament, which would help you to formulate legislation. So many organisations are now involved with animal welfare—they all have a part to play—that that could be constructive.
I open up the discussion for members' questions.
I shall get in before all my questions have been asked. Do you think that microchipping should be compulsory or voluntary?
My view is that it should be compulsory. Anything that is organised on a voluntary basis will not work, as there is a hard core element of people out there who will not comply voluntarily. The ways in which people can adopt a pet should be tightened up. The question is whether people should have to get a licence or have their animal microchipped. I believe that some form of registration should be required before people can adopt a pet.
It would be useful if people had to acquire a dog licence that could be endorsable or could be removed in cases of animal cruelty. That could provide an extra layer of protection for the animals and it might offer opportunities for requiring people to gain more education and training to retain their licence.
The DIG report recommends the voluntary route, but how can we follow that given that we have to progress from one in 10 dogs being microchipped to 75 per cent of dogs being microchipped within five years?
We need to educate people—not just at the classroom level, but the grown-ups. We need to be able to publicise the matter, through reaching different user groups. We need to encourage people and explain the benefits of having their dogs chipped.
It is also a reason for not answering the phone when driving.
For seven years, I was councillor for the ward in which the Glasgow Dog and Cat Home is located. In 1994, I came to an arrangement with the home. Its staff agreed that anyone living in that ward could, if they wished, have their dog microchipped free of charge. On the date that was set for that, more than 200 people showed up. The idea was very popular. That suggests that one of the problems is that many dog owners simply do not know that microchipping schemes exist, which is why the educational aspect is important. How do you manage to get across to people the importance of microchipping?
We make the suggestion mostly to people who come to claim their pets. We will say to them that they have not had their dog microchipped and tell them that we can provide that service for a reduced cost. We will explain the benefits, pointing out that, if the dog had been microchipped, it would have been scanned and identified and we would probably have contacted the owner within 10 minutes of its arriving at the centre—it would not have had to sit in the kennels and the expense would probably have been less. The sooner that people can come and claim their pet, the less they have to pay, as we have a boarding fee.
You would obviously like the police and local authorities to do the scanning themselves.
I think that they should. If they are picking the animals up, I think that they are responsible for doing that. It takes only seconds to scan an animal.
You have limited resources. Do you think that the local authorities or the Scottish Executive should be responsible for educating the general public about microchipping? If so, how should they go about it?
We could do that as a joint venture. I am certain that we would be able to make some funds available; the council could make even more money available. It should not be difficult to get the message across to people—there are many different user groups and we could use the libraries, posters and leaflets, and press coverage.
What impact would microchipping have on what are big issues in all urban areas of Scotland, about which councillors and MSPs get numerous complaints—dog fouling and the number of strays around the towns and villages of Scotland?
I am not convinced that simply microchipping a dog will prevent those problems. In such cases, the problem is not so much with the dog, but with the owner. It is rare to find a bad dog. Usually, there are bad dog owners. Those are the people who need to be educated. In a nutshell, we need to get to the owners and point out the rights and wrongs, which they should know anyway. On a number of occasions, I have stopped people and said, "Your dog's just pooed on the road. Do you have something to pick it up?" "What's it got to do with you, pal?" is the sort of attitude you get. Unless we can educate people that that is wrong and unacceptable, we will not get very far. Education is definitely the way forward.
If the scheme reduced the number of strays, would not that per se reduce dog fouling, even if some of it is caused by people taking their dogs on to someone else's patch or on to public grass?
I think that it would reduce it, but I do not think that it would rule it out completely.
Do the 61 per cent of dogs that you microchip go into the pet log database?
Yes.
Do you see the pet log database as an important element that could be built up into a national database?
Yes. At the moment it can be rather restrictive, as not everybody can get the information. More bodies need to be involved and it has to become very much a national organisation. However, there is no question but that that is the way to go. We can contact the database 24 hours a day, if necessary, and it does make a difference.
