Responsible Dog Ownership
The final item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09752, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on microchipping and muzzling. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the importance of education and awareness in promoting responsible dog ownership in Cunninghame North and across Scotland; welcomes the recent Scottish Government consultation on responsible dog ownership, which proposes introducing compulsory microchipping for all dogs; commends the work of Dogs Trust and the other welfare organisations and local authorities that have called for the introduction of what it considers this important measure; believes that microchipping brings many welfare benefits for dogs, such as the rapid reunification of a lost or straying animal with its owner; recognises what it sees as the government’s commitment to promoting responsible dog ownership, but expresses concern about certain proposals considered in the consultation, such as compulsory muzzling, which, it believes, will not bring welfare benefits or adequately tackle the problems of irresponsible ownership.
17:04
I thank the members who signed the motion and made this debate possible. I also thank Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and OneKind Charity for their briefings and input.
The Scottish Government recently consulted on microchipping and muzzling to promote responsible dog ownership. The welfare benefits of compulsory microchipping are manifold, but compulsory muzzling could negatively affect dogs’ behaviour and welfare. Therefore, I hope that the Scottish ministers, having analysed the consultation responses, will not go down that road.
The promotion of responsible dog ownership must start by recognising the benefits of canine companionship and promoting excellent care and protection for dogs that are under human control. Humane treatment, positive training methods and an understanding of canine behaviour offer the solution to most problems with out-of-control dogs.
Microchipping is simple and effective. Its welfare benefits include the ability to rapidly identify a stray or lost dog and return it to its owner, reducing kennel time and the costs to local authorities, which can emphasise to the owner that straying is not acceptable while reinforcing their responsibilities under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Puppies will be traceable to their breeder, helping to eliminate puppy farming and reducing the incidence of infectious disease and inherited defects from which many such dogs suffer. Microchipping also deters dog theft and makes it easier to identify, and subsequently penalise, owners who mistreat their animals.
Microchipping and registration also make it more feasible to trace and hold to account the owner of a dog that is involved in an attack, particularly in a public place, when the owner is not present or leaves the scene. In time, irresponsible owners would find it more difficult to evade their responsibility and would be more careful about allowing their dogs to roam.
The problems with out-of-control dogs must be seen in proportion and must be addressed constructively. There is no blanket solution that will solve every problem, and neither the wider dog population nor the majority of owners, who are caring and responsible, should pay the price for irresponsible dog breeding and inappropriate behaviour by a minority.
Compulsory microchipping has been successfully introduced in numerous European countries, from Estonia to Ireland and from Spain to Switzerland. In the United Kingdom, it was successfully introduced in Northern Ireland in 2012, and Wales and England will follow suit in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Surely, the time is now right to do the same in Scotland. Compulsory microchipping would need only passive enforcement if the dog came to the attention of an enforcement officer due to straying or poor behaviour. The cost that would be incurred should be small and would be more than offset by savings in kennelling.
Passive enforcement would involve primarily those owners who behaved irresponsibly. Every local authority should already have access to scanners, and Dogs Trust is willing to provide additional scanners for local authorities that do not have them. I believe that responsible dog owners will take compliance to between 80 and 90 per cent. Those who do not comply are likely to come to the attention of authorities by other means—for example, through dog fouling or through their dogs being out of control in a public place. In Scotland, such owners can be issued with a dog control notice under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which in any case requires the dog to be microchipped.
By contrast, a system of dog licensing would not encourage responsible dog ownership or prevent dog attacks. Dog licensing was abolished in 1987. At that point, the licence cost just 37.5p and fewer than half of owners bought one. The licensing regime was administratively expensive, cumbersome and, in essence, a tax on responsible dog owners. It did not encourage a more responsible attitude towards ownership, nor did it encourage animal welfare, and the revenue that was raised was not ring fenced for those purposes. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK still to have dog licensing, yet it has the highest population of stray dogs. That clearly indicates that licensing does not tackle that problem.
The permanent identification that is provided by microchipping has advantages over licensing. Licences need to be renewed, whereas microchipping has a one-off cost and is provided free by Dogs Trust and some other welfare organisations. Licensing would result in costs to local authorities and, unlike compulsory microchipping, would not intrinsically link a dog to its owner. However, updating the owners’ details on the database is, of course, an essential part of a compulsory microchipping scheme.
If that important dog welfare measure is introduced, Dogs Trust will offer free chip implantation to dog owners across Scotland as well as training and advice on responsible dog ownership. Indeed, Dogs Trust has already held special microchipping events that owners could attend to get their dog chipped free without an appointment. The first Scottish event was in June last year and was held in Kilbirnie, in my constituency.
There is strong opposition from canine charities and dog owners to any proposal to introduce compulsory muzzling for all dogs in public. Such a measure would unfairly penalise all dogs because of a few and would send the message—particularly to children—that all dogs are dangerous, which is clearly untrue. Although muzzles may be necessary on occasion, muzzling all dogs at all times as a precautionary measure would restrict a dog’s ability to behave naturally, could cause distress and, as the Cronin et al study showed in 2003, would not produce the desired effect. Under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, an animal’s needs include
“its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns”.
Compulsory muzzling would inhibit that in many dogs and would, therefore, breach the act. Muzzles should only ever be seen as a safety measure in exceptional cases and should not be relied on to fix or prevent a potential problem. Muzzles should always be the right size and type for the dog and should be introduced in a way that encourages positive feelings for the animal. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 already allows local authorities to muzzle dogs if their behaviour warrants such action.