Obviously, you prefer the microchip to tattooing. Why?
Leaflets could be made available in solicitors' offices or property centres where people are looking at or buying property, and in rental offices. That would jog people's memories and remind them that they should change the address when they are flitting. Some of the problems are caused by sheer forgetfulness. The dog is chipped and the owners are not thinking about it all the time because the chip is inside the dog. When they move house, that is a fairly low priority for them. It is just a matter of reminding people that it is necessary. If there were a compulsory scheme, there would be more checks. If someone had to reregister their details every year, we would catch changes of address within 12 months of a move taking place.
When I suggested a tag for the owners, I was being a bit flippant. I was thinking of something the size of a blood donor card or a Visa card that people would keep in a safe place.
When the registration documents are sent to the owners from the pet log database, a change-of-address slip is enclosed. It is really just a matter of jogging people's memories, but a card with the dog's details on it could also be quite useful.
I also wanted to know why you prefer microchips to tattooing.
The reason is quite simple. Microchipping a dog is instantaneous and relatively painless—it just involves a subcutaneous syringe in the back of the neck. On the other hand, tattooing involves an element of discomfort for the dog. It takes longer and the dog may have to be sedated to have it done. The tattoo is placed on the inside of the ear, so pigmentation of the skin also has to be taken into account. If the dog has very dark pigmentation in its ear, it might not be possible to pick up the tattooing very readily. Once a microchip has been implanted, it can be picked up.
To get round the problem of chips moving, we scan the whole dog, usually more than once, just to ensure that we catch the chip. We have all had our own dogs microchipped, because we believe that that is the best way to identify them.
That is something that is peculiar to the National Greyhound Association. It is reluctant to give us information, partly because the dogs tend to change hands many times over. There is a financial aspect to that, and we find that, as a result, tattooing is not very successful for tracing greyhounds.
If there were a scheme, compulsory or otherwise, do you think that the general welfare of animals would increase? If there were a compulsory scheme, do you envisage there being a lot of stray animals at the outset of the scheme rather than in the long term?
There is always a possibility that there will be a knee-jerk reaction to anything that is made compulsory. People might refuse to comply with the scheme and may dispose of their pets. The same debate has been going on about hunting, with people asking what will happen to all the dogs. To date, we have had no experience of that at all. We were bracing ourselves for receiving large numbers of unwanted foxhounds and were wondering what we would do with them, but that has not happened.
It is certainly in the animal's best interests to be reunited with its owner as soon as possible. The dog is much better off going home than it is sitting in our kennels. From a welfare point of view, if a chip gets it home quicker, that is a good thing.
We consider our kennels to be a showpiece but, at the same time, we would rather that they were not there.
The proposed scheme will be voluntary. Do you think that that will make any impact, either immediately or in the long term, on stray dogs?
If we are able to publicise it enough, and publicise the reasons for doing it, it will have an impact. Our organisation has been careful about promoting to the general public the fact that we offer a reduced-cost neutering scheme, because members of the veterinary profession would be upset if they thought that they were losing a lot of business. At the moment, we can provide that service for about £12.50, whereas the average price charged by a veterinary practice is about £25. We have promoted that service only to those who are claiming their animals, but I think that we would have a greater take-up if we made it more widely available. That would prove that there are people who are willing to have it done but for whom cost is a factor.
In the past, we have offered chipping days at Portobello town hall. People have come along to take advantage of our chipping scheme; that has proved quite successful and could be repeated.
That sounds like a good idea.
Scanners cost about £100. The cost is something to consider, because several scanners would be needed. Police stations are dotted all over Edinburgh and each station would need at least one and possibly two scanners. That depends on their budget.
Thank you for your evidence. I noticed that you said immediately that the scheme should be compulsory—I have taken note of that—and that education is important. You have pointed out a couple of things that you are doing that seem to be successful, such as the chipping scheme. We will have to consider that.
Perhaps we should have tagged Keith Harding, as we seem to have lost him.
We now have before us representatives from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Thank you, convener. We are from the SSPCA. So that we are not here all day, I will call it "the society" from now on. Kathleen Bunyan, our support services director, deals with many of the issues to do with the rehoming of unwanted dogs from our shelters around Scotland. She is particularly well placed to discuss our experience with strays. I mention also that we are both owners of microchipped dogs—pet owning is an occupational hazard for those who work where we do.
Perhaps I should throw in something that would not be mentioned otherwise. Glasgow City Council has given us permission just this year to microchip all dogs that have been reclaimed. Previously, we offered microchipping at £10 per head to people who were reclaiming their dogs, but as they had already had to pay a fine to the council for the dog warden picking up the dog and had had to pay our boarding fees for a few days, many of them would just not pay the extra £10 to have their dog microchipped. In one of our meetings with the council, we agreed to provide microchipping at its cost to us. The dogs will now be microchipped compulsorily before they are returned. The council hopes that that will help it to keep track of the repeat offenders—the latchkey dogs that are put out every day. That will be a worthwhile experiment and is certainly something that other councils should copy.
That is interesting. You say that you support the DIG report because everyone should work together. Is five years too long before a decision is made on whether the voluntary scheme is working? Five years seems a long time. Could a decision be made sooner than that?
Even over five years, a 75 per cent target is ambitious. We are prepared to be advised by the report. The report was produced for England, but since the work has been done, why start all over again? Evidence was taken over two years and animal charities with similar policies to ours—including our counterpart, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—were involved, so we believe that the calculation has been made carefully. A table in the DIG report shows a year-on-year improvement. I think that the plan is to monitor that improvement and to ensure that the levels are maintained. If the scheme were slipping, there would be a case for re-examining it quickly and moving on faster to compulsory registration.
You said that in the society's animal welfare centres, all dogs are microchipped free before they are rehomed. Do any owners refuse microchipping for their dogs?
Kathleen Bunyan is the expert on that.
No, they do not refuse. They are not allowed to refuse. Our policy of microchipping all dogs is straightforward; nobody has ever refused or queried it.
In some of the documents that the committee received, concern was expressed that some owners were worried, for whatever reason, about the health of their dogs and did not therefore want them to be microchipped.
The matter is simple: microchipping is part of our rehoming package and we would not home a dog with a person who refused to have it microchipped. However, the system is not foolproof. People take dogs from us and they come back in as strays. If we telephone around to say that we have a stray dog, people will reply, "I passed it on to Joe Bloggs who passed it on to someone else." We discover that the register has never been updated and so we have to continue to search for the owner.
Is the fact that there is no real opposition to microchipping one of the reasons, in addition to those you have given, why you think a compulsory system would be better?
We do not know whether a compulsory system would be better. We support a compulsory system—that is the society's policy—but equally we are happy to try the five-year voluntary scheme. It is probably easier if people act voluntarily rather than being compelled to do something.
Besides microchipping, what other methods could be implemented to reduce the number of stray dogs?
The method that we have employed perhaps most is neutering. For a few years, we have neutered dogs under a variety of schemes. The society neuters dogs for free. We have our own in-house vets in three of our largest centres. We also ran two other schemes whereby people who did not live close enough to one of our centres could take a voucher to their vet and have their dog neutered for free. We also had a joint scheme with the British Small Animal Veterinary Association whereby people on benefits could have their dogs neutered, not for free but at a reduced cost.
Can the impact of microchipping be measured? Libby Anderson said that it is difficult to assess the number of stray dogs in Scotland. The figure of around 10,000 was quoted. Is that a significant reduction compared with previous years?
There is a reduction in the number of stray dogs that come in to the society, but the reduction is very small each year. A higher number of stray cats are coming to the society. The society wonders whether we now own fewer dogs and more cats, which would indicate a better lifestyle. As unemployment falls, fewer people want dogs because they are at work. The whole family can be out at work, so more people want cats.