Education programmes can teach dog owners of the future about responsible dog ownership through free school workshops and the provision of fun games and teaching resources. By educating young people about the responsibilities and commitment involved in dog ownership, the number of mistreated and abandoned dogs can be reduced. Dogs Trust has held 3,526 education workshops in Scotland, representing 105,780 children who have now been educated about responsible dog ownership and safety around dogs. An additional education officer for Scotland is soon to be appointed.
Young offenders represent a key audience for responsible dog ownership messages, as many of them have a dog or are under pressure to get one. They might live in environments where status dogs, involvement in dog-related antisocial behaviour, dog abandonment and irresponsible ownership are rife.
In 2010, Dogs Trust launched the pilot of an innovative programme called taking the lead, which offered responsible dog ownership training and workshops for young offenders, both in the community and in custody. That was the first prison-based dog training programme in the United Kingdom and was based at HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Polmont. The pioneering programme, paws for progress, involves young offenders who train rescue dogs. It aims to help address offending behaviour and to develop responsible ownership and employment skills in preparation for release.
It is essential to find a long-term solution to the horrors of dog attacks, to the nuisance that can be created by out-of-control dogs and to the suffering of neglected or abused animals. We must also be mindful of the things that dogs bring us: companionship, therapeutic and health benefits and a way to learn about care, responsibility and compassion.
I look forward to the minister’s response.
17:11
I start by thanking Kenny Gibson for securing the debate. I thank Dogs Trust for all its work campaigning for compulsory microchipping in Scotland and across the UK.
I apologise to the Parliament for having to leave the debate early this evening. I am disappointed not to be able to listen to other members’ speeches; I will study the minister’s reply in the Official Report tomorrow.
In September 2013, I held a members’ business debate on microchipping. Kenny Gibson spoke then of his visit to the rehoming centre in his constituency. I have not visited that Dogs Trust centre, but I have spent time at the centre in West Calder, where I discussed microchipping and I saw how easy it is to scan a dog. For the dog owner, microchipping is quick and cheap, and it is potentially even free. The scheme provides multiple benefits, as was highlighted by Mr Gibson in his opening speech. It should result in a reduction in the number of dogs that are abandoned or negligently allowed to stray, as well as enabling quick reunion with the owner.
Although the number of stray dogs in Scotland is reducing, which is to be welcomed, it is still at a significant level. The figures for the last year available, 2012-13, show that Scottish local authorities dealt with 3,525 stray dogs. That involves distress for the dogs and their owners, but also adds a considerable expense to the budgets of local authorities, which have to not only provide a dog warden service, but meet the kennelling costs for up to a week.
Microchipping has the advantage of being an immensely popular proposal with the public. A YouGov poll showed that 82 per cent of adults in Scotland would support its introduction. The measure has already been successfully introduced in Northern Ireland and is due to be introduced in Wales and England in the near future.
When I held my members’ business debate in September 2013, the Scottish Government had yet to confirm its support for the measure: in his closing speech, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change indicated that the Government still had “some concerns” over its introduction. I am therefore delighted that the Government has overcome those concerns and is now minded towards introduction. That is to the credit of campaigners from across the country, led by charities such as Dogs Trust. I am sure that, like me, members across the Parliament have received emails from their constituents expressing support for the introduction of compulsory microchipping. The Government’s journey towards that introduction will have been aided by the campaign. There is evidence that it will be a very positive policy.
Compulsory microchipping is not, however, a measure to tackle dangerous dogs. It is perhaps another tool in the box—it can trace a dog back to its owner and it can help to encourage responsible dog ownership by bringing the owner into contact with services—but it does not itself change the behaviour of dogs or their owners.
The dangerous dogs consultation is disappointing, in that it concerns what I believe is a dog welfare policy, alongside another policy that it would appear no one, including the Government, supports, namely the compulsory muzzling of all dogs. There are legitimate concerns that the introduction of muzzling could have a detrimental impact on the welfare of dogs, as well as reinforcing a negative stereotype of all dogs as dangerous, which is far from the case. Muzzling already plays a part in tackling the issue of dangerous dogs, as long as it is used proportionately. Under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, muzzling can be included in a dog control notice. I believe that that has the support of animal welfare charities and should be maintained.
We must acknowledge the reason for the consultation, which is the incidence of dog attacks with tragic consequences. How do we address the problem when the owner is beyond changing their behaviour? I accept arguments around breed and deed, and evidence that shows that many incidents happen in the home, but what more can be done to protect communities, and children in particular, from aggressive dogs with irresponsible owners? Unfortunately, the consultation is limited in that area and, although I welcome microchipping, it is not the answer. We should be open to considering other models of dog control.
Of course, education and training for owners, as well as pets, is key. Kenneth Gibson highlighted the work that Dogs Trust is doing with young offenders. However, let us not kid ourselves that all owners will respond to such training. We must be open to considering measures that could give greater protection to communities from dangerous and out-of-control dogs.
I welcome the measure on compulsory microchipping and look forward to its introduction in Scotland.
17:16
I, too, congratulate the member on securing the debate, which is a bit of a reprise of the debate that Claire Baker secured last September, in which I also took part.
Like others, I support and applaud the work of Dogs Trust. Indeed, a few months ago, I held a microchipping event in Galashiels, which resulted in 121 dogs being microchipped and vet-checked. I would have had more people coming along, but some people did not believe that it was free. I will call my next event, in Newton Grange, “free chips”. We will see whether people turn up in greater numbers to that.
My concern about compulsory microchipping is that it might be seen as a remedy that will end attacks by out-of-control and dangerous dogs. Of course, it will not.
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 started off as a member’s bill, which I took control of from Alex Neil when he was promoted. I express my regret to the minister that that act is not better publicised. Had it been Government legislation, it would have got more publicity, but, as a member, I cannot give it an equivalent amount of publicity. I have met councillors and farmers who did not even know of the act’s existence. Those are people who should be in the know but are not. While we are busy going down the track towards more legislation, let us advertise the legislation that is already in place.
The problem with compulsory microchipping is not so much how to get the microchipping done, but the question of who registers it and how the information is kept up to date. I recall the words of Mike Flynn, a senior inspector at the SSPCA, who said:
“We support voluntary micro chipping of pets but not necessarily compulsory chipping. There is no point in making it compulsory unless there was a system and legislation in place, to ensure that the details are kept up to date and transfer of ownership is recorded (the same as if you sell a car).”
I raised the issue in Claire Baker’s previous debate. We must overcome it.
My response to the Government’s consultation was very much along the lines of the briefing from Advocates for Animals. Indeed, I confess that I poached one of its ideas, which was a presumption in law that all dogs be microchipped by a certain date. That is a roundabout way of delivering compulsory microchipping, but it also involves welfare issues.
That leads us to what Kenneth Gibson called “passive enforcement.” If there is a presumption that all dogs will be microchipped, anyone can be stopped after a certain date and asked why their dog is not microchipped. The question then is who is responsible for the dog being microchipped. In my consultation response, I suggested that that person should be the owner of the dog, or a person who can reasonably be presumed to be the owner of the dog. That person could be the breeder, with the microchipping being done as part of the selling of the puppy in the first place. The buck should certainly stop with the owner or someone who is presumed to be the owner—that is who should be responsible for ensuring that the register is up to date.
I say to Claire Baker that some people support the compulsory muzzling of dogs in public places. I think that the idea is a non-starter. Let us start by considering the question of defining what a dog is. When does a puppy become a dog? How do we define that? Further, vicious attacks often occur in family homes or gardens, so muzzling dogs in public places would not deal with that. Are working dogs to be exempt? What about guard dogs? Is a guard dog to be muzzled? When is it a formal guard dog and when—let us put it in quotes—an “informal” guard dog? Again, those are difficult enforcement issues. Kenny Gibson has already referred to muzzling interfering with the natural activities of a dog and sending a message, particularly to children, that dogs are bad news, which, in the main, they are not. On occasion, owners are bad news, but not the dogs themselves.
I refer to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which requires muzzling when appropriate. Failure to muzzle when required is a civil offence, which means that the standard of proof and evidence is just on the balance of probabilities, so it is not too hard to get the evidence to determine whether there has been a breach. However, at the end of the day, if a requirement to muzzle all dogs went through, it would allow reckless owners to be even less responsible because they could always say, “My dog was muzzled at the time.”
Mr Q has been giving your remarks his full attention. I now call Christine Grahame—sorry, Alex Fergusson, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm.
17:20
Christine Grahame once in the debate is quite enough, Presiding Officer.
I join other members in congratulating Kenny Gibson and Dogs Trust on enabling the debate to take place. I find myself in a troubled situation because I have just listened to Kenny Gibson and have—probably for the first time ever—agreed with every word that he said. What troubles me more than that is that I listened to Rob Gibson in a previous debate and, uniquely I think, agreed with every single word that he said. Graeme Dey put it to me that if I keep going like this, I might find myself agreeing with the back benchers of that party on a question that they will be asking in September. Let me put it firmly on the record: “No. I won’t.” I am sorry if that brings disappointment.
This is an important debate. Even if it is a reprise of a previous debate, I am glad that it has been brought back and I congratulate Kenny Gibson on bringing it back. I start on the issue of muzzling. In the motion, we are asked to express concern at the prospect of muzzling. I want to do more than express concern about it. I want to state that I would utterly and completely oppose the proposal. I find it totally ridiculous. It goes completely against nature and would, in some cases, be tantamount to cruelty for some dogs.
Dogs need to be able to lick, smell and snuffle—if that is a proper word—or, to put it more politically correctly, to exercise their natural behaviour patterns. Muzzling would prevent them from doing so. If I was a cynic, I would say that it is almost a straw man option. I think that only one question in the consultation referred to muzzling, while some 30 referred to microchipping. Whatever the reason it was in the consultation, I hope that it is there to be taken out, because it is quite clear that, apart from some individuals, no one really supports the proposal. I cannot support it either.
I come to the more robust proposal about microchipping. Without repeating all the arguments that have been made, I can see nothing but plusses in the proposal. It would increase responsibility and accountability. It would certainly improve the traceability of dogs that have been abandoned or lost. It is one of those proposals for which the time is right, full stop, and I would not argue against it.
I will raise one concern, however. I am interested that Elaine Murray is here and I hope that I am not about to pinch one of her arguments. She will be as aware as I am that in Dumfries and Galloway we have a particular problem with greyhounds being abandoned. The dogs are largely of Irish origin, the logic being that the A75, which brings people from Ireland, is a handy dropping-off point for unwanted greyhounds. It is not a small problem. Dumfriesshire and Cumbria Greyhound Rescue is a rehoming charity that has rehoused 1,000 such animals in the past decade.