I thank the witnesses for their informative paper.
Timing does not have anything to do with it. The SSPCA microchips at the point of sale because there is no point in our microchipping dogs until we have an owner. Equally, puppies are microchipped once we have a new owner for them. However, if breeders sell their puppies and leave it to owners to microchip them, it may never be done. If breeders were to microchip puppies before sale, microchipping would be done. We are trying to get as many dogs as possible microchipped. There is no real difference in timing—the age of the dog does not matter.
You are saying that it is an evolving process. If the dog has not been microchipped earlier, it should be done at the point of sale.
We are acknowledging that stray dogs that go through our kennels are not the only dogs. It would be valuable if breeders of pedigree dogs were involved. We get as many stray pedigree dogs as mongrels. It would help us in the long term if pedigree dogs were microchipped before they were sold.
Were you microchipping for free for Glasgow City Council? Were you paying for the chipping?
No, Glasgow City Council pays us for chipping. We supply the microchips and the registration fee at cost to the council. The person who reclaims the dog has the dog microchipped for free.
I thought that the SSPCA footed the bill. I wanted to clarify that.
No, we do not.
That raises the important question of cost. If the scheme were to be introduced, who would pay for it?
The process can be easy or difficult. If people have to get their dogs microchipped at their local vets, the vets will make their normal charges. To be fair to veterinary practices, if they microchip only a very small number of dogs, as at present, they will pay much more for their chips than we do.
Do you agree that the DIG report leaves the question of funding and says that it will return to it? We ought to consider the critical question of how the scheme would be funded.
The question needs to be considered. If a blanket approach is taken and people have to get their dogs microchipped, some will be able to afford it and some will not. People who could well afford to pay their vets should not be given the service at a reduced cost. The questions of how to pay for the scheme and what it will cost are big.
You have talked a lot about microchipping. Have you any experience of dog owners having problems or difficulties with that? If so, what are they?
The possibility of the migration of the chip is the only factor that causes dog owners to have concerns about microchipping, and only a small number of them are concerned. We have no evidence of microchips that have migrated causing problems other than those arising from the fact that the chip is not where the person who is scanning the animal expects to find it. Other bodies might have come across problems, but we have not.
Would it be helpful if bodies such as local authorities and the police had scanners?
We are examining the cost of providing our inspectors with scanners for their vans. The cost is £100 for each of the 60 inspectors, so we are talking about a lot of money. The biggest drawback to people having scanners in their vans is that, once the number has been scanned, the database must still be contacted. Because there are many dogs on the database and the database is not constantly cleaned—often, when people move house or their dogs die, they do not bother to tell the database—it takes quite a long time to get through to the database to get the required information. However, I do not mean to suggest that the police or local authorities should not have scanners.
Libby Anderson mentioned that the database is a commercial concern. At the moment, it deals with less than 10 per cent of the animal population. Will the existing structure of the database be able to cope in five years' time when it has to deal with 75 per cent of the animal population?
If we are to have such a system, and certainly if the system is to be compulsory, the database should be re-examined, as it is also part of the pet passport scheme. The database would need an element of security. Already, a breakaway group has created another database. Should there be a breakaway group from the breakaway group, we could end up with an assortment of databases, which would all have to be used every time a dog was microchipped. A national database might be the best solution, but keeping it clean would be another question.
That might be why the DIG report recommends phasing in the uptake of microchipping. The database could not cope with an increase to 75 per cent in the first year.
Who commissions the database? Who says what the requirements are?
It was set up by the Kennel Club in conjunction with the RSPCA and the SSPCA about six years ago.
Perhaps "in conjunction" is not quite right. The SSPCA supported its establishment but we have no control over it or any say in how it is run. Like the RSPCA, we simply register our dogs with it.
At the moment, the microchip contains only a number. This is probably a layman's question, but why can it not contain a name and address? That would mean that the person who scanned the dog would not have to go to the database.