Racing greyhounds are identified by tattooed marks in their ears. In far too many cases, the dogs’ ears have been mutilated and sometimes even cut off before they have been abandoned in order to ensure that they are not traced back to their roots. The reason that I raised that in regard to microchipping is that yesterday I emailed Libby Anderson—formerly of the Scottish SPCA and now of OneKind—and asked her whether she had any information on how easy or difficult it is to remove microchips after they have been put in place. She said that
“it is universally acknowledged that microchips cannot be removed or tampered with, without surgical intervention.”
I simply want to raise a concern about the prospect that unscrupulous people, who want to abandon their dogs, will try to get rid of the microchip in a horrible DIY surgical intervention, which I suggest would involve no anaesthetic whatever. I worry about that prospect. While it is certainly not a concern that would make me oppose the proposal, it is one that we need to be aware of as we move forward with this programme.
17:25
I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. I think that it is our third debate on dogs in the past few months—my colleagues Paul Martin and Claire Baker having secured the earlier ones—which shows what an important subject dogs are to a lot of people.
I do not have any background with dogs, but as a constituency MSP, I know that dogs are a massive issue in my constituency, as it is in others. They come up nearly every week when I go to meetings. I apologise because I might have to leave this debate early if it runs on; I have to go to a meeting this evening, at which I expect dogs will be mentioned. Dog fouling is the issue that is usually mentioned at residents meetings, but last week someone was complaining about a Dobermann that regularly visits the house next door. The owner does not have it on a lead and it has been growling at the resident’s children. Those are examples that come up every week.
I suppose that I have a personal angle on this now, because I have grandchildren and I go to the park with them. Of course, they cannot play in lots of the parks because of the dog fouling. The worst example that I saw a couple of weeks ago was dog fouling on a roundabout in a children’s playground. The issue comes up all the time.
I am slightly disappointed by the Scottish Government’s consultation. I totally welcome it and I absolutely support microchipping, in support of which I spoke in Claire Baker’s previous debate, so I will not repeat the arguments in favour of it, which seem to have widespread support in Parliament. I am disappointed, however, because only the last two pages of the consultation document refer to the two issues that really concern my constituents and, I am sure, other members’ constituents:dog fouling and dangerous dogs.
As Alex Fergusson said, the idea of muzzling all dogs is a straw man, if that is the right phrase. I have never come across anybody who proposes that, so why on earth it is the only substantive suggestion in the section on dangerous dogs is a bit of a mystery to me. It is an opportunity that other options for control of dangerous dogs are not being given. Equally, on dog fouling, there are no proposals at all, although the obvious suggestion of increasing the fine seems to me to be something that we should certainly pursue.
Let us concentrate on dangerous dogs. I totally agree with what Christine Grahame has done and said on that issue. If the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was being implemented effectively, in principle that would be the right approach. Action should be targeted against particular individuals who are causing problems, although we would want to rely on the courts imposing proper penalties and sanctions.
I had another constituency example recently of someone whose dog had behaved absolutely horrifically. It was coming to the end of the control period and a constituent of mine was worried that the dog owner would be allowed to own a dog again. If someone’s dog has caused absolute havoc, they should never again be allowed to own a dog.
We need to look at intermediate options. No one is suggesting muzzling all dogs, and microchipping will not solve the problem, so we have to consider muzzling some dogs. I know that some people do not like the idea of picking particular breeds and I know that in principle that is not right but, realistically, it might be an option that we have to consider. If muzzling is ruled out, why not let us look at the issue of dogs on leads. If more dogs that are a threat to the public were kept on leads, especially short leads, that would help to avoid the problems that arise.
Will Malcolm Chisholm take an intervention?
I do not think that I have time; I am in my last minute.
You can take back the time.
I simply remind Malcolm Chisholm that bad though attacks in public areas are, most really bad attacks take place on private land and in homes, so leads would not be the answer and would not cure that problem.
We cannot solve all the problems with one measure, but if we could solve the problem in public places, it would certainly make the lives of many of my and, I am sure, Christine Grahame’s constituents a lot better. It would be particularly helpful for children, for whom I have a particular concern.
We have to look at the options of more dogs being kept on leads and possibly more dogs being muzzled. It is a missed opportunity that those intermediate options are not dealt with in the consultation paper.
17:29
I begin by paying tribute to the Dogs Trust. All too often we MSPs are approached by organisations promoting an approach that they wish the Government to adopt, with no recognition of the cost implications for local or national government or, indeed, for individuals. In addition, very often they have not entirely considered the unintended consequences of what they are calling for.
However, when it comes to pressing the case for compulsory microchipping, the Dogs Trust is to be commended both for marshalling a robust argument and for being prepared to put its hands in its own pockets, as it were, to make its proposal a reality.
I must admit that initially I had some slight reservations about compulsory microchipping; reservations that its cost could put people on lower incomes off dog ownership or push them down the road of purchasing pups from irresponsible breeders. However, I have become a convert through a combination of the case that the Dogs Trust has made and its commitment to carrying out free chip implantation across Scotland. That commitment is backed by a track record of delivery, with 2,214 dogs being chipped last year and 3,500 more so far this year. I do not know whether the Dogs Trust is represented in the gallery today, but I would happily promote a visit by one of its roaming chipping teams to my constituency.