I am afraid that I will have to give a layman's answer, as I honestly do not know why not. I understand that the information on a microchip is pretty much like the bar code on a can of beans, which also gives a scanner a number. I do not think that the microchip would be big enough to hold a name, address and all the rest of the information that is held.
That is not to say that microchip technology might not improve in future to make such information more accessible. DNA profiling techniques have also been recommended. The DIG report says that we should keep an open mind about which technical method we use.
I am a layperson, in the sense that I have been a cat owner all my life. What advantage does microchipping have over a collar with the name and address on it?
I also have a cat, and it is microchipped. From personal experience, I know that cats get their collars snapped off in bushes or trees. The big advantage of microchipping for a cat owner is that, if a cat is run over and a person takes it to a vet, the owner will find out what happened to it. Otherwise, people can spend months and months looking for their cat and wondering what happened to it. The same applies to dogs. Some people lose their dogs quite inadvertently—not all the dogs that come into the centre are strays; there are some quite tragic cases. If a dog has been run over, the owner might never know what happened to it. If the dog is microchipped, the owner will find out. Collars are not foolproof; they come off for many reasons.
What is the maximum age to which a dog can survive?
It depends on the breed. Some large breeds, such as the Great Dane, live for only about six years. However, it is not unusual for smaller breeds, such as the Border collie, to live for 17 to 20 years.
I ask because of what you said about cleaning the database. Would it be possible to delete automatically a dog's details once it had reached the life expectancy for its breed plus one year?
That would be a bit chancy. We ran a competition in the SSPCA newsletter to try to find Scotland's oldest dog and came across a few 24-year-olds. It would be unfortunate if a 23-year-old went missing after its details had been wiped off the database.
But dogs that are currently registered might still be on the database in 30 years' time.
I have a bad conscience, because I have not arranged for the details of my dog that died last year to be removed from the database. Our welfare centre manager will put that right for me soon.
Yes.
As Kathleen Bunyan said, a collar and tag can get lost or can be removed by someone who has stolen a dog. Tattoos can also be tampered with by someone who wants to cover up their actions. There was a case of some greyhounds that were found dead that had had their ears removed to prevent the tattoos from being seen. However, tattooing would help welfare work and investigations.
Can a microchip be removed? If someone was going to steal dogs for a profit, they could spend £100 on a scanner and howk the microchip out almost as easily as they could take a collar off.
That would take place only in relation to the niche activity of stealing expensive dogs, with which I am unfamiliar. Theoretically, what you suggest is possible, but it would involve a surgical process.
Your comments about who controls the database and what information it contains have broadened the committee's knowledge. I take your comment about the possibility that, in time, the microchip could have on it the information that Keith Harding mentioned. As I have said to other witnesses, a bit of education is needed for the general public and us to ensure that people alert the database when they move house and so on. We will certainly consider that in our report. Thank you very much for coming.
There is obviously police interest in dog identification. Our involvement with stray dogs is something that we have lived with for many years. The legislation that we work under goes back to the Dogs Act 1906, which obliged the police to accept and retain any stray dog taken to a police station by a member of the public. We still do that.
As members are probably aware, local authorities have several responsibilities for dog control, specifically for providing the dog warden service. We are involved in animal health in general and local authorities also license breeding establishments and pet shops. As a cleansing service, we must also sweep up dog fouling. We are probably the main recipients of complaints about that from the public. I speak for local authorities, from the enforcement perspective.
The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland is not involved directly in dog control; it is involved in the promotion of public health and environmental health. We ensure proper training and education of environmental health officers, who are often the front-line troops when it comes to dog control in local authorities. The institute's view is that the dog identification proposal would be a useful part of a much wider review of dog control and dog control legislation in Scotland. We would certainly welcome a review of dangerous dogs licensing, boarding, breeding establishments, enforcement responsibilities and the education of owners.
I will pick up on that last comment. This question is to all three witnesses. How should we educate the public about the scheme, to get over to them the advantages of registering their dog?
I will speak first from the local authority perspective. A number of local authorities have successfully taken on their own education initiatives. City of Edinburgh Council has information on its website and runs a lot of initiatives within the council. From a personal perspective, when I worked with Renfrew District Council, as it then was, there was a health promotion campaign that concentrated on direct access to the public and to the curriculum in schools.
It is down to responsible and irresponsible dog owners. Responsible dog owners will see registration as a step forward and as protection for them and their animals, and they will be happy to be part of a voluntary scheme. Those who are not responsible will not want to be part of the scheme and we will be in the same situation that we are in now. That sounds a bit pessimistic, but this is about changing attitudes and it will be a long, hard job.
I agree with what John Arthur said. Education is fine. To use food safety as an example, the education of food handlers was quite popular until it became a legislative requirement, at which point it became very popular. I suggest that any education be backed up with a degree of enforcement. There should be a proper balance.
First, I thought Colin McKerracher's point about the existing local arrangements was important. Am I correct in saying that the three of you believe that we need a national scheme, so that, although there would be some local variation in the voluntary scheme, all the education packages would contain a central message?
Tag them, you said.
On your first point, a consistent message would be helpful for everyone, not only the public but the authorities that have to put in place the procedures and processes. In the Strathclyde police area there are 12 local authorities, so it is likely that a number of different procedures will be in place. If the procedure is consistent throughout Scotland, we will have a better base to build on.
I have had a different experience. It is local authorities that get the complaints about dog fouling. We may pass on cases to our colleagues in the police to prosecute them, but we are the ones that deal with the complaints. The 24,000 dogs that were picked up by local authorities in 1999 is not a significant number when we consider the total dog population. In the majority of dog fouling complaints that we receive, a responsible dog owner is involved. Stray dogs have the advantage of wandering all over the place. Dogs with owners tend to go to the same spots. We get complaints about parks, favourite walks and waste ground where owners take their dogs.
In some areas, people are concerned about dog fouling and complain about it. The problem exists in other areas but we do not get complaints. It is worth bearing that in mind.
I declare an interest, as I have lodged a member's bill on this subject. You say that identification is not important, but if my proposals are passed, dog fouling will become a civil offence and local authorities will impose on-the-spot fines. It would be essential that the dog could be identified.
If the present legislative position changes, yes. I am talking about the current context. At the moment, we would have to identify the dog and get its owner to admit that the dog was his. We would have to corroborate the offence and the admission of ownership, and present a petition to the procurator. You can understand that that is not exactly top of the procurator's priorities. If there were an on-the-spot fine, an identification chip in the dog that was registered to the owner would be good corroborative evidence. However, I think that there are a lot of suppositions in there.
You indicated support for the recommendations in the DIG report, but even though you say that you accept the voluntary scheme as proposed would you prefer a compulsory scheme to a voluntary one? Are the targets in the DIG report—to get to 75 per cent in a voluntary scheme within five years—reasonable and achievable?
Voluntary schemes are fine, but a limited number of people will take part in them. Where there is compulsion more people will take part, but not everyone. The five-year targets seem reasonable, but they would be more achievable if the scheme was compulsory. If we are trying to increase the number of dogs that are identified through chipping or tattooing, compulsory chipping for dogs in breeding situations is eminently sensible.
Similarly, I feel that voluntary schemes have much to commend them. My concern is that the existing legislation needs fundamental review and that it would probably be better to do that before we introduce an element of compulsion. The targets are strict, given the amount of registration that is done at the moment. It would be a matter of seeing how successful the education and information campaign was. The targets might be more achievable if, by the end of the five years, there was a better legislative framework that meant that you were more likely to be caught if you were acting irresponsibly and allowing your dog to do so.
A compulsory scheme would be ideal, but some agency would have to enforce it. As John Arthur suggested, some groundwork must be undertaken before any decision is taken on that.