The arguments for microchipping—if it is financially achievable and thereafter can be monitored in a way that is practical and non-burdensome for local authorities—have always been there, but with only four minutes at my disposal I will not rehearse them. By highlighting how such a scheme could be made to work through passive enforcement, by identifying how councils need not face considerable additional expense and by offering to buy additional scanners for local authorities, the Dogs Trust has, for me, won the argument.
It has done the same when comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of microchipping versus re-introducing a dog licensing scheme, and in challenging the need for compulsory muzzling of all dogs in public—a proposal that clearly has no support in Parliament.
We must recognise the huge importance of education when it comes to encouraging responsible dog ownership. The Dogs Trust claims to have engaged since the beginning of 2012 with more than 100,000 Scottish schoolchildren through its education programme. That is terrific, but it is not alone in working in that area. In my constituency of Angus South, for example, a membership group called Carnoustie Canine Capers is extremely active in encouraging responsible dog ownership through, among other things, its green dog walkers project and its talks for youngsters.
We must recognise that responsible dog ownership does not end at having the pet microchipped, but involves treating the dog well and ensuring that it behaves in a manner that does not cause fear and alarm to others, or create an environmental menace.
I want to conclude by focusing on how those last two points pertain to rural settings. Although probably the majority of owners would not allow their dogs to stray and interact in a menacing way with other animals, and are always geared up to clean up when their pets have done their business in public places, there are those who do not and are not, and such disregard for the countryside environment that they enjoy can have serious implications.
The NFU Scotland is to lodge a petition in Parliament on having agricultural land included—albeit with provisos—in the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, and to have enforcement powers granted to the police or local authorities under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. My colleague Fiona McLeod has been involved in the issue for some time. The petition has been sparked by problems over livestock being harassed by dogs that are off the lead, and the livestock’s coming into contact with parasites that are found in some dog faeces, which leads, it is claimed, to abortions in cattle and death in sheep.
It is an important issue and one that I hope the Dogs Trust might incorporate into its messaging regarding responsible dog ownership. The countryside is not just there to be enjoyed; it is also a place of work. The message to dog owners who visit it must be this: Keep your dogs under control and please clean up after them.
Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Kenneth Gibson.]
Motion agreed to.
17:33
I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. I had some concerns about the wording of the last part of his motion, which I will refer to later, but he explained his intention and we are in complete agreement on compulsory muzzling of all dogs.
I have kept dogs for much of my life. I have also been attacked by dogs and have scars to show it. On one occasion I was attacked by a German shepherd when I was out campaigning on my own, and it was quite an alarming experience. Tragically, many people have experienced far worse, so it is important that measures be taken to reinforce dog owners’ responsibilities to both look after and control their dogs.
I and Labour members supported the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which began as a member’s bill that Christine Grahame introduced. As Christine does, I wonder whether its provisions are fully understood and implemented. However, I agree with the Scottish Government that it is time to consider other measures, although, as others do, I think that the consultation is rather limited. I would like to see more strict action being taken on dog fouling, for example.
Scotland is lagging behind other parts of the United Kingdom with regard to compulsory microchipping, so I am pleased that legislation on that may now be forthcoming.
On licensing, I have an open mind. It could be a way of ensuring that dog owners are made aware of their responsibilities. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 required the Scottish Government to issue guidance on looking after various species, including dogs, but I am not sure how widely that guidance is currently available. Part of licensing could be raising awareness of the correct care and control of dogs. I look forward to the results of the consultation and to hearing the views of the public.
We own two jackahuahua bitches—they are Jack Russell-Chihuahua crosses. They are both microchipped and there was, despite the fact that they are small dogs, no problem at all in having that done. To pick up on Alex Fergusson’s point, I do not know where the microchips are in the dogs, so it would be difficult to take them out. However, the microchips bring us peace of mind that, should the dogs get lost or worse, they could be identified and we would be informed.
If the evidence suggests that I require to be licensed to keep my dogs, I am prepared to undertake whatever might be necessary to do so. However, I would have a significant problem with being obliged to have them muzzled in public. Members who know the characteristics of the breeds of dogs from which mine come will appreciate that jackahuahuas can be snappy, noisy little creatures. Therefore, we keep our dogs under control when other dogs or children approach, and I always warn children and their parents that dogs snap on occasion and that mine have been known to do so.
I also always carry bags on my person. In fact, I sometimes come into the chamber and find a bag hanging out of my jacket. It is important that we carry bags with us all the time if we have dogs.
The suggestion that all dogs might have to be muzzled in public has generated a huge amount of local correspondence. A constituent slightly mistook the process that the Scottish Government was undertaking and wrote to one of the local newspapers saying that the Scottish Parliament was about to pass a bill compelling all dogs to be muzzled in public, which caused consternation among, and a huge flurry of correspondence from, dog owners throughout my constituency.
Of course, I assured everyone who contacted me that muzzling is just part of a consultation and that there is no bill at present. I intend to get back to all of them with the content of this debate because it might reassure them if they read what is being said.
Muzzling should not be imposed on well-behaved dogs that are under control and have well-behaved owners, if the dogs present no danger to people or other dogs. There are welfare issues associated with muzzling. For example, dogs require to pant to cool down so I know that many vets would be concerned about the proposal for compulsory muzzling of all dogs.
I had some concerns about the wording of the motion, because it might be interpreted as saying that compulsory muzzling should never be used. It can be imposed on a particular dog as part of a dog control notice; the alternative could be to have the animal destroyed. The potential to require an individual dog to be muzzled because its behaviour is frightening or dangerous should not be lost altogether, so I was pleased that Kenny Gibson reassured me that he also holds that view.