I take it that you all want new, comprehensive legislation to be introduced to replace the existing regulatory system. What would be the impact on the resources of the police and local authorities of the introduction of compulsory registration?
That is hard to say. Over the past 25 years, the police have been involved in rounding up dogs, but we have moved away from that and dog wardens now undertake that task. That was the right decision for the Scottish police service, in terms of court costs, value for money and various other factors.
The answer to the question is that it would depend on where the responsibility for the registration scheme would lie. I suspect that the responsibility would lie with local authorities rather than with police forces.
If additional resources were needed, would you want the Scottish Executive to pick up the tab by providing additional funding to the police forces or the local authorities, or to both?
Yes, depending on where the final responsibility lay. There would have to be at least some transfer of resources. The five-year lead-in period may give us the opportunity to examine what resources would be necessary for the scheme.
You have talked about the need for education and raising public awareness. The same could be said about the need to educate people about racism, drugs, smoking or obesity. Is there a danger of an education overload? Given the fact that education is often, quite rightly, regarded as an answer to everyday problems, do you think that it would be possible to get the message across on this issue without spending large sums of money on promoting the issue over a long period?
The oft-cited example is education against smoking. A lot of money has been spent on that campaign, and everyone is aware of the dangers of smoking, yet the habit persists. It is extremely difficult to make such educational campaigns work.
Strathclyde police spend £25,000 a year on kennelling stray dogs that are brought into the police offices and, in some areas, taken to the SSPCA kennels. In two council areas, the councils pay for that kennelling; however, in other council areas, we pay the costs. If the dogs are held for seven days, we still have to pay their kennelling bill. Dog identification has the potential to reduce that cost for us, as owners may be contacted earlier to collect their dogs. The cost implications of that would be of interest to all Scottish police forces.
Yes. Education and enforcement go hand in hand. Any education programme would have to be consistent throughout the country, focused and relevant to different groups. If 32 local authorities tried to develop their own education programmes, that would cause confusion. The education programme would have to be operated nationally and would have to focus on and be relevant to the group at which it was aimed.
Kenny Gibson and Iain Smith have asked many of the questions that I wanted to ask. Your answers have confirmed to me the need for the scheme to include elements of compulsion and education. Do you believe that the research from a five-year period of study into the impact of the existing voluntary system will be adequate to convince people that we should introduce compulsion? Given the resource implications, should we not just make identification compulsory from the outset?
Yes. Compulsion would be the way in which to make progress quickly. The voluntary scheme has a long lead-in. Certain people will pick up on it straight away because they are responsible and recognise the benefits of it; others will let it pass them by until someone tells them that they must participate.
Targets would be hit more quickly through compulsion. The five-year period and 75 per cent target take the scheme close to other licensing schemes that are already compulsory. It would be unusual to be able to achieve that target without some form of compulsion.
This question may be unfair, but from a police or local government perspective, do you believe that priority should be given to finding resources to tackle stray dogs rather than child safety, or dog fouling rather than anti-social behaviour?
The public have genuine concerns about dog fouling and stray dogs. When the public are asked about what worries them, they do not always mention headline crime figures. Often, they talk about what concerns them on their doorsteps, which is public nuisance offences and problems such as dog fouling. There is support in the public domain for some procedures to be put in place.
I support that, because at most of the citizens juries or focus groups—whatever you want to call them—that local authorities have established, and in most questionnaires, dog fouling is at the top of most people's agendas of locality concerns. In some areas, it is placed above neighbourhood crime.
I have much sympathy with what Michael McMahon said, but are not more than 300 children in the UK blinded through toxocariasis caused by dog fouling? Numerous other people also suffer ill-health effects.
In summing up, I had planned to say some of what Kenny Gibson said. The committee contains five ex-councillors and one current councillor. We are all aware of the number of times that dog fouling is talked about. Even when councils have tried projects, they have not addressed the issue.