I look forward to the result of the consultation. We need to stress the need for dog owners to be responsible. Whatever the size of their dog—large or small—we should persuade people to be as responsible as possible in their dog ownership, so I will be interested to see the consultation results. However, we also need to consider stronger controls on dog fouling, because the public are concerned about it.
17:38
I, too, congratulate my colleague Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. I am also grateful for the briefings from the Dogs Trust and OneKind that have helped to inform me.
As those charities do, I support the motion, which calls for compulsory microchipping of dogs but opposes the call for muzzling of all dogs in public. Microchipping is the responsible thing to do, as the Dogs Trust says. I will not repeat all the reasons in favour of it that other members have mentioned, but it is clear that it would help to enforce owners’ responsibilities under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. However, I agree with members who said that it would certainly not solve all the problems with dog mauling.
I oppose the compulsory muzzling of dogs because it would punish dogs that are no threat to anyone, and I agree with Alex Fergusson that it would be cruel. It would also not be justified because it would not have prevented some of the worst cases of dog mauling, which have occurred on private property, as Christine Grahame said.
My dog is a Cavalier King Charles spaniel, which is one of the most gentle and docile breeds of dog in existence; that is why I got it. I had no experience of owning a dog when I bought one for my children. I did not come from a family of dog owners, so I felt that I should get a dog that would not, if I did not get it quite right, cause problems for anyone else. We should remember that dogs and humans have been companions for thousands of years, and that that relationship has been overwhelmingly positive.
Just the other week, I was in this chamber with two hearing dogs from Action on Hearing Loss. We know that, through the work that hearing dogs and dogs for the blind and people with other conditions do, they make an extremely positive contribution to society. Even for people who do not have disabilities, dogs can provide companionship and ease loneliness, and there is considerable academic and scientific evidence that dogs reduce stress and have health benefits for their owners.
I do not want to dismiss the issue of dog attacks, because it is very serious and should not be trivialised, but it is difficult to legislate for. I remember reporting on the last death in Scotland in 1989 when a young girl was tragically killed by Rottweilers. I was struck by the fact that the UK legislation after that attack and a spate of other attacks—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—did not include Rottweilers. I am very aware that it is controversial to talk about “dangerous” breeds, and that it is also true that it is the owner and not the dog who is most often at fault. I also praise schemes such as the prison scheme that Kenneth Gibson highlighted. However, the fact is that some breeds of dog are more dangerous than others.
When I was researching the subject, I found an American study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that pit bull terriers and Rottweilers accounted for 67 per cent of the deaths over the 10-year period of the study. We cannot argue with such statistics.
Although the previous licensing system was not ideal, the Government should consider a licensing system that would encourage responsible dog ownership. I was struck by what Elaine Murray said about controlling her dogs and warning children who want to clap them. I read about a little girl who was mauled by a dog. She had asked whether she could clap it and the owner said yes, but they had only had the dog for two days and did not know about its background and history, and the little girl received severe facial injuries. In particular cases and with particular breeds, we need to consider enforcing responsibilities on owners.
Some members have mentioned that the current legislation is not being enforced. In the consultation process, the statistics bear that out. For example, in the years that have been studied, in Glasgow—our biggest city and one that has a problem with dogs in certain areas—only two dog control orders were issued. Aberdeen City Council carried out 317 investigations of dogs in one year, but issued just four dog control notices. We have legislation in place, but it is not being enforced as we all wish it to be enforced.
17:43
I, too, welcome the debate and congratulate Kenneth Gibson on bringing it to the chamber.
Last summer, I was invited to visit the Dogs Trust rehoming centre in Uddingston. As someone who always had dogs until very recently, it was sad and yet uplifting for me to learn about the number of dogs that are picked up by the trust—more than 4,500 in 2012—and are then all well cared for by the staff and volunteers until they can be rehomed or their owners can be traced. I was also very impressed by the dedicated work of the staff. It was their first-hand accounts of current issues of animal welfare that led to my support for compulsory microchipping.
Compulsory microchipping would go a long way towards helping to reduce the numbers and to improve animal welfare in Scotland. Currently, 40 per cent of reunions between dog and owner are due to microchipping and registration. With a compulsory scheme, more of those cases could be solved. Of course, not every dog that is picked up by local authorities or the Dogs Trust is genuinely lost, and some are found with clear signs of neglect or worse. Compulsory microchipping would help to bring to justice more individuals who are clearly unfit owners. Although, as OneKind noted, microchipping would not on its own protect dogs from neglect and ill treatment, it would help to trace the perpetrators.
I agree with the Dogs Trust and OneKind that proposals to introduce muzzling would be a retrograde step for animal welfare. It would treat the symptom rather than the cause, while at the same time punishing the vast majority of dogs and their owners for the actions of a few. It would suggest that every dog is dangerous and would breed distrust and fear, and there is no evidence that it would reduce dog violence in general.
There are obviously some individual dogs that require muzzling, but there is already a mechanism in place for that. Placing a general requirement on all dogs would be authoritarian and unnecessary, and would not have my support.
Another element of animal welfare that should be considered, and which has not been mentioned, is the suitability of certain breeds for certain lifestyles. On my visit to the Dogs Trust, I saw a large number of active dogs—huskies, malamutes and collies—that had been abandoned or brought to the centre by owners who had realised that they really did not have the time, space, energy or ability to give their pets the exercise that they needed. The Dogs Trust is careful to ensure that every dog that it rehomes is matched to an owner with the capacity, both physical and environmental, to satisfy the dog’s needs. That is another element that we perhaps need to think about.
My hope is that the debate can help to start a conversation in Scotland about responsible dog ownership in all its forms, and that the benefits of compulsory microchipping, as well as the case against muzzling, are recognised and taken on board.
17:47
Like other members, I congratulate both Kenneth Gibson and the Dogs Trust on bringing the debate to the chamber. My contribution to the debate is, I hope, as a responsible dog owner, although Mr Q may sometimes question that when I want to take him out in all conditions regardless of the weather. My point is a serious one, because it is about responsible dog owners. I was privileged to go to the summit on responsible dog ownership, where the commitment of the Government was evident because two cabinet secretaries were there.
We have heard a lot about compulsory microchipping, which speaks for itself. It is the way to go and it should happen. When I was a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I tried to get the issue into the work programme, although that was not possible because of other commitments. However, I have discussed it with the cabinet secretary many times and I believe that the consultation will prove to be extremely supportive of compulsory microchipping.
I agree with others who have said that microchipping will not solve the problem of dog attacks, but neither would muzzling, which I totally oppose. However, I am convinced that appropriate and responsible dog ownership can make a difference.
Malcolm Chisholm spoke about keeping dogs on a lead in public places. I would say that that is absolutely to be encouraged, certainly in built-up areas, where a dog should always be on a lead. I have some sympathy with Christine Grahame’s remarks about the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which was introduced as a member’s bill but is not enforced.
My understanding is that a dog should be on the lead when it is in an urban area, on pavements or elsewhere, but a lead also needs to be under control. Often, we see people using extending leads that allow their dog to be 20 feet or further in front of them, and they have no control over that dog. If people have dogs that they find difficult to control, they are encouraged by veterinary practices and by others to get appropriate training, and I support that. Using a Halti can offer appropriate training and provide some reassurance to members of the public, especially with dogs that jump up. The dog should be under control at all times.
Guide Dogs has always supported microchipping for its dogs, especially for those dogs that can sometimes go astray away from their owners when they are playing, and there have been occasions on which guide dogs have actually been stolen in public places. I support and fully endorse microchipping, but I do not support muzzling. As I have said, we should look at raising awareness in terms of responsible dog ownership. I think that all members would welcome that. I hope that the minister will take cognisance of Christine Grahame’s point that appropriate legislation already exists and that perhaps we should address the issue of its proper enforcement.
Dogs are territorial. As has been mentioned, when we as MSPs are out campaigning or when postmen are delivering mail, dogs are sometimes territorial and protect their patch. If that is the case and the dog owners are aware of it, the dogs should either be kept inside or should be on a restricting lead when outside. If they are not on a lead, there should be a notice advising people to be aware that a dog is present.
17:50
Like others, I congratulate Kenny Gibson on his very thoughtful speech and on promoting the good work of the Dogs Trust. Indeed, I have visited my local Dogs Trust centre, which is in the Glasgow East constituency area, and I arranged for my dog, Buster, to be microchipped during that visit.
I agree with Dennis Robertson that the debate about microchipping dogs is straightforward. Microchipping would ensure that dog owners take responsibility for their pets and consider more seriously their role as responsible dog owners.
The Dogs Trust promotes and encourages responsible dog ownership. As the last member to speak in the debate before the minister, I am aware that almost all the previous speakers have advised that they are opposed to the possibility of muzzling all dogs in public places. However, I ask members to consider ensuring that the Parliament is given the opportunity to interrogate the possibilities and examples that exist in other parts of the world, including the example in the Republic of Ireland, where compulsory muzzling is in place for dogs with certain physical attributes.
I say that about muzzling because of my experience in dealing with the case of Broagan McCuaig, who many members will recall I spoke about in a previous members’ business debate that I brought to the chamber. Broagan was eight years old when she was attacked by two American bulldogs. Since that vicious attack in October last year, Broagan has continued to go through a rehabilitation process. Other speakers referred to examples of more serious dog attacks, which include the case of Kelly Lynch, who was attacked by two Rottweilers.
Given that serious dog attacks have taken place, I think that it would be wrong for Parliament to simply rule out the possibility of muzzling dogs without members being given the opportunity to take evidence through the parliamentary committee process from various experts in the field and to consider other options at the same time. We should also consider the very good work that has already taken place. I give special mention in that regard to the Alexandria and district community dog management centre, whose whole emphasis is on ensuring that people are responsible enough to be dog owners in the first place prior to their taking ownership of a dog. The emphasis of the project is on ensuring that people are trained to be dog owners rather than on training the dogs.
The challenge that faces the Parliament is to ensure that we look at all the available evidence, including that on muzzling and the examples of good work in places such as the Alexandria dog centre. We should also consider, as Malcolm Chisholm said, the examples of some of the horrific incidents, while recognising that we do not have all the answers for taking the issue forward. However, I think that it would be wrong of us to discount any option without taking evidence on it first.
17:54
I thank my colleague Kenneth Gibson for lodging the motion for this evening’s debate and the other colleagues who have contributed so ably to it. It is probably the first time that members have not called for Kenneth Gibson to be muzzled—given the subject, I thought that that was likely to happen, but it did not. In fact, Alex Fergusson praised Kenneth Gibson very highly; I imagine that he will probably get a rap over the knuckles from the whips when he gets back.
As is the case in many areas, education is a critical part of the process. Members might be aware that the Scottish Government published its “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs” in 2010. Although it provides an important reference source for all dog owners, I whole-heartedly support the proposal to commend the work of the Dogs Trust and other animal welfare organisations. A number of members have mentioned the Dogs Trust, and I commend it for the support that it has provided to members for this evening’s debate and for its contribution to the wider debate.
We have many such organisations in Scotland, and they perform a vital role in helping animals in need, in spreading important messages about our responsibilities as pet owners and in helping to inform developing policies on the way forward.
Members might be aware that the Scottish SPCA is celebrating 175 years of rescuing and rehoming animals, including a significant number of dogs. The organisation also provides an exemplary free educational service to Scotland’s children through its prevention through education programme, which encourages our children to treat animals with compassion and respect.
I know that my colleague Richard Lochhead—who, unfortunately, could not be here today—has been struck by the passionate commitment of the Dogs Trust to promoting responsible ownership that benefits the animals and the general public. It works actively to improve standards and to provide practical help, such as free microchipping. The example that Kenneth Gibson gave of the trust’s visit to his constituency was an interesting one, and I think that Christine Grahame gave a similar example. There cannot be many people who are unaware of the trust’s message, “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas.”
However, we must not forget the equally vital role that local authorities have to play in enforcing dog control and dog welfare legislation, and the challenges that they face in such work. That strong message came out of the summit on responsible dog ownership that was held on 27 March this year; another message was about the need to share best practice.
We expect to obtain useful feedback on responsible ownership issues from the responses to our consultation, “Promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland: microchipping and other measures”. I am pleased that the consultation has been welcomed by Kenneth Gibson and other colleagues. It is clear that the matter is of huge importance to the people of Scotland.
The consultation closed on 31 March. Around 2,500 responses were received from a diverse range of people and organisations. That massive response demonstrates clearly the strength of feeling on the issue. The process of analysing the responses is now under way, and a report should be available this summer.
As has been the case in this evening’s debate, the main focus of the consultation was on the potential for compulsory microchipping of all dogs. The Scottish Government has long recognised the benefits of voluntary microchipping in reuniting lost dogs with their owners. Indeed, microchipping is recommended as best practice in the code of practice. I am aware that there are mixed views on the effectiveness of microchipping alone in preventing dog attacks or combating welfare issues such as puppy farming. The point that microchipping will not be a silver bullet that solves all the problems is a fair one; it should be one element of an overall strategy.
I am also aware that there are concerns about how to enforce such a measure effectively—Christine Grahame and others commented on that—and about the financial impact on responsible dog owners and those who use dogs in the course of their business.
However, I agree with my colleague Kenneth Gibson that compulsory microchipping could have a number of benefits for animal welfare and could encourage responsible ownership, provided that we are realistic about what we can achieve using the technology and that we can arrive at effective solutions that address the challenges of enforcement and funding. We will consider extremely carefully the views that have been provided in response to the consultation on the benefits of microchipping, the challenges that it presents and how they can be overcome before we decide on a way forward for Scotland. We will also consider the potential benefits and challenges of a licensing regime.
The motion is supportive of compulsory microchipping, but it raises concerns about the compulsory muzzling of all dogs. Those concerns have been reflected in most of the speeches that we have heard in the debate. I take on board the point that Mr Martin made about the role of muzzling in the light of incidents such as the one that he described, which was a great tragedy, and a suggestion about muzzling was made in the consultation.
My colleague Mr Lochhead and I share the concerns about muzzling in general. Legal provision for muzzling dogs that are known to have been out of control is in place under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. Dog control notices can include a range of measures, such as muzzling the dog when it is in a place to which the public have access, keeping the dog on a lead, neutering and attendance at dog behavioural training.
I take the point that many severe incidents have taken place in private settings. We must be mindful of that, but the suggestion of compulsory muzzling of all dogs in public raises significant welfare concerns, which many members have mentioned. That has been a hot topic in many of the responses to the consultation from dog owners. There is no doubt that muzzling can prevent dogs from biting, but widespread muzzling is not necessarily a proportionate step.
Muzzling impairs the ability of dogs to pant and drink water when exercising. It could also impede normal positive social interaction with other dogs and people, such as sniffing and licking—Alex Fergusson made that point. That could have the unintended consequence of resulting in more, rather than fewer, behavioural problems in our dogs.
Given the tragic results of dog attacks, which Mr Martin outlined, we have a duty to consider all options that could prevent further injuries. However, a sensible balance must be struck between public safety from the risk posed by relatively few dogs and the welfare of the large dog population in Scotland.
We must remember that the majority of owners of the 640,000 dogs in Scotland are responsible and their dogs are well cared for and well controlled. I take the point that Joan McAlpine, Christine Grahame and Dennis Robertson made about ensuring that local authorities know about the existing powers and use them when that is appropriate.
Given the horrific consequences for dog welfare and public safety that can occur when things go wrong, we have a moral and social obligation to continue to strive for better ways to tackle the irresponsible owners who place dogs and people at risk. I was greatly encouraged to hear the examples of Carnoustie canine capers, in Mr Dey’s constituency of Angus, and Alexandria dog care centre, in Mr Martin’s area, which are helping to ensure that owners understand how to look after their dogs and treat them responsibly.
Emotions may—understandably—run high, but a proportionate way forward needs to be forged that recognises the many benefits to society of responsible dog ownership, while dealing more effectively with those who behave irresponsibly.
Meeting closed at 18:02